PDA

View Full Version : "But I just wanted to be liked!" Charm Person and ethics



Pages : [1] 2

elliott20
2008-05-28, 10:52 AM
Do you think it's wrong to use Charm Person on someone just so they will like you? You're not necessarily using it so that you can have them do something for you, but just so you feel more popular.

I mean, in a high school teen comedy sort of way, I can see it happen. The nerdy wizard guy who spends all of his time studying and getting picked on by the fighter and barbarian jocks. Then, one day, the wizard figures out how to cast "charm person" and various other spells that make them irresistable to the CHA 17 cheerleading bards.

Suddenly, they start going around charming every person that they think are popular in school, and try to make themselves feel better about themselves.

Is that wrong? IS THAT REALLY THAT TERRIBLE? I JUST WANT TO BE LIKED DAMMIT! WHY WON'T PEOPLE LIKE ME!?!?... err... I mean, him, why don't people like "him"...

Solo
2008-05-28, 10:54 AM
various other spells that make them irresistable to the CHA 17 cheerleading bards.

Envision this scenario. A lonely high school guy can't get it on with girls, so he goes to a party, exposes a cheerleader with huge.... charisma to a mind altering substance, and retreats into the bedroom with her.

What do you think?

Scintillatus
2008-05-28, 10:54 AM
Yep, it's a use of force (in the form of magical coercion) used for no greater purpose than personal merit.

Essentially the definition of "wrong".

If you charmed someone into putting their weapon down so no one got hurt in a battle, or charmed a king into calling off a war, maybe you could wrangle it under "bad stuff for a good purpose", but not charming the cheerleaders so you can get sweet sweet nookie. :smalltongue:

Kurald Galain
2008-05-28, 10:54 AM
For the proper answer to this, watch the BTVS episode "Superstar".

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-28, 10:57 AM
Yeah, the charm line is pretty evil once you look at what it does. About the only nonevil use is self defence.

Corolinth
2008-05-28, 10:59 AM
Various "alternate sourcebooks" do explore the legal, ethical, and moral implications of mind controlling magic. Is it wrong? Well, that's ultimately for the PCs to decide, but it is questionable to say the least. The concept is interesting, especially if it's a good or neutral aligned apprentice wizard doing it.

Gorbash
2008-05-28, 11:04 AM
Well, it's good if used with good intensions, evil if otherwise. You could say that fireball is evil since you can destroy an orphanage with it, etc...

Zeful
2008-05-28, 11:05 AM
It's wrong and evil, but not as much fun as it would be to use alter self on random schoolmates... wait it's personal only right?

Solo
2008-05-28, 11:07 AM
It's wrong and evil, but not as much fun as it would be to use alter self on random schoolmates... wait it's personal only right?

Contrary to intuition, Alter Self can be used on people other than yourself.

elliott20
2008-05-28, 11:11 AM
Now, before anyone gets any wierd ideas about me I just want to say:I am not trying to say it's okay, just want to spur some discussion on the topic. anyway, moving on.

I personally have felt that the use of magic, because we acknowledge it as a skill and it's validity as a tool, we invariably can liken it to the use of drugs to alter a person's mind, which is probably one of the worst kind of violations you can visit upon a person.

But what if it's someone who doesn't understand their power? What if it's a sorceror (despite his high CHA score), is just too socially awkward to know how to get people to be friends with him and doesn't really understand his powers? Maybe he doesn't understand why it makes people like him and he's happy that it does. so he continues to do it, not realizing that he's essentially sliding emotional roofies to people. This doesn't excuse the act, of course. But would you really consider him, though his actions are wrong, evil?

AKA_Bait
2008-05-28, 11:11 AM
Envision this scenario. A lonely high school guy can't get it on with girls, so he goes to a party, exposes a cheerleader with huge.... charisma to a mind altering substance, and retreats into the bedroom with her.

What do you think?

This is probably the most accurate comparison I've run across. It's like slipping someone a magical mickey. Not cool.

Solo
2008-05-28, 11:15 AM
But what if it's someone who doesn't understand their power? What if it's a sorceror (despite his high CHA score), is just too socially awkward to know how to get people to be friends with him and doesn't really understand his powers? Maybe he doesn't understand why it makes people like him and he's happy that it does. so he continues to do it, not realizing that he's essentially sliding emotional roofies to people. This doesn't excuse the act, of course. But would you really consider him, though his actions are wrong, evil?

No, but I'd kick his ass anyways.

Counterpower
2008-05-28, 11:22 AM
But what if it's someone who doesn't understand their power? What if it's a sorceror (despite his high CHA score), is just too socially awkward to know how to get people to be friends with him and doesn't really understand his powers? Maybe he doesn't understand why it makes people like him and he's happy that it does. so he continues to do it, not realizing that he's essentially sliding emotional roofies to people. This doesn't excuse the act, of course. But would you really consider him, though his actions are wrong, evil?

Yeah, actually, I probably would. Misguided or mistaken evil is still evil.

Now, my reaction to that would be vastly different than my reaction to someone who knew what he was doing. In the latter case, I would have no tolerance for intentional wrongdoing. In the case you have brought up, however, I would prefer to set the record straight on what was going on and why it needed to stop. The hope being, of course, that once that sorcerer realizes what he was doing, he would straighten up and stop doing evil things.

elliott20
2008-05-28, 11:23 AM
No, but I'd kick his ass anyways.

Well, Solo, you evidentally have a much better WILL save than I do, cuz man that guy is so dreamy.

SolkaTruesilver
2008-05-28, 11:24 AM
I'd say it isn't wrong (just creepy) if the nerd who does it simply uses his charm person (something with no side effet) merely to hang around people who, otherwise, wouldn't like him.

If he uses it to gain certains.. advantages, then I'd say it's wrong.

(I had a character, Solka Truesilver, who used Charm Person like water. But while he charmed peoples and teammates, he never abused of their magically-inspired trust. Once, the DM had given me a golden opportunity to.. ahem.. "do" a princess I had charmed, but I find sex-in-RPGs so creepy that I almost ruined the spell to avoid the whole thing.)

So, I'd say if Solka used his power to put people into danger. To make them do things they'd regret later. To abuse them, it would be wrong. If it causes no harm to other around him, that's not immoral.

(I remember, we once took 2 prisonners from an ennemy patrol. I managed to charm one of them, while the other one resisted. We ended up executing the one who resisted, while I felt responsible for the well-being of the one under my charm)

Vorpal Soda
2008-05-28, 11:25 AM
Charm Person isn't always an evil spell in my opinion, but I would say the mentioned use here is evil. Using it to make a criminal give themselves up without incident would be a good use.

You could argue that trying to sleep with someone who you've charmed would count as threatening them, and thus break the enchantment.

Having an antagonistic NPC who uses charm person like this, and just wants friends could be interesting, although such a character would probably end up being laughed at, and thus shouldn't be a BBEG.

Solo
2008-05-28, 11:25 AM
Well, Solo, you evidentally have a much better WILL save than I do, cuz man that guy is so dreamy.

Let your anger flow through you. Your hate will make you strong.

elliott20
2008-05-28, 11:26 AM
believe it or not, SolkaTruesilver, your character is precisely what inspired this thread.

You spoke of using your Charm Person on the barbarian PC every morning to keep him your bodyguard and that just got me thinking about it.

Think of it in a different way, does this make the Jedi mind trick also far more questionable?

Dervag
2008-05-28, 11:27 AM
So...

How does perfume or cologne fit into this picture? You wear it to smell nice, and in many cases the point of the exercise is to exert a subconscious influence on others.

I agree there is a line between acceptable steps to take in the quest for likeability and unacceptable steps. But where do we draw that line? What counts as unacceptable messing with the other person's head and what doesn't?

Solo
2008-05-28, 11:28 AM
Think of it in a different way, does this make the Jedi mind trick also far more questionable?

Yes, although there is a world of difference between using it to con a man out of his money as opposed to rescuing your old padawan's son from the clutches of the evil empire.




How does perfume or cologne fit into this picture? You wear it to smell nice, and in many cases the point of the exercise is to exert a subconscious influence on others.
Smelling nice and mind control are, I fear, two completely different things.

AKA_Bait
2008-05-28, 11:34 AM
So...

How does perfume or cologne fit into this picture? You wear it to smell nice, and in many cases the point of the exercise is to exert a subconscious influence on others.

I agree there is a line between acceptable steps to take in the quest for likeability and unacceptable steps. But where do we draw that line? What counts as unacceptable messing with the other person's head and what doesn't?

I'd think that the line gets crossed at the point where a person is activley altering anothers perceptions. To make clear what I mean here: putting on cologne, for example, you are not doing anything directly to another person. You are doing something to yourself in the hope that the other person will like that change to you. If I charm someone I am acting on them directly, which I have no right to do.

elliott20
2008-05-28, 11:36 AM
Yes, although there is a world of difference between using it to con a man out of his money as opposed to rescuing your old padawan's son from the clutches of the evil empire.

Smelling nice and mind control are, I fear, two completely different things.

I totally agree with you Solo on both counts, as the usage of the power is completely different. (which is almost like a nod to "the ends justify the means" argument...)

While I do agree with you that smelling nice and mind control are fundamentally different, I can see the point Dervag is making though. At what point do we draw the line where using a social aid is wrong?

i.e. every time I turn on the tube, I see an Axe cologne ad (which is strangely remniscent to Hi Karate). The ad usually involves some teenager/college dude spraying himself with the stuff and suddenly every women around him will literally throw herself at him. creepy as hell, but does this cross the line?

Vorpal Soda
2008-05-28, 11:36 AM
In my opinion, perfume would be the equivilent of using magic items/spells that give a bonus to CHA or Diplomacy. Since Diplomacy represents you being able to make people friendly by being charismatic rather than coercion, there's nothing wrong with the method being used.

AKA_Bait
2008-05-28, 11:38 AM
creepy as hell, but does this cross the line?

Nope. Since it doesn't actually do anything more than make you smell nice. Now, if it actually was a chemical that somehow compelled women to throw themselves at you if you wear it, I'd say that it does cross the line. The guy in the commercial is putting it on so that he can transmitt the chemical, by smell, to the target women.

Counterpower
2008-05-28, 11:39 AM
I'd say it isn't wrong (just creepy) if the nerd who does it simply uses his charm person (something with no side effet) merely to hang around people who, otherwise, wouldn't like him.

If he uses it to gain certains.. advantages, then I'd say it's wrong.

As much as I can appreciate that second sentiment (we agree on that), I don't really agree that charm person is as benign as you're implying. True, its only effect is to make people like you. But the way I see it, you're overriding the preferences of the people you're charming.

People do have the right to choose who they associate with, and if they don't want to be friends with you, I don't think it's right to essentially force them to like you.

Speaking from that "nerd" perspective, I've always gone by the idea that if they don't like me for whatever reason, then that's their loss.


(I had a character, Solka Truesilver, who used Charm Person like water. But while he charmed peoples and teammates, he never abused of their magically-inspired trust. Once, the DM had given me a golden opportunity to.. ahem.. "do" a princess I had charmed, but I find sex-in-RPGs so creepy that I almost ruined the spell to avoid the whole thing.)

Thank you. Seriously, I have no small amount of respect for that kind of sentiment. Trust, however small or temporary, should never be abused.


So, I'd say if Solka used his power to put people into danger. To make them do things they'd regret later. To abuse them, it would be wrong. If it causes no harm to other around him, that's not immoral.

And as much as we agree on what isn't acceptable with charm or domination abilities, I still think that the spells override the free will and ability to decide that most people, I think, take for granted. I think that like any right, those shouldn't be denied to a person without very good reason.

And please note, I'm not saying that charm is inherently evil. I'm saying that using it without a good reason is.


(I remember, we once took 2 prisonners from an ennemy patrol. I managed to charm one of them, while the other one resisted. We ended up executing the one who resisted, while I felt responsible for the well-being of the one under my charm)

Again, I fully agree with that idea. You seem to be a very courteous and honorable user of such spells, and I respect you for that.

Corolinth
2008-05-28, 11:42 AM
It's not inherently evil. It's most certainly creepy, very likely "wrong," but not outright evil. There is the capacity for horrible evil, but that requires more steps. This scenario does present a rather interesting villain, in that you could have one who, because of his youth, is oblivious to the ethical implications of what he's doing.

The PCs could declare him evil and kill him, but then they might have to live with the guilt of murdering a kid. On the other hand, an older and wiser PC could explain the consequences of the kids actions, and impress upon him the sanctity of free will.

Kurald Galain
2008-05-28, 11:42 AM
How does perfume or cologne fit into this picture? You wear it to smell nice, and in many cases the point of the exercise is to exert a subconscious influence on others.

And, of course, the internet sells hypnotic cologne that makes you completely irresistible... (if you think that's a good idea, I know some Nigerian people who'd be happy to help you)

Legally, this is a huge gray area, considering the single most common "thing to put in a girl's drink" is simply alcohol. Morally, it's a big sliding scale (lying about yourself to be better liked is also not quite okay, moral-wise), but the breaking point is whether people would be upset if they found out about it.

If, the next morning, you tell a girl that you were wearing aftershave, she'll most likely shrug. If you tell her you aren't really a movie star, she could well be upset. If you tell her you put something in her drink, she'll likely call the cops on you.

Evil starts with deceit. If you are about to do something you don't want people to find out about, I'll bet it's not going to be a "good" deed.

Blanks
2008-05-28, 11:48 AM
I always stick to this rule:
"If there is no trickery, people at least know what they get".

That is, if you had asked the cheerleader if it was okay with her that you used cologne, she would probably say yes. If you asked her if you could mind control she would say no. So cologne is fine, while mind altering is a no-no.

If she says yes to mind altering, go ahead - that is one freaky encounter coming right up :smalltongue:

EDIT:
partly ninjaed by:

If, the next morning, you tell a girl that you were wearing aftershave, she'll most likely shrug. If you tell her you aren't really a movie star, she could well be upset. If you tell her you put something in her drink, she'll likely call the cops on you.

Evil starts with deceit. If you are about to do something you don't want people to find out about, I'll bet it's not going to be a "good" deed.

Solo
2008-05-28, 11:59 AM
The PCs could declare him evil and kill him, but then they might have to live with the guilt of murdering a kid.

Weakling.


On the other hand, an older and wiser PC could explain the consequences of the kids actions, and impress upon him the sanctity of free will.
Pansy.

You kids these days with your lenient chriminal justic system and your sympathy and your revolving doors and your princes of whales and your lightbulbs and your magic missile and your pierced scrotums and your belly dances and your mini skirts and your Botox and your tongue twisters and your snow mobiles...

In my day, when we caught a young'un misbehaving, we laid down the law and made an example of 'im so as to inspire the survivors to higher standards of behavior, is what!

Tokiko Mima
2008-05-28, 12:02 PM
Where is Collin152? I thought mind-taking was his schtick. :smalltongue:

Really, I think the difference between Charm Person and Mind Rape/Dominate is the difference between theft and robbery. Adventurers use their tools, skills and powers to break and enter all the time, and if you stop to think about it, it's pretty evil (or at least unlawful.) But they usually get away with it because they serve the greater good.

Charm Person has a place as a useful tool, and just like Fireball you can turn it to evil or good. It can be used to save a guards life, or it can be used to force people to take actions they never would otherwise. If all you're doing is using it to make temporary friends just to make yourself feel good, then it's probably not evil (though it's shortsighted to use magic as a crutch). If you use those new "friends" to obtain something selfish, then it becomes evil and tainted with greed of the caster.

Counterpower
2008-05-28, 12:09 PM
If all you're doing is using it to make temporary friends just to make yourself feel good, then it's probably not evil (though it's shortsighted to use magic as a crutch).

I can't say I agree with that. As I see it, you're overriding the free will of another person for your own personal benefit. It may not be a material benefit, but it's still a benefit.

SolkaTruesilver
2008-05-28, 12:10 PM
People do have the right to choose who they associate with, and if they don't want to be friends with you, I don't think it's right to essentially force them to like you.

[...]

And as much as we agree on what isn't acceptable with charm or domination abilities, I still think that the spells override the free will and ability to decide that most people, I think, take for granted. I think that like any right, those shouldn't be denied to a person without very good reason.


I think that someone who is denied free will, but not realising it, is not denied anything. Would you regret loosing something you don't know you even have?

I am not saying it's the RIGHT thing to do, but I am looking at the interpersonnal perspective. I am denying an ASPECT of someone's free will. I am not enthralling him. The sole thing I am denying him, is if he likes me or not. But the thing is, he doesn't realize that he doesn't like me. I am just that great guy he just met, and he feels good around me.

I think the whole Charm would fall into a "chaotic" alignement definition rather than an evil one. You can use charms for good or evil, but in every single act you use it, you are tricking someone, which is a chaotic act.

(btw, Counterpower, my character was CN. On the long run, all of my character's motivation was self-centered. (we were playing in a "conquered land" setting). He didn't joined The Resistance because he felt his homeland should be free, but because he knew they could save his ass. He was very, very careful about using Charm person because he KNEW that his powers were limited. If someone "awoke" (spell ending) and realized he acted irrationnaly (like, slept with him for no good reason, or given his family heirloom), he would suspect something. My character didn't wanted to give anyone any impression, except that he was a "great guy". His motives were.. egoist, but he did cared for other people, even if, at the end, it was to help himself.)

(read: a king without his pawn is no king at all)



believe it or not, SolkaTruesilver, your character is precisely what inspired this thread.

You spoke of using your Charm Person on the barbarian PC every morning to keep him your bodyguard and that just got me thinking about it.

Think of it in a different way, does this make the Jedi mind trick also far more questionable?

I had the intuition that it was the source, but I never assume anything :smallbiggrin:

But to my character's defence, as I said earlier, he cared a lot about whi charmed "bodyguard". If what I said about King and Pawns is true, then you should consider the "bodyguard" as my Queen. He was my center-piece, my glass cannon. My character did everything he could to make his bodyguard happy and safe. (the player wasn't a dummy, but his character was. We agreed that when his character acted "intelligent", it was because my character suggested it to him).

Since we were in a "conquered land", the Barbarian would stand out and be killed quite easily if my character had not encountered him randomly, and "coached" him into subtility.

So, I'd say: Lost Free Will while ignoring you had it = Overrated

Blanks
2008-05-28, 12:11 PM
it's pretty evil (or at least unlawful.)
Lets not go there in this thread, we will be derailed in no time :smalleek:


If all you're doing is using it to make temporary friends just to make yourself feel good, then it's probably not evil (though it's shortsighted to use magic as a crutch). If you use those new "friends" to obtain something selfish, then it becomes evil and tainted with greed of the caster.
So if I use my gun to murder people im evil, but if I just use it to scare people im good?

I know thats a different version but really, isn't it the same in a lot of ways?
What if someone really loathe your ideas and don't want to be near you because they think your ideas are evil (whatever they may be). If you force them to like you, aren't you in some way doing way more damage than a fireball ever could?

SolkaTruesilver
2008-05-28, 12:16 PM
I know thats a different version but really, isn't it the same in a lot of ways?
What if someone really loathe your ideas and don't want to be near you because they think your ideas are evil (whatever they may be). If you force them to like you, aren't you in some way doing way more damage than a fireball ever could?

Not really. You are not forcing your ideas upon him. You are not destroying anything in his life. You are simply making yourself his "friend". It's even possible that while he considers you his friend, he knows he shouldn't hand out around with you, because his other friends wouldn't approve. A charm person do not make that person like you above any other.

AKA_Bait
2008-05-28, 12:23 PM
I think that someone who is denied free will, but not realising it, is not denied anything. Would you regret loosing something you don't know you even have?

I don't think it's an issue of regret, it's an issue of rights. Consdier a parallel example with the right to property (since we are talking about the right to Freedom of Association here)

A wealthy man falls into a coma. He has a living will which puts the investment firm of Dewey, Cheetum and Howe in charge of managing his funds. They do a really good job and his money doubles during the time he is in the coma. Are they morally in the clear to take the profits for themselves? The unconscious man doesn't know he ever had the extra money and can't regret losing it.

Blanks
2008-05-28, 12:25 PM
Not really. You are not forcing your ideas upon him. You are not destroying anything in his life. You are simply making yourself his "friend". It's even possible that while he considers you his friend, he knows he shouldn't hand out around with you, because his other friends wouldn't approve. A charm person do not make that person like you above any other.
He regards you as:
"A trusted friend and ally", percieving your words "in the most favourable way". I would say that is above most other...

And regarding him not having lost anything to not knowing it:

I am not saying it's the RIGHT thing to do, but I am looking at the interpersonnal perspective. I am denying an ASPECT of someone's free will. I am not enthralling him. The sole thing I am denying him, is if he likes me or not. But the thing is, he doesn't realize that he doesn't like me. I am just that great guy he just met, and he feels good around me.

Here is a little story (exaggeration promotes understanding is a danish phrase :) )
I use domination to kidnap you and bring you to a prison, where I alter your mind to forget your family and friends and steal all your belongings. Afterwards I charm you to regard me as your best friend, while having you lead the life of a slave, which you, in your altered state, percieves as normal.

Just because someone dont know they have lost something, doesn't mean they haven't lost it!

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-28, 12:29 PM
I think that someone who is denied free will, but not realising it, is not denied anything. Would you regret loosing something you don't know you even have?


Aah, a derivative of the flawed parable that is The Grand Inquisitor, yes?

Short answer? Yes.

Long answer? Yes, because you're manipulating my life and mind, and I'm no longer me, but a wretched, pathetic puppet subject to your truly vile desires. I'll live, suffer, die, or enter immortality through a blaze of glory in my own way, thank you very much.

This has the same flaw as The Grand Inquisitor, which puts you between two choices: Happy ignorance, or unhappy knowledge.

Problem is, it doesn't work that way. It is true that knowledge takes Happyness away...but to compensate, it brings peace. Thus, you stand to benefit from knowledge, under all cases.

Counterpower
2008-05-28, 12:33 PM
I think that someone who is denied free will, but not realising it, is not denied anything. Would you regret loosing something you don't know you even have?

Would I be able to regret it? Probably not, if I didn't know any better. Would that mean I haven't been denied anything? Absolutely not. If the slaves don't even know what freedom or justice are, having been born into bondage, have they still been denied their freedom? I firmly believe that there are fundamental rights that all people are entitled to, and that the right to choose what one does is one of those. As with all rights, it does have limits, but denying it to people for the sake of being more popular falls firmly into unacceptable territory.


I am not saying it's the RIGHT thing to do, but I am looking at the interpersonnal perspective. I am denying an ASPECT of someone's free will. I am not enthralling him. The sole thing I am denying him, is if he likes me or not. But the thing is, he doesn't realize that he doesn't like me. I am just that great guy he just met, and he feels good around me.

I can understand that a little. Personally, possibly because I just finished four years of it, I'm still on the "high school drama" idea here, where most of the people I would be charming would rather not associate with me otherwise.

But you don't think that that person has the right to decide what they think of you? Again speaking personally here, I'd rather be liked for who I am as opposed to being liked automatically.


I think the whole Charm would fall into a "chaotic" alignement definition rather than an evil one. You can use charms for good or evil, but in every single act you use it, you are tricking someone, which is a chaotic act.

I honestly don't think charm is evil or chaotic or anything. As with any tool, the use you put it to decides the alignment connotations.


(btw, Counterpower, my character was CN. On the long run, all of my character's motivation was self-centered. (we were playing in a "conquered land" setting). He didn't joined The Resistance because he felt his homeland should be free, but because he knew they could save his ass. He was very, very careful about using Charm person because he KNEW that his powers were limited. If someone "awoke" (spell ending) and realized he acted irrationnaly (like, slept with him for no good reason, or given his family heirloom), he would suspect something. My character didn't wanted to give anyone any impression, except that he was a "great guy". His motives were.. egoist, but he did cared for other people, even if, at the end, it was to help himself.)

I agree, that does sound CN. Like I said, I think I may be stuck on the "high school drama" model here, which is different than what you're describing.


But to my character's defence, as I said earlier, he cared a lot about whi charmed "bodyguard". If what I said about King and Pawns is true, then you should consider the "bodyguard" as my Queen. He was my center-piece, my glass cannon. My character did everything he could to make his bodyguard happy and safe. (the player wasn't a dummy, but his character was. We agreed that when his character acted "intelligent", it was because my character suggested it to him).

Since we were in a "conquered land", the Barbarian would stand out and be killed quite easily if my character had not encountered him randomly, and "coached" him into subtility.

Frankly, it sounds like you didn't need the charm spell at all. Isn't friendship based primarily on mutual respect and care for one another? I guess it's a little harder than that with a barbarian, but I find it hard to believe that you'd need a charm spell to keep him as a friend when it seems like you cared for him so much.


So, I'd say: Lost Free Will while ignoring you had it = Overrated

And as I see it, it's still a denial of a right that one doesn't deserve to lose simply for the sake of another friend. What's wrong with making friends without coercing them into it?

Blanks
2008-05-28, 12:33 PM
I should perhaps add, that your description of the game with the barbarian is what i would describe as "mature and well thought out character interaction". And a little bit evil on your characters part.

I really like the idea of someone using magic to gain friends, and I am considering using that idea for a villain in my current campaign :smallsmile:

AKA_Bait
2008-05-28, 12:37 PM
I really like the idea of someone using magic to gain friends, and I am considering using that idea for a villain in my current campaign :smallsmile:

I've already used it for a misguided budding sorcerer NPC. It's an interesting concept and problem. I mean, what teenager wouldn't be very tempted to win his crushes affections with a spell?

Blanks
2008-05-28, 12:42 PM
I mean, what teenager wouldn't be very tempted to win his crushes affections with a spell?
You could easily have said what human wouldn't be temptet. But the really interesting question would be who would give in to the temptation? :smallamused:

BloodyAngel
2008-05-28, 12:54 PM
Anyone mind if I throw a woman's opinion in here?

Too bad, because I'm going to... :smalltongue:

Charm Person, as I have always run it... makes the person as friendly as possible to the target, but does not enforce any sort of real mind control... it manipulated emotion. Getting people to like you, I do not see as right or wrong... it is what you DO with that fondness that can be good or bad.

For instance, in my games, a bard who charms a woman and suggests she sleep with him will not always do so. Charm Person gives you a new best friend, and as we are all aware... not everyone is willing to sleep with their best friend. If the woman in question is chaste, married or otherwise against the idea of doing something of that nature with you... she is still against the idea when she is charmed. Due to the charm however, she may feel bad about telling you no, and you'll get the "Let's just be friends" speech. Likewise, charming a non-combatant character and asking him to bodyguard you probably won't work well. Now Dominate Person would work for all of those things... but dominating someone to sleep with you or die for you ARE evil.

I play controller-type characters a lot. It's fun to be seductive, manipulative, and sneaky. But I've also always run charm to be less mind control and more a way to sway people. A charmed enemy won't want to hurt you, and will seek every way possible to avoid it... but he will also not do anything foolish or likely to get himself hurt. In short, it's a case by case thing. I think if it would be evil to use bluff or diplomacy to get someone to do something, it's evil to charm them to do it. If a girl is already the type who isn't against a one-night-stand... and that charm spell makes her choose you... it's a neutral act, not an evil one. On a girl who is waiting for marriage and doesn't want to have sex... the charm person roofie just wouldn't work. It would probably just make her apologize for saying no, and sit down with you to talk about your feelings. If she's actually looking for a man, but against sex before marriage, it might get the slick bard proposed to... Hilarity ensues. :smalltongue:

Roderick_BR
2008-05-28, 12:56 PM
You are forcing someone to do something they don't want to. That's a form of slavery, that, in many societies, is considered evil and wrong.
It's just a step from effects like dominate.

For extra meany points, have said teen wizard do it, and when the effect wears off, have the cheerleader outburst on him, saying how she actually liked him before, but now with this violation, she hates him forever. Even better, she had some errands to run, but because she spent time with him with her mind dominated, she missed the chance, and some one-in-a-lifetime opportunity is now lost forever for her.
I'm not Jewish, but I have the Craft Guilt feat :smallbiggrin:

Tsotha-lanti
2008-05-28, 01:11 PM
If you charmed someone into putting their weapon down so no one got hurt in a battle, or charmed a king into calling off a war, maybe you could wrangle it under "bad stuff for a good purpose", but not charming the cheerleaders so you can get sweet sweet nookie. :smalltongue:

"Maybe" ? So you think it's morally more acceptable to kill enemies?

Charm person is force, but it's non-lethal force. It is not morally okay to use non-lethal force to get better deals or advance personal relationships, but it is morally very okay to use non-lethal force to subdue attackers, criminals, and the like. As a combat tool, it's always more moral than just about all other options.

SolkaTruesilver
2008-05-28, 01:20 PM
Frankly, it sounds like you didn't need the charm spell at all. Isn't friendship based primarily on mutual respect and care for one another? I guess it's a little harder than that with a barbarian, but I find it hard to believe that you'd need a charm spell to keep him as a friend when it seems like you cared for him so much.

And as I see it, it's still a denial of a right that one doesn't deserve to lose simply for the sake of another friend. What's wrong with making friends without coercing them into it?

That's a chicken-and-the-egg problem. You assume that I wanted his good welfare whatever happens to him. Not so.

I wanted the good welfare of my pawn. Look at it this way: my character grew up and discovered his powers to charm. He is somewhat socially insecure (9 of wisdom), even if he is of keen intelligence (17) and well-liked (19 of charisma). He is not good at reading people. He prefers to charm someone into liking him rather than risk having that person lie to him.

The same with the barbarian (actually, he was a fighter). Solka simply did not wanted to risk having Verag (the half-orc) turn on him. He knew, that whatever happens between them. That whatever poison is spilled into Verag's ear (because Solka had political ennemies in the Resistance), Verag would always be truly loyal. You can convince a friend's heart to turn away. You cannot convince an enchantment to falter.

(That was Solka's point of view. God I loved this character)

Off course, Solka also grew to like Verag's... simplicity of mind. Verag was simply devoid of duplicity, and Solka liked it. So he somewhat had him protected.. by keeping sure the magic did it's work.

elliott20
2008-05-28, 01:22 PM
Anyone mind if I throw a woman's opinion in here?

Too bad, because I'm going to... :smalltongue:

Charm Person, as I have always run it... makes the person as friendly as possible to the target, but does not enforce any sort of real mind control... it manipulated emotion. Getting people to like you, I do not see as right or wrong... it is what you DO with that fondness that can be good or bad.

For instance, in my games, a bard who charms a woman and suggests she sleep with him will not always do so. Charm Person gives you a new best friend, and as we are all aware... not everyone is willing to sleep with their best friend. If the woman in question is chaste, married or otherwise against the idea of doing something of that nature with you... she is still against the idea when she is charmed. Due to the charm however, she may feel bad about telling you no, and you'll get the "Let's just be friends" speech. Likewise, charming a non-combatant character and asking him to bodyguard you probably won't work well. Now Dominate Person would work for all of those things... but dominating someone to sleep with you or die for you ARE evil.

I play controller-type characters a lot. It's fun to be seductive, manipulative, and sneaky. But I've also always run charm to be less mind control and more a way to sway people. A charmed enemy won't want to hurt you, and will seek every way possible to avoid it... but he will also not do anything foolish or likely to get himself hurt. In short, it's a case by case thing. I think if it would be evil to use bluff or diplomacy to get someone to do something, it's evil to charm them to do it. If a girl is already the type who isn't against a one-night-stand... and that charm spell makes her choose you... it's a neutral act, not an evil one. On a girl who is waiting for marriage and doesn't want to have sex... the charm person roofie just wouldn't work. It would probably just make her apologize for saying no, and sit down with you to talk about your feelings. If she's actually looking for a man, but against sex before marriage, it might get the slick bard proposed to... Hilarity ensues. :smalltongue:

This actually reminds me of another wrinkle in this whole concept. Charm Person makes them friendly to you, which means that effectively, you gain a bit of a bonus when asking them for stuff. again, wrinkle.

Tokiko Mima
2008-05-28, 01:34 PM
I can't say I agree with that. As I see it, you're overriding the free will of another person for your own personal benefit. It may not be a material benefit, but it's still a benefit.

Magic generally benefits the caster. If you charm someone but don't manipulate them to your advantage, how is it more beneficial than casting Eagle's Splendor on yourself? How is it different than if a Diplomancer talked to them with their 100+ Diplomacy skill?


So if I use my gun to murder people im evil, but if I just use it to scare people im good?

I know thats a different version but really, isn't it the same in a lot of ways?
What if someone really loathe your ideas and don't want to be near you because they think your ideas are evil (whatever they may be). If you force them to like you, aren't you in some way doing way more damage than a fireball ever could?

Being 'not evil' is different than being good. Intimidating people is generally not as evil as murdering them (I'm sure there are exceptions) and not every mental intrusion is necessarily to the victim detriment. Intimidation and to some extent killing are practiced by both angels and fiends.

As well, it has to be a very unusual situation for actual harm to come to someone just because they befriend someone with radically different ideas. Admittedly there does exist a small possiblity that a person could come to harm from Charm Person, and that makes it the casters responsibility to look out for his charmed temporary allies, just as a summoner is responsible for the damage his summoned creatures cause. It's not the power itself, it's how it's being used that makes it good or evil.

For example, suppose I'm a Chaotic Good Warlock with the Charm at will invocation. Instead of using it to create an army to fight against the evil warlord, I use it to simply take the warlords forcefully conscripted enemy soldiers out of the fight instead of having to Eldritch Blast them to death. In this case, haven't I prevented a great deal of harm and performed good deeds with my Charm ability?

Solo
2008-05-28, 01:36 PM
Magic generally benefits the caster. If you charm someone but don't manipulate them to your advantage, how is it more beneficial than casting Eagle's Splendor on yourself? How is it different than if a Diplomancer talked to them with their 100+ Diplomacy skill?

Eagle's Splendor doesn't involve assaulting someone's mental defenses, and Diplomacy is talking them into something by being persuasive. Same result, but different means.

Tokiko Mima
2008-05-28, 01:56 PM
Eagle's Splendor doesn't involve assaulting someone's mental defenses, and Diplomacy is talking them into something by being persuasive. Same result, but different means.

Exactly. There's little difference in results between talking someone you've never met before (and likely will never see again) into being your friend, and charming them. One way batters down mental defenses, whereas the other two batter down social defenses.

AKA_Bait
2008-05-28, 02:01 PM
Exactly. There's little difference in results between talking someone you've never met before (and likely will never see again) into being your friend, and charming them. One way batters down mental defenses, whereas the other two batter down social defenses.

You don't think the means are important? I can get almost exactly the same results from falling down a flight of stairs and having the snot kicked out of me by some thugs. Are the acts morally the same?

SolkaTruesilver
2008-05-28, 02:27 PM
You don't think the means are important? I can get almost exactly the same results from falling down a flight of stairs and having the snot kicked out of me by some thugs. Are the acts morally the same?

If both events were caused by someone wishing you harm, then yes.

MartinHarper
2008-05-28, 02:59 PM
He regards you as:
"A trusted friend and ally", percieving your words "in the most favourable way". I would say that is above most other...

I have many trusted friends. Most of whom I wouldn't sleep with.

Seffbasilisk
2008-05-28, 03:17 PM
I had a player once who spammed Charm Person on barwenches and attempted to sleep with them, all while arguing that it wasn't evil.

I knocked him down to neutral for that.

It's like spiking someone's drinks all night, then pulling them into a bedroom.
Evil.


I second Solo.

Ziren
2008-05-28, 03:19 PM
Charm Person is basically emotional manipulation without the need of knowledge about human psychology, that is normally necessary to pull it off.

So, when would emotional manipulation be acceptable in real life? To resolve a hostage situation? Yes. To get people to like you for no real reason? No, no and no.

Emperor Tippy
2008-05-28, 03:22 PM
Charm doesn't make them want to sleep with you. Or do anything like that. It makes you a trusted friend who's opinion they value. Is it good to use charm person to make someone your friend? No. But is it evil? No, as they still have free will. The fact that their perceptions have changed doesn't mean they don't have free will.

Now Dominate, Mind Rape, and Programmed Amnesia are another story. Dominating a criminal to make him drop his gun is good. Mind Raping/Programmed Amnesiaing a criminal to rebuild him so that he doesn't commit crimes and is a hard working, productive member of society is good or neutral. But using them for selfish reasons is evil. The target doesn't have free will, you are making them a slave.

SolkaTruesilver
2008-05-28, 03:24 PM
So, when would emotional manipulation be acceptable in real life? To resolve a hostage situation? Yes. To get people to like you for no real reason? No, no and no.

That is totally untrue. People have an intuitive knowledge of how to make other people like them. Other can learn how to make other people like them. It's all a matter of some sort of manipulation. It's no more immoral. You aren't taking anything from anyone. Friendship doesn'T cost anything to anyone.

Yhea, the person "isn't given the choice", but trully, what does that person loose when you merely wants him to be your friend? Nothing. Now, if you used the magic to get something out of them, that would be bad. But except for that, you simply ask something to someone which has no consequence on their lives.

AKA_Bait
2008-05-28, 03:29 PM
Yhea, the person "isn't given the choice", but trully, what does that person loose when you merely wants him to be your friend? Nothing. Now, if you used the magic to get something out of them, that would be bad. But except for that, you simply ask something to someone which has no consequence on their lives.

I take it that you think the choice itself has no value. Personally, I consider the choice to like or dislike a person, and to trust or not trust a person, to have immense value indpendant of any physical consequences.

SolkaTruesilver
2008-05-28, 03:36 PM
I take it that you think the choice itself has no value. Personally, I consider the choice to like or dislike a person, and to trust or not trust a person, to have immense value indpendant of any physical consequences.

Actually, I find the spell to be a good thing. Take into account two possibilities, which depend on your basic tastes, which you don'T totally control:

1- You like someone, which brings your something good in your life. This has a positive value on your life (+)

2- You dislike, or are totally neutral to that person. Which brings either a negative (-) or totally nullyfied (0) value to your live.

Charm person makes it always a + for the "victims" of the caster. These person now have another person they like in their lives, and maybe someone less they disliked/were neutral to.

The person won't loose their older friends. They won't loose anything material. They won't violate their own moral code. They will simply have more positive feeling toward people around him (specially the caster).

It turns a random-choice based on your basic tastes to an always-good feeling. Tell me how you are loosing, except for your so-adored "free will to dislike someone"?

It's not even you are forced to hang out with someone you dislike in your inner self. YOU LIKE HANGING WITH HIM! That's the magical trick! It's not even a nuisance for you anymore! What did you lost in your life? Bitterness?

Ziren
2008-05-28, 03:47 PM
That is totally untrue. People have an intuitive knowledge of how to make other people like them. Other can learn how to make other people like them. It's all a matter of some sort of manipulation. It's no more immoral. You aren't taking anything from anyone. Friendship doesn'T cost anything to anyone.


Okay, but Charm Person is emotional manipulation on a "Pick Up Artist"-level.

You know, your explanation does sound a lot like the excuse rapists try to use: "The victim likes sex, so by having sex with him/her, I was doing him/her a favour."
Just because people like to have friends that doesn't mean that they like to be your friend.

AKA_Bait
2008-05-28, 03:54 PM
It turns a random-choice based on your basic tastes to an always-good feeling. Tell me how you are loosing, except for your so-adored "free will to dislike someone"?

Here is where we disagree. My attitude toward a person is not just a random choice based upon my basic tastes. There are some people in this world I simply do not, and cannot, respect or consider a trusted friend and ally.

They needn't have done anything to me, personally. They might have done something to someone I know. They might be in a profession I find abhorrent (example: crack dealer).

I don't want to be friendly towards these people, not just as a matter of personal desire but also because I believe that people who behave in the ways I find abhorrent enough to want to shun shouldn't have friends. I don't want to be seen being friendly to them. I don't want others to be friendly to them. In those cases I want to be part of the social pressure put upon a person to change their behavior, even if they behavior has not harmed or threatened me, specifically.

There are lots of things I would do for a 'trusted friend and ally'. There are other people in this world I would not so much as pick up a peice of paper for. Charm Person would strip me of that choice.


What did you lost in your life?

The ability to make my own value judgments about the person casting the spell. To me, that's far more important than an artificial friend.

Tokiko Mima
2008-05-28, 03:55 PM
Charm Person is just another example of magic letting the caster shortcut the learning of a skill, but it's still morally equivalent to the same action it replaces. Just like Jump adds to your jump skill, Stone Shape lets you sculpt stone without a chisel, and even Fly lets you move through the air without learning how to build and operate a zepplin.

Getting into someone's good graces in order to betray them later is evil, no matter how you accomplish it. Becoming someone's trusted confidant for the sake of simply being friends is neither good nor evil.

However, I think the problem with Charm Person in D&D is that it makes doing this a little too easy. It attacks saves on NPC's, which are almost invariably low compared to a PC's. It's striking someone where they are most vulnerable, just like when modern day advertisers target people's insecurities about their bodies in order to sell clothing, perfume, exercise equipment, etc. It's not 'wrong' persay so much as it is unsportsmanlike, but at the same time efficient and tactical. It also gets rid of the possibility of dramatic failure, since you generally don't know when you succeeded on a Will save vs. Charm like you would if someone failed to talk you into becoming their best friend.

SolkaTruesilver
2008-05-28, 03:57 PM
Okay, but Charm Person is emotional manipulation on a "Pick Up Artist"-level.


a "pick-up artist" isn't raping, my good friend, and I am not even sure if it's immoral (if he doesn't lie). And as I said earlier, we are not considering the act of abusing your new friendship, but simply the fact to impose said friendship upon your victim.

Ziren
2008-05-28, 04:07 PM
a "pick-up artist" isn't raping, my good friend, and I am not even sure if it's immoral (if he doesn't lie). And as I said earlier, we are not considering the act of abusing your new friendship, but simply the fact to impose said friendship upon your victim.

I've never said that a pick-up artist is raping his targets of desire. But due to the emotional manipulation he pulls of, he rockets his chances of getting laid with her through the roof by making it seem to them that they need this (i.e. by giving them the feeling of inferiority.

Your point about not abusing the friendship makes no sense, since you have already done so by forcing this very friendship upon them. YOU want the target to be your friend. He/she doesn't. Friends don't force friends into doing things they don't like.


@Tokiko Mima: I think you're looking at this too much from a mechanical (as in game mechanics) level, than an ethical.


EDIT: Changed a "to" that made absolutely no sense with a "don't". I shouldn't post while tired.

Xefas
2008-05-28, 04:13 PM
People who don't have friends are sad.
People who have friends are happy.
Making people happy is a good thing to do.

So, I would surmise that giving people more friends would make them happier, thus making a casting of Charm Person a good act!

(Also, a tangent about solving Good/Evil D&D morality problems)

Use Detect Good
Kill all the Good-aligned people so they go to the Upper Planes, a place of pure happiness and bliss.
Then, torture all the evil and neutral people until they agree to do enough Good acts to become Good-aligned.
Kill them too.
Then, since this has turned you Evil, slap on a Helm of Opposite Alignment.
Choose to fail your save automatically, thus turning you Good.
Kill yourself.
Now everyone is in eternal happiness with absolutely no negative consequences.

SolkaTruesilver
2008-05-28, 04:23 PM
People who don't have friends are sad.
People who have friends are happy.
Making people happy is a good thing to do.

So, I would surmise that giving people more friends would make them happier, thus making a casting of Charm Person a good act!

(Also, a tangent about solving Good/Evil D&D morality problems)

Use Detect Good
Kill all the Good-aligned people so they go to the Upper Planes, a place of pure happiness and bliss.
Then, torture all the evil and neutral people until they agree to do enough Good acts to become Good-aligned.
Kill them too.
Then, since this has turned you Evil, slap on a Helm of Opposite Alignment.
Choose to fail your save automatically, thus turning you Good.
Kill yourself.
Now everyone is in eternal happiness with absolutely no negative consequences.

BSE

Biggest Sophist Ever.

AKA_Bait
2008-05-28, 04:31 PM
BSE

Biggest Sophist Ever.

Not really, by the logic you presented, everyone should be charmed toward everyone else as a matter of course. Nothing to lose by it afterall.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-28, 04:34 PM
But he has shown why your argument is BS in a perfect manner.

See, what happens if, following the Grand inquisitor parable, you think it's in my best interests to be ignorant and happy, but I DON'T WANT to be happy and ignorant, but rather peaceful and knowledgeable?

Now, here's what happens. You let me go my way, you're an okay sort. You try to forcibly coerce me into your PoV, you're a bastard, plain and simple. Same thing with Charm Person.

Tokiko Mima
2008-05-28, 04:44 PM
I think you're looking at this too much from a mechanical (as in game mechanics) level, than an ethical.

Fair enough, let me state it without game mechanics then.

I just don't see how supernatural mind control is any less (or more) moral than conventional methods of control. It's easier and faster true, but whether I brainwash someone into being my ally with CIA reprogramming techniques, trick them with a bluff and a lot of fast-talk, intimidate them into cooperating, or even simply ask them over and over until they agree it's all the same result of forcefully manipulating someone into doing something they wouldn't do for you otherwise. Why should magically breaking into someone's mind to plant a 'trust this person' command be treated as something different if it accomplishes the same ends? If something bad happens to the manipulated person are you more or less morally responsible depending on the method used?

I think the important part is in the why and not the how that determines whether you are doing good or evil. The ends do not justify the means, but in this case I would say the means are colored depending on how they are used to accomplish the ends.

AKA_Bait
2008-05-28, 04:55 PM
I just don't see how supernatural mind control is any less (or more) moral than conventional methods of control.

Well, lets take a look at these other forms of control...


brainwash someone into being my ally with CIA reprogramming techniques

Immoral if you just want them to be your friend.


trick them with a bluff and a lot of fast-talk

Immoral if you just want them to be your friend.


intimidate them into cooperating

Be my friend or I'll beat you up! Yeah, that's moral.


ask them over and over until they agree

Either won't work or will be enough harrassment to be immoral. Restraining orders exist for a reason.


Why should magically breaking into someone's mind to plant a 'trust this person' command be treated as something different if it accomplishes the same ends?

Well, from your examples, I wouldn't treat it differently. The example you gave that it is closest to is the CIA reprogramming technique. You honestly think reprogramming someone to be your friend if they don't want to be is a moral act?


I think the important part is in the why and not the how that determines whether you are doing good or evil.

Yes, and the 'why' in the OP is the desire to be popular. We aren't exactly talking about saving babies as the reason here.

Tokiko Mima
2008-05-28, 05:35 PM
Well, from your examples, I wouldn't treat it differently. The example you gave that it is closest to is the CIA reprogramming technique. You honestly think reprogramming someone to be your friend if they don't want to be is a moral act?

I didn't say that any of those methods was especially moral. What I said was they are not "more or less" moral than magical methods accomplishing the same end, and in other words they are morally and ethically equivalent (and as you point out, all highly suspect.) The point is you're forcing someone to do something they would not do otherwise and how you do so is irrelevant.

Therefore you should treat Charm Person like any other forceful attempt at control of another person (from a moral standpoint.)


Yes, and the 'why' in the OP is the desire to be popular. We aren't exactly talking about saving babies as the reason here.

We are in agreement on this point. Wanting people to be your friends without giving them the same courtesy in return is immature and shortsighted. He's going about this in a wrong way, certainly. However, I'm not sure a desire to be popular as a motive is innately evil. Don't most people want to be liked by others?

I think what happens in this situation is that obvious consequences (Charm Person wearing off, someone uncharmed figuring out his secret, etc.) will bite him in the tail, rather than morality.

Kurald Galain
2008-05-28, 06:41 PM
Aah, a derivative of the flawed parable that is The Grand Inquisitor, yes?
Interesting point.

Have you read Demon: The Fallen? Because a certain ex-angel has some interesting things to say about the subject...

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-28, 06:44 PM
Interesting point.

Have you read Demon: The Fallen? Because a certain ex-angel has some interesting things to say about the subject...

Nope, I haven't. Who is the author of it?

Grug
2008-05-28, 07:02 PM
Having an antagonistic NPC who uses charm person like this, and just wants friends could be interesting, although such a character would probably end up being laughed at, and thus shouldn't be a BBEG.

I did this before in a Comedy Campaign. The man who did it was a "Fake Boss", the local ruler of a town who allowed the villagers to sell him their daughters to gain immunity from the high taxes. He portrays himself as a smug snake and his four servant girls are completely obedient. In actuality he was using charm person on them twice a day because he was afraid they wouldn't like him otherwise. He only wanted someone(s) pretty to paint (his favorite hobby) and never dared to try anything more. It was going to be immensely satisfying when he is revealed for the fraud he is after his house becomes a crater (why, is a story for another time). Sort of a pseudo Heel-Face turn. Fortunately he's ot sucha bad guy and the girls like him anyway (did I mention they were sexy elf babes?)

Kurald Galain
2008-05-28, 07:03 PM
Nope, I haven't. Who is the author of it?

One Michael B. Lee, apparently. It's one of the oldline World Of Darkness books.

Essentially, an ex-angel who used to be in the service of Lucifer Morningstar is explaining how the demons had nothing but the best intentions towards mankind.

And as it turns out, the road to hell is paved with exactly those intentions...

Tangential but relevant, especially to people who think they have the right to make choices for other people.

Jack_Simth
2008-05-28, 07:15 PM
We've had at least a few people (BloddyAngel, Emperor Tippy) in this thread saying that Charm Person doesn't stop free will and won't cause someone to do things they normally wouldn't do for a friend.

That's flatly untrue. There's this nifty clause in Charm Person:

Charm Person

Enchantment (Charm) [Mind-Affecting]
Level: Brd 1, Sor/Wiz 1
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Target: One humanoid creature
Duration: 1 hour/level
Saving Throw: Will negates
Spell Resistance: Yes

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

The spell does not enable you to control the charmed person as if it were an automaton, but it perceives your words and actions in the most favorable way. You can try to give the subject orders, but you must win an opposed Charisma check to convince it to do anything it wouldn’t ordinarily do. (Retries are not allowed.) An affected creature never obeys suicidal or obviously harmful orders, but it might be convinced that something very dangerous is worth doing. Any act by you or your apparent allies that threatens the charmed person breaks the spell. You must speak the person’s language to communicate your commands, or else be good at pantomiming.
(Emphasis added)

Charm Person isn't as reliable as Dominate Person at forcing someone to do exactly as you say, but the limits for what you can get them to do aren't particularly restrictive.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-28, 07:19 PM
One Michael B. Lee, apparently. It's one of the oldline World Of Darkness books.

Essentially, an ex-angel who used to be in the service of Lucifer Morningstar is explaining how the demons had nothing but the best intentions towards mankind.

And as it turns out, the road to hell is paved with exactly those intentions...

Tangential but relevant, especially to people who think they have the right to make choices for other people.

Interesting. It's a good way to kill that parable.

Interestingly, however, it's not the death knell for it.

Rather, the death knell is that the parable fallaciously links ignorance and happyness, and knowledge and misery. Which is not the case. It is 100% sure that knowledge removes happiness, but it doesn't come with misery. THAT is where the parable is show down in flames.

Kurald Galain
2008-05-28, 07:28 PM
Which is not the case. It is 100% sure that knowledge removes happiness, but it doesn't come with misery.

On the other hand, one might simply claim that "removing happiness" is the exact same thing as "causing misery"...

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-28, 07:35 PM
On the other hand, one might simply claim that "removing happiness" is the exact same thing as "causing misery"...

Nah. One is not a synonym of the other. If anything, "removing happiness" would mean you start behaving seriously and emotionlessly, since no other emotion has been inserted.

NEO|Phyte
2008-05-28, 07:38 PM
So, this thread's title has been leaving a nagging feeling in my head, as it was reminding me of something. I just located the something.
http://img249.imageshack.us/img249/1641/1210887532104db7.jpg
Necromancers: Evil, or unloved?

Patashu
2008-05-28, 07:40 PM
Charm person kills the identity. Regardless of who they were or how they felt beforehand they can be ordered around just the same.
This is why perfume, et cetera are okay; they do not make all women react the same way, they react by their persona and retain their humanity and individuality, their selfness.

A bit late maybe but that's how I'm seeing it here. (Hmm, am I thinking of dominate person?)

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-28, 07:40 PM
Necromancers: Evil, or unloved?[/spoiler]

Under the current rules, evil because Undead are fueled by negative energy, AKA evil.

Under 4th rules, it depends on them.

SolkaTruesilver
2008-05-28, 08:18 PM
Not really, by the logic you presented, everyone should be charmed toward everyone else as a matter of course. Nothing to lose by it afterall.

Not really. The argument went from a single wizard who uses his magic to be accepted by people to a genocide of everything in the multiverse. I find that argument quite BS.

You cannot take the argument "if everybody did the same" to choose what's wrong and what's not. That's one of the classic sophism. What I said is, the liberty loss on the victim's part isn't that bad, as long as the wizard doesn't do anything else to convince to abuse of the new acquired power over it's victim!

You went from the point I just mentionned up to killing everybody. That's worth nothing as an argument.

comicshorse
2008-05-28, 09:28 PM
Good rule of thumb. Consider how your character would feel if some other wizard CHARMS him into being his new best friend and following him around like a puppy.

Jayabalard
2008-05-28, 09:35 PM
Now, before anyone gets any wierd ideas about me I just want to say:I am not trying to say it's okay, just want to spur some discussion on the topic. anyway, moving on.

I personally have felt that the use of magic, because we acknowledge it as a skill and it's validity as a tool, we invariably can liken it to the use of drugs to alter a person's mind, which is probably one of the worst kind of violations you can visit upon a person.

But what if it's someone who doesn't understand their power? What if it's a sorceror (despite his high CHA score), is just too socially awkward to know how to get people to be friends with him and doesn't really understand his powers? Maybe he doesn't understand why it makes people like him and he's happy that it does. so he continues to do it, not realizing that he's essentially sliding emotional roofies to people. This doesn't excuse the act, of course. But would you really consider him, though his actions are wrong, evil?If you look at just the mechanics of D&D, perhaps, but if you start adding reasonable fluff it can start looking pretty grim very quickly.

Coincidentally, I've been reading my way through the Dresden files over the last few months... it has an interesting presentation on what makes up black magic.

Solo
2008-05-28, 10:11 PM
Good rule of thumb. Consider how your character would feel if some other wizard CHARMS him into being his new best friend and following him around like a puppy.

I have a better one: Consider how your would feel if some other wizard CHARMS your younger sister into being his new best friend and following him around like a puppy.

Chronicled
2008-05-28, 10:18 PM
So, this thread's title has been leaving a nagging feeling in my head, as it was reminding me of something. I just located the something.
http://img249.imageshack.us/img249/1641/1210887532104db7.jpg
Necromancers: Evil, or unloved?

Where's that from?

NEO|Phyte
2008-05-28, 10:21 PM
Where's that from?

I don't know, I found it on 4chan. And by find, I mean somebody linked to it at some point, and it passed my image retention guidelines, so I saved it.

Xefas
2008-05-28, 10:48 PM
BSE

Biggest Sophist Ever.

I kinda want to make one of those "something itp" banners for my sig now.

"X != X

Sophist in the Playground"

I don't see many people with those anymore but I always thought they were cool. Anyway...


I have a better one: Consider how your would feel if some other wizard CHARMS your younger sister into being his new best friend and following him around like a puppy.

I think Solo illustrated the truth of the matter in undeniable clarity. Creepy old child molester wizard charms your little sister. Even if he "just wants to be friends with her", I'd be more than a little shocked if you were okay with it, intentions or no.

LibraryOgre
2008-05-28, 11:01 PM
I'm going to run a bit contrary. I don't see charm person as inherently evil... I use it frequently as a bit of social grease. Do I want to bribe someone? Charm Person, and a reasonable bribe, and it's done. Do I want someone to be my friend? Charm Person, and then be their friend. It's better than Eagle's Splendor, if you've got a single target in mind... if they fail the save, they ARE your friend. A few hours later, it wears off, but that won't change what happened, and it doesn't make them hate you.

Charm Person can be abused, and easily. However, a wise enchanter uses it to build relationships, not temporarily usurp someone's good sense.

SilverClawShift
2008-05-28, 11:34 PM
Envision this scenario. A lonely high school guy can't get it on with girls, so he goes to a party, exposes a cheerleader with huge.... charisma to a mind altering substance, and retreats into the bedroom with her.

What do you think?

I'm sure someone has allready mentioned this, and I haven't read the entire thread yet. I just wanted to point out that this scenario isn't necessarily perfectly accurate. If the wizard really just wants FRIENDS, and is using charm person to get them...

It would be like showing up to a party, spiking peoples drinks, and then having deep discussions about the universe with them while they site in slack jawed awe.

Still not cool, but it's not quite the same as giving someone a roofie and taking them off into seclusion.

Solo
2008-05-28, 11:41 PM
I'm sure someone has allready mentioned this, and I haven't read the entire thread yet. I just wanted to point out that this scenario isn't necessarily perfectly accurate. If the wizard really just wants FRIENDS, and is using charm person to get them...

It would be like showing up to a party, spiking peoples drinks, and then having deep discussions about the universe with them while they site in slack jawed awe.

Still not cool, but it's not quite the same as giving someone a roofie and taking them off into seclusion.


Then, one day, the wizard figures out how to cast "charm person" and various other spells that make them irresistable to the CHA 17 cheerleading bards.

I await your response.

Collin152
2008-05-29, 12:01 AM
Where is Collin152? I thought mind-taking was his schtick. :smalltongue:


On Holiday, Dammit!

Enchantments are not evil!
Just the way they are used!

Likewise, charming girls isn't innatley evil.
I still wouldn't do it.

Now don't go discussing mind altering spells while I'm out of state, or you'll find your mind a little less... Un-raped.

Mewtarthio
2008-05-29, 12:19 AM
Likewise, charming girls isn't innatley evil.
I still wouldn't do it.

What if you'd run out of mind rapes for the day? :smalltongue:

SoD
2008-05-29, 02:21 AM
What if you'd run out of mind rapes for the day? :smalltongue:

Get a wand? Or several...of course, you charm the wand salesman to give them to you in the first place...

What would be interesting, sorcerers don't always have full controll of their powers for quite a while...haveing a sorcerer geeky type guy who doesn't realise he's charming people with the use of italics texts.

Even he doesn't understand why the hot, uh, charismatic girls like him.

Blanks
2008-05-29, 02:30 AM
This discussion boils down to a few questions:

What is the value of free will?
Immense or low?

What is the nature of Charm person?
Sort of like dominate, sort of like perfume, or homebrewed rules?


I'm on the "Free will has an immense value, no matter what" side. Thats just my basic value.

Regarding charm person, I think it is more like Dominate than perfume. As someone pointed out, with Charisma checks you can make people do something they otherwise wouldn't.
(And wether that is "talk to me", "come to this dark room with me" or "be my slave" is just a matter of degree, not different things altogether)

Khanderas
2008-05-29, 03:31 AM
Think of it in a different way, does this make the Jedi mind trick also far more questionable?
The intent is quite another.
"theese are not the droids you are looking for" (because if they were you would try to kill me and then I would have to kill you for doing your job).

Collin152
2008-05-29, 01:18 PM
What if you'd run out of mind rapes for the day? :smalltongue:

One: The spell used is not in question, but rather the target. Wink wink.

Two: Mindrape is the gift that keeps on giving. You only need it once.

Unless you're me.
In which case, after running out of Mindrapes, I use a liberal combination of Detect Thoughts and Suggestion.

Tokiko Mima
2008-05-29, 01:55 PM
One: The spell used is not in question, but rather the target. Wink wink.

Two: Mindrape is the gift that keeps on giving. You only need it once.

Unless you're me.
In which case, after running out of Mindrapes, I use a liberal combination of Detect Thoughts and Suggestion.

Or you could use an extended Hold Person and Programmed Amnesia?

Ask your parents permission before doing this at home, kids. :smalltongue:

Collin152
2008-05-29, 02:19 PM
Or you could use an extended Hold Person and Programmed Amnesia?

Ask your parents permission before doing this at home, kids. :smalltongue:

Hold Person lasts as long as they fail saves, so no extending there. Plus, more fun when the guy is allowed to move.
If I can cast Programmed Amnesia, why not Mindrape?

Trust me, when the mind altering spells go flying, you will wish I just left it at a suggestion. I am the master of Enchantment on these boards, and I can jury rig horrible rape out of nigh any of the spells in my arsenal. Otto's Irresistable Dance... doesn't specify what the dance is, for instance. I know of a few choice dances to force upon you.

Rutee
2008-05-29, 02:21 PM
See, if Collin supports it, and it involves the mind affecting spells, you /know/ it's wrong :smallbiggrin:

Sidenote though, you don't get to choose the target's dance with Otto's Irresistable Dance. The compulsion merely forces them /to/ dance, not to dance X" So target chooses.

AKA_Bait
2008-05-29, 02:25 PM
Sidenote though, you don't get to choose the target's dance with Otto's Irresistable Dance. The compulsion merely forces them /to/ dance, not to dance X" So target chooses.

Yeah, but come on, its just much more fun if you make the Dragon do the Chicken Dance than the White Boy Shuffle and mechanically I don't think there's any real difference.

Rutee
2008-05-29, 02:30 PM
Yeah, but my players would probably want to do something either fantastically cool as a dance, or stunningly lame (The Elaine Dance), and I wouldn't want to deny them the option.. :smallyuk:

Collin152
2008-05-29, 02:33 PM
See, if Collin supports it, and it involves the mind affecting spells, you /know/ it's wrong :smallbiggrin:

Sidenote though, you don't get to choose the target's dance with Otto's Irresistable Dance. The compulsion merely forces them /to/ dance, not to dance X" So target chooses.

I object!
I'm True Neutral, so you can't generalise alignments based on me!

Now, generally speaking, when the spell doesn't specify some detail that generally has no mechanical effect, you get to pick it.
What your magic missile looks like, whether your prismatic spray looks like a rainbow or a headache, and so forth.

But if you insist, suggestion.
It may be low level, but it's a miracle worker.

ashmanonar
2008-05-29, 02:33 PM
No, but I'd kick his ass anyways.

This is where I'd bring in the Crusader/Warblade Dwarf with Moment of Perfect Mind, Iron Heart Surge (Wait, that doesn't even work against half the stuff that could be used...crap.), the Mage Slayer and Pierce Magical Protection feats, and a Magebane spiked chain.

Byebye Sorcerer.


Yeah, but my players would probably want to do something either fantastically cool as a dance, or stunningly lame (The Elaine Dance), and I wouldn't want to deny them the option.. :smallyuk:

It forces them to do the Macarena.

Their own people would want to kill them.

Krrth
2008-05-29, 02:39 PM
If you look at just the mechanics of D&D, perhaps, but if you start adding reasonable fluff it can start looking pretty grim very quickly.

Coincidentally, I've been reading my way through the Dresden files over the last few months... it has an interesting presentation on what makes up black magic.

To be fair, if you use the Dresdenverse ethics/morals, using charm person gets you killed. Of course, I understand (and agree) with the reasons behind it, just not the "one strike and you're beheaded" policy.

AKA_Bait
2008-05-29, 02:41 PM
To be fair, if you use the Dresdenverse ethics/morals, using charm person gets you killed. Of course, I understand (and agree) with the reasons behind it, just not the "one strike and you're beheaded" policy.

Well, I think that's sort of the point. It's to illustrate how draconian and unforgiving the White Counsel can be.

Zeful
2008-05-29, 02:42 PM
I read a book (http://www.amazon.com/Circle-Three-So-Mote-Be/dp/0064472914) on a very similar subject. In the book the protagonist is a fairly normal teenaged girl with a crush. She stumbles across a book of spells and messes around with a love spell, making all the guys at her school infatuated with her, including her jock crush. She makes a few other mistakes before undoing everything. Everything goes back to before any of this happens with two exceptions, she's got two new friends, and a new boyfriend, the jock. Even after being given his free will back, he chose to stay.

This brings up an important point: If you would ,under normal circumstances, befriend someone, how would charm person be wrong?

Collin152
2008-05-29, 02:48 PM
This brings up an important point: If you would ,under normal circumstances, befriend someone, how would charm person be wrong?

Shortcuts are a form of cheating.
Cheating is wrong.

Furthermore, normal circumstances become irrelevant when you cast the spell, as you have changed the circumstances. The spell goes down, they might not want to be your friend now.

That's why we have three lovely spells to help us out: Modify Memory, Programmed Amnesia, and Mindrape.

AKA_Bait
2008-05-29, 02:48 PM
This brings up an important point: If you would ,under normal circumstances, befriend someone, how would charm person be wrong?

Well, I'd think because you can't know that they would befriend you until they did. Once they did, there is no need for the spell.

Also, the spell makes them stay your friend too, even if you start doing things that they would disapprove of.

Krrth
2008-05-29, 02:49 PM
Well, I think that's sort of the point. It's to illustrate how draconian and unforgiving the White Counsel can be.

That is most likley one of the reasons. I think the other reason, the one where that rule got implimented in the first place, was that once you start messing with someones free will-no matter how slightly- You start down "the dark path". It might take repeated castings, but it still wrong.

Zeful
2008-05-29, 02:51 PM
Well, I'd think because you can't know that they would befriend you until they did. Once they did, there is no need for the spell.

Also, the spell makes them stay your friend too, even if you start doing things that they would disapprove of.

There only you friend for the duration of the spell, which I'm pretty sure isn't permanent.

AKA_Bait
2008-05-29, 02:54 PM
There only you friend for the duration of the spell, which I'm pretty sure isn't permanent.

Yes, but in that interum they still aren't going to take actions to stop you from doing whatever thing you were doing, so long as you give them some very thin justification, which a real friend might.

Frosty
2008-05-29, 02:56 PM
Sidenote though, you don't get to choose the target's dance with Otto's Irresistable Dance. The compulsion merely forces them /to/ dance, not to dance X" So target chooses.

But...but...but...I want my Power Word: Pole-dancing Striptease :smalleek:

Sidenote query: Is it wrong to use Suggestion to cause someone to think about their deepest fantasies and their preferences in mates so you can use Detect Thoughts to get this information and then using that info to seduce said person normally?

AKA_Bait
2008-05-29, 03:03 PM
Sidenote query: Is it wrong to use Suggestion to cause someone to think about their deepest fantasies and their preferences in mates so you can use Detect Thoughts to get this information and then using that info to seduce said person normally?

You don't think that making the suggestion to think about their deepest fantasies might, you know, tip them off that you are trying to seduce them?

Frosty
2008-05-29, 03:10 PM
I use Telepathy, and make my voice sound different. Or I use one of those spells that combine Sending with a Suggestion (I think it's Demand). He or she will have no idea who is making the suggestion. And the info is probably good for a while, so I can even wait a few days before the actual seduction.

Collin152
2008-05-29, 03:11 PM
You don't think that making the suggestion to think about their deepest fantasies might, you know, tip them off that you are trying to seduce them?

Take a level of Mindbender. Make your suggestion Telepathic.

Note that this is not using the telepathic suggestion class feature, just the telepathy. You only need a new medium to convey your suggestion.
That's why it's a pointless class feature.

Also, it is totally fine to do that. I suggest you go and do that right now. While you are at it, gather up all the girls in the world in the process. Doesn't matter which side of it they're on.

Edit: My worthy foe, your Ninja skills are great, but can you dodge a Mindrape?

AKA_Bait
2008-05-29, 03:14 PM
Frosty and Collin: It bothers me that you have thought this through so much.

That said, it would be about as wrong as sneaking into her house, reading her diary and checking all the adult sites in her computer history I suppose. It's an invasion of privacy, and wrong, but not really really really really wrong.

Inyssius Tor
2008-05-29, 03:18 PM
Well, I think that's sort of the point. It's to illustrate how draconian and unforgiving the White Counsel can be.

No, there's really a very (http://www.dresdenfilesrpg.com/news/archives/2007/06/the_laws_of_mag_1.php) serious (http://www.dresdenfilesrpg.com/news/archives/2007/06/post.php) reason (http://www.dresdenfilesrpg.com/news/archives/2007/06/the_laws_of_mag_2.php) behind (http://www.dresdenfilesrpg.com/news/archives/2007/07/post_1.php) each (http://www.dresdenfilesrpg.com/news/archives/2007/07/the_laws_of_mag_3.php) of (http://www.dresdenfilesrpg.com/news/archives/2007/07/the_laws_of_mag_3.php) the (http://www.dresdenfilesrpg.com/news/archives/2007/08/the_laws_of_mag_4.php) Laws (http://www.dresdenfilesrpg.com/news/archives/2007/10/the_laws_of_mag_5.php). Here's the rationale behind the relevant one:
The Fourth Law
Never Enthrall Another.
A close cousin of the Third, the Fourth Law goes beyond the simple invasion of another's mind to outright mastery over it. Here, enthralling is any effort made to change the natural inclinations, choices, and behaviors of another person. And due to its cousin Law, it's pretty easy to see the Fourth as an extension of the concepts there—a case of more equals worse.

It's easy to see someone who uses mind magic to turn a handful of free-thinking people into their sex slaves as a bad guy, but this is definitely one of those situations where the paving stones of good intentions are particularly slick. Much like the Third Law, the Fourth is an easy one to want to break for all the best of reasons. Plenty of people out in the world—possibly even your friends—make bad choices. Magic could give you the power to change those choices. Know someone who's tearing their life apart with drugs? A simple compulsion to make them afraid of touching the stuff could set them on the straight and narrow.

Of course, the problems here are substantial. To change someone's mind enough to force a different course of behavior, you have to hit them with some pretty vicious psychological trauma. Worse, you may not even realize you're doing it at the time. It might sound relatively harmless to implant an aversion to, say, fatty foods to help someone lose weight, but the effect is a lot like wrapping someone's legs in barbed wire in order to keep them from walking to the fridge.

Why so violent? A lot of it comes down to the principles of free will. The thing that makes mortals fundamentally human is free will; when you enthrall someone, overriding their will with your own, you've robbed them of their essential ability to be and act human.

This is where another of the Fourth Law's cousins—the Second—comes into play. Changing someone's behavior is a lot like changing someone's body. In both cases, the target you're changing is a lot more complex than your understanding of it can manage. And if there's one conceptual thread that runs particularly strongly through the first four Laws, it's that the mind is more or less equivalent to the body in terms of what should and should not be done with it. Like the body, the mind is vast and intricately complex. When you decide to take that complexity on with something as crude and simple as a compulsion, psychological trauma is inevitable. In the end, it's much like trying to fix a computer's motherboard with a hammer. Even if you get it working the way you want, chances are you've messed something else up pretty bad along the way.

Mewtarthio
2008-05-29, 03:20 PM
Everything goes back to before any of this happens with two exceptions, she's got two new friends, and a new boyfriend, the jock. Even after being given his free will back, he chose to stay.

This brings up an important point: If you would ,under normal circumstances, befriend someone, how would charm person be wrong?

You can't underestimate the power of cognitive dissonance. Even a short-term charm spell could be enough, in the real world, to make someone your friend even though they never would be without magic. They are compelled to obey your commands, so they make up their own justifications for their actions. If you, for instance, use enchantment magic to seduce someone, then the morning after they will believe they slept with you of their own free will; therefore, they must really like you (or at least find you attractive).

In short, that question is irrelevant, as short of divination spells (I cast detect potential friend!) there's no way to tell if they would have liked you anyway, not even by seeing how they treat you when the spell wears off.


Sidenote query: Is it wrong to use Suggestion to cause someone to think about their deepest fantasies and their preferences in mates so you can use Detect Thoughts to get this information and then using that info to seduce said person normally?

Well, it's obviously a pretty big invasion of privacy. The suggestion spell itself is iffy--At best, I'd consider it to be tantamount to a rather mean-spirited prank. Using that information to pretend to be someone your target would be attracted to is decietful and morally wrong. If you just use this combo to find people with, say, mutual fetishes or something, then it's still wrong, but not quite as bad as before: They were, after all, keeping that information private for a reason.

AKA_Bait
2008-05-29, 03:22 PM
No, there's really a very (http://www.dresdenfilesrpg.com/news/archives/2007/06/the_laws_of_mag_1.php) serious (http://www.dresdenfilesrpg.com/news/archives/2007/06/post.php) reason (http://www.dresdenfilesrpg.com/news/archives/2007/06/the_laws_of_mag_2.php) behind (http://www.dresdenfilesrpg.com/news/archives/2007/07/post_1.php) each (http://www.dresdenfilesrpg.com/news/archives/2007/07/the_laws_of_mag_3.php) of (http://www.dresdenfilesrpg.com/news/archives/2007/07/the_laws_of_mag_3.php) the (http://www.dresdenfilesrpg.com/news/archives/2007/08/the_laws_of_mag_4.php) Laws (http://www.dresdenfilesrpg.com/news/archives/2007/10/the_laws_of_mag_5.php). Here's the rationale behind the relevant one:
The Fourth Law
Never Enthrall Another.
A close cousin of the Third, the Fourth Law goes beyond the simple invasion of another's mind to outright mastery over it. Here, enthralling is any effort made to change the natural inclinations, choices, and behaviors of another person. And due to its cousin Law, it's pretty easy to see the Fourth as an extension of the concepts there—a case of more equals worse.

It's easy to see someone who uses mind magic to turn a handful of free-thinking people into their sex slaves as a bad guy, but this is definitely one of those situations where the paving stones of good intentions are particularly slick. Much like the Third Law, the Fourth is an easy one to want to break for all the best of reasons. Plenty of people out in the world—possibly even your friends—make bad choices. Magic could give you the power to change those choices. Know someone who's tearing their life apart with drugs? A simple compulsion to make them afraid of touching the stuff could set them on the straight and narrow.

Of course, the problems here are substantial. To change someone's mind enough to force a different course of behavior, you have to hit them with some pretty vicious psychological trauma. Worse, you may not even realize you're doing it at the time. It might sound relatively harmless to implant an aversion to, say, fatty foods to help someone lose weight, but the effect is a lot like wrapping someone's legs in barbed wire in order to keep them from walking to the fridge.

Why so violent? A lot of it comes down to the principles of free will. The thing that makes mortals fundamentally human is free will; when you enthrall someone, overriding their will with your own, you've robbed them of their essential ability to be and act human.

This is where another of the Fourth Law's cousins—the Second—comes into play. Changing someone's behavior is a lot like changing someone's body. In both cases, the target you're changing is a lot more complex than your understanding of it can manage. And if there's one conceptual thread that runs particularly strongly through the first four Laws, it's that the mind is more or less equivalent to the body in terms of what should and should not be done with it. Like the body, the mind is vast and intricately complex. When you decide to take that complexity on with something as crude and simple as a compulsion, psychological trauma is inevitable. In the end, it's much like trying to fix a computer's motherboard with a hammer. Even if you get it working the way you want, chances are you've messed something else up pretty bad along the way.


I think my point was missed. I wasn't talking about the White Counsel being draconian because they punish people for using mind altering spells. I was talking about how the punishment being death was draconian.

Mewtarthio
2008-05-29, 03:23 PM
I use Telepathy, and make my voice sound different. Or I use one of those spells that combine Sending with a Suggestion (I think it's Demand). He or she will have no idea who is making the suggestion. And the info is probably good for a while, so I can even wait a few days before the actual seduction.

This is why psionics are superior to magic for most forms of enchantment. Use psionic suggestion instead, and be sure to supress the display so that nobody knows what you're doing. Better yet, just use mind probe.

Collin152
2008-05-29, 03:24 PM
Frosty and Collin: It bothers me that you have thought this through so much.



I am surprised at you!

If anybody would have thought this through already, wouldn't it have been me?

Frosty
2008-05-29, 03:25 PM
Take a level of Mindbender. Make your suggestion Telepathic.

Note that this is not using the telepathic suggestion class feature, just the telepathy. You only need a new medium to convey your suggestion.
That's why it's a pointless class feature.

Also, it is totally fine to do that. I suggest you go and do that right now. While you are at it, gather up all the girls in the world in the process. Doesn't matter which side of it they're on.

Edit: My worthy foe, your Ninja skills are great, but can you dodge a Mindrape?

What exactly does Mindrape do anyways? Does it have the [vile] descriptor?

AKA_Bait
2008-05-29, 03:25 PM
I am surprised at you!

If anybody would have thought this through already, wouldn't it have been me?

Hey, just because I expect something doesn't mean it isn't bothersome. :smallbiggrin:

Collin152
2008-05-29, 03:33 PM
What exactly does Mindrape do anyways? Does it have the [vile] descriptor?

Vile? Not sure. Evil, yes.

One, it let's me see every little thought that has ever passed through your mind.
Every memory, every sensory input, everything you thought was a secret, mine.
Next, it lets me modify all of these as I see fit.
Furthermore, you see it all happening. It's qute painful.
And, if I so chose, I remove the memory of the experience, and you are none the wiser.
All in one round.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-29, 03:37 PM
Vile? Not sure. Evil, yes.

One, it let's me see every little thought that has ever passed through your mind.
Every memory, every sensory input, everything you thought was a secret, mine.
Next, it lets me modify all of these as I see fit.
Furthermore, you see it all happening. It's qute painful.
And, if I so chose, I remove the memory of the experience, and you are none the wiser.
All in one round.

It was mind affecting, correct?

Frosty
2008-05-29, 03:39 PM
Do you get a save?

Illiterate Scribe
2008-05-29, 03:40 PM
Yes, but, at that level, everyone worth their salt should be mindblanked.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-29, 03:41 PM
I use Telepathy, and make my voice sound different. Or I use one of those spells that combine Sending with a Suggestion (I think it's Demand). He or she will have no idea who is making the suggestion. And the info is probably good for a while, so I can even wait a few days before the actual seduction.

Y'know, it's much easier to use that potion that forced you to say the truth, then get a Concealed sleep or similar spell off. Once that's done, get a perfect alibi (Possibly contract devils to impersonate people for a while, WITHOUT HARMING THEM) and you're set.

More complex? Yes. Much less likely to be caught? Hell yeah.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-29, 03:42 PM
Yes, but, at that level, everyone worth their salt should be mindblanked.

My thoughts precisely. And if it DOES allow a save, heh, the opponent's NOT going to fail if we talk about PC's.

Frosty
2008-05-29, 03:45 PM
Mindblank can be dispelled, and items of MB can be suppressed, so it's not fool-proof. A sneaky caster can do it without you ever knowing until the MB falls.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-29, 03:51 PM
Mindblank can be dispelled, and items of MB can be suppressed, so it's not fool-proof. A sneaky caster can do it without you ever knowing until the MB falls.

Hell no, he can't. There is EXACTLY one thing that can pierce MB, and it's Metafaculty, a Telepath level 9 power.

And then there's the problem that wise people carry a Cloak of Resistance +5 or item of Superior Resistance, and they have at least one reroll, and preferably another item that grants a big bonus.

Collin152
2008-05-29, 04:13 PM
Mindblank can be dispelled, and items of MB can be suppressed, so it's not fool-proof. A sneaky caster can do it without you ever knowing until the MB falls.

Yes, the shieldsman may be safe from the archer, but he must hold his shield as long as he seeks saftey, while the bowman may lay his arms at rest.

Furthermore, Mindrape is instantaneous, so good luck getting it fixed.
And yes, it offers a save, but that's why we have things like Bestow Greater Curse to hit you with while your mindblank is up. If you make the save? Cast it again, it's fairly expendable.

Frosty
2008-05-29, 04:39 PM
Hell no, he can't. There is EXACTLY one thing that can pierce MB, and it's Metafaculty, a Telepath level 9 power.

And then there's the problem that wise people carry a Cloak of Resistance +5 or item of Superior Resistance, and they have at least one reroll, and preferably another item that grants a big bonus.

Of course he can. It's called all the different variants of Dispel Magic. You have no idea it's being cast at you (assuming a sneaky caster who has Sleight of Hand buffed way up) until it finally lands. Then, a wand of Quicken, Greater for the Mindrape. I don't allow Karma beads or whatever, and not everyone is an archmage. I also don't allow Ioun stones of +1 CL to stack. One of the Dispel checks will succeed. If a PC is determined enough to do something, it will happen.

Collin152
2008-05-29, 05:29 PM
Of course he can. It's called all the different variants of Dispel Magic. You have no idea it's being cast at you (assuming a sneaky caster who has Sleight of Hand buffed way up) until it finally lands. Then, a wand of Quicken, Greater for the Mindrape. I don't allow Karma beads or whatever, and not everyone is an archmage. I also don't allow Ioun stones of +1 CL to stack. One of the Dispel checks will succeed. If a PC is determined enough to do something, it will happen.

Yes, further my cause, my dear... That's the ticket.

So, Mindblankers, once you're my mindraped slave, would you prefer to keep your magic but perform menial duties, or forget you ever had it and simply become my butler instead?

MartinHarper
2008-05-29, 05:36 PM
I have trusted friends. I don't follow them all around like a puppy. I try to stop them doing things I think are wrong.

The "ordering" clause of the spell, as "Save My Game" notes, is subject to DM interpretation. It could be very powerful, or just a side-effect of having a new friend, depending on the DM. This may be part of why people take differing viewpoints.
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sg/20050812a

Starbuck_II
2008-05-29, 05:39 PM
Shortcuts are a form of cheating.
Cheating is wrong.

Furthermore, normal circumstances become irrelevant when you cast the spell, as you have changed the circumstances. The spell goes down, they might not want to be your friend now.

That's why we have three lovely spells to help us out: Modify Memory, Programmed Amnesia, and Mindrape.
I disagree. Shortcuts are not a type of cheating. Unless you are breaking laid (yes I meant it written this way) out rules: it is not cheating.

I mean, making people want to do something with suggestions is perfectly fine. As long as you aren't forcing them to.


Also:
If you use diplomacy the effects of friendship stay: and the DC is affect them is lower due to their favirable to your words.

Collin152
2008-05-29, 05:48 PM
I disagree. Shortcuts are not a type of cheating. Unless you are breaking laid (yes I meant it written this way) out rules: it is not cheating.


Not all rules are written, and those that are not always in stone. Even thoe written in stone... well, I digress.
I think shortcuts are always considered cheating when it involves the unwilling or unwitting consent of another. Or the lack therof but a need of.
Or possibly worse than cheating.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-29, 05:52 PM
Yes, further my cause, my dear... That's the ticket.

So, Mindblankers, once you're my mindraped slave, would you prefer to keep your magic but perform menial duties, or forget you ever had it and simply become my butler instead?

Breach the spell turning item, which renews itself every two/three rounds, or the at will item if we're feeling merciful. And the insane saves.

The idea of the would-be slaver being enslaved is viciously hilarious.

Frosty: Then, it's gonna be HARDER to breach the spell. Not to mention there was a spell/item that gave you massive boosts to the DC, to the point of being unbreachable. If other PC's are going around the place using mindrape, bet anything you want that I'm going to find an unbreachable counter to one of the game's biggest autolosses.

Frosty
2008-05-29, 05:57 PM
You could join them in Mindraping the bad guys into submission :smallbiggrin:

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-29, 06:05 PM
You could join them in Mindraping the bad guys into submission :smallbiggrin:

Not if you prefer innovation to inevitable decay. Mindrapes are sterile, because one day you're going down and you'll bring down everyone with you. Not to mention neverending torment afterwards.

If you're doing that, it's much better to do it a la Corleone, with words instead of swords. There is much to learn from the jesuits.

Collin152
2008-05-29, 06:12 PM
You could join them in Mindraping the bad guys into submission :smallbiggrin:

The bad guys?
I thought we were...
Well, it seems we have come to a disagreement.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-29, 06:19 PM
The bad guys?
I thought we were...
Well, it seems we have come to a disagreement.

Indeed.

Now, question is, how are you going to escape the great mindrape that's going to come once you bite the dust?

No, Lich is not an answer, neither is Vampire. Those bite the dust too.

Collin152
2008-05-29, 06:24 PM
Indeed.

Now, question is, how are you going to escape the great mindrape that's going to come once you bite the dust?

No, Lich is not an answer, neither is Vampire. Those bite the dust too.

Lich is an answer, and it's far too late to go back on that one.

But the real answer is, Mindrape myself before I die. Or Mindrape the cosmos into doing as I will.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-29, 06:30 PM
Lich is an answer, and it's far too late to go back on that one.

But the real answer is, Mindrape myself before I die. Or Mindrape the cosmos into doing as I will.

Why, though? You gain nothing from mindraping yourself, except a total coma as you await a command that is not going to come.

And nope, the multiverse can't be mindraped. That's going to get epic "'ruts" (Like Kolyaruts or Maruts) on you.

Collin152
2008-05-29, 06:34 PM
Why, though? You gain nothing from mindraping yourself, except a total coma as you await a command that is not going to come.

And nope, the multiverse can't be mindraped. That's going to get epic "'ruts" (Like Kolyaruts or Maruts) on you.

I Mindrape myself, letting me rearange my thoughts, memories, and alignment however I want. I adjust my alignment through this manipulation so as to fit into whatever afterlife I want. I'm good to go.

And Inevitables will inevitably be weaker than me by the time I can Mindrape. And if I succeded in Mindraping the cosmos, I may as well undo them anyways.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-29, 06:37 PM
I Mindrape myself, letting me rearange my thoughts, memories, and alignment however I want. I adjust my alignment through this manipulation so as to fit into whatever afterlife I want. I'm good to go.

And Inevitables will inevitably be weaker than me by the time I can Mindrape. And if I succeded in Mindraping the cosmos, I may as well undo them anyways.

If it doesn't explicitly say that you can modify your alignment, and that that will get you through the trials of actions souls undergo, tough luck, because you're going to end a lemure.

Not to mention, as I said, you'd get epic Inevitables sent at you if you try to mindrape the multiverse. Doubt you can beat that laundry list of immunities they have before being beaten into a pulp.

GoC
2008-05-29, 11:56 PM
Why is seducing someone using the Diplomacy skill ok but Charm Person is not?
In both cases the subject has no freedom to avoid.

btw: Suppose there are a race of people who expel pheromones that make others sexually attracted to them. One of them decides to magically increase his natural pheromone release rate. Has he done something wrong?

Solo
2008-05-30, 02:36 AM
Why is seducing someone using the Diplomacy skill ok but Charm Person is not?
In both cases the subject has no freedom to avoid.

What you talkin' bout GoC?

I'm pretty sure Diplomacy doesn't work that way.

SolkaTruesilver
2008-05-30, 07:38 AM
You all know that, IRL, they have invented female pheromones that girl can put on and guys (any guy) will act.. quite irrationnaly around them? Will want to help them, talk to them, etc...

The product itself is quite costly, if I remember. Is it immoral to use such device?

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-30, 07:46 AM
You all know that, IRL, they have invented female pheromones that girl can put on and guys (any guy) will act.. quite irrationnaly around them? Will want to help them, talk to them, etc...

The product itself is quite costly, if I remember. Is it immoral to use such device?

Linky to it?

Solo
2008-05-30, 07:53 AM
You all know that, IRL, they have invented female pheromones that girl can put on and guys (any guy) will act.. quite irrationnaly around them? Will want to help them, talk to them, etc...

The product itself is quite costly, if I remember. Is it immoral to use such device?

I don't think pheromones work that way.

HidaTsuzua
2008-05-30, 08:05 AM
What you talkin' bout GoC?

I'm pretty sure Diplomacy doesn't work that way.

I think the idea is that you can take -10 to your diplomacy roll to do it as a full-round action (still not as a fast as a charm spell, but extremely quick). After that it's a DC:25-45 check to make them friendly. That's a fairly high DC but easily doable (and nothing to the diplomacer who can do much much better). They get no save regardless.

Charm says that the targets treat you as friendly just like the friendly attitude from diplomacy. Personally, I'll like my save (unless I get the PC auto-immune to diplomacy ability).

As for the ethics argument, could our opinions of the subject be affected by the fact we don't have such abilities (sort of long periods of brainwashing that may or may not work) in real life? After all, a major idea of western thought is free will and choice. Would free will and choice be such big deals in a world where they can be overruled by spells? I mean, rather than being an always evil act, it could be treated like killing someone. Good people can kill, but there are restrictions. So the lawful good wizard could mind control the lawful evil fighter just like he could have cast any other save vs death/lose/suck.

SolkaTruesilver
2008-05-30, 08:09 AM
Wikipedia is your friend (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pheromone#Humans)

But do not really tried to find pheromones on sale.

Solo: It simply create an irrational sexual arousal of male around that woman. Off course, I guess if a potential victim is.. err.. "cold", that person will simply warm up to the woman for no reason. I have read the article of a reporter who said she tried it and went shopping to the grocery. She met a guy in an alleyway, and the man seemed really confused by his own over-courtesy toward her.

SamTheCleric
2008-05-30, 08:09 AM
That's either the dumbest or most intelligent marketing ploy ever..

I mean really... is it THAT hard to induce irrational sexual arousal in men?

Solo
2008-05-30, 08:15 AM
I think the idea is that you can take -10 to your diplomacy roll to do it as a full-round action (still not as a fast as a charm spell, but extremely quick). After that it's a DC:25-45 check to make them friendly. That's a fairly high DC but easily doable (and nothing to the diplomacer who can do much much better). They get no save regardless.

If DnD was real life, then the DM would disallow diplomacheese.


It simply create an irrational sexual arousal of male around that woman.

The woman would get the same effect from dressing in skimpy clothing and winking.

SolkaTruesilver
2008-05-30, 08:17 AM
That's either the dumbest or most intelligent marketing ploy ever..

I mean really... is it THAT hard to induce irrational sexual arousal in men?

Hey, I'm the victim sex here. I don't know what happens into women's head.

The thing is, I think it's easier to sexually arouse men artificially than to sexually arouse women. Since women emit different smell when they are ovulating, I guess evolution made us to be sensitive to those critical moments.

While, on the other hand.. I don't think evolution really cared if the woman was really aroused..

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-30, 08:37 AM
While, on the other hand.. I don't think evolution really cared if the woman was really aroused..

If the female is not aroused, it turns into a really messy affair. Trust me.

Solo
2008-05-30, 08:41 AM
Involving the squishing of the flopplie dopplies by angry relatives.

SolkaTruesilver
2008-05-30, 09:07 AM
Hey, I'm just saying that I am sure that cavemen/australopithecs respected woman's opinion of the matter less than we actually do.

Starbuck_II
2008-05-30, 09:10 AM
Hey, I'm the victim sex here. I don't know what happens into women's head.

The thing is, I think it's easier to sexually arouse men artificially than to sexually arouse women. Since women emit different smell when they are ovulating, I guess evolution made us to be sensitive to those critical moments.

While, on the other hand.. I don't think evolution really cared if the woman was really aroused..

Male arm sweat makes a women's periods more comfortable. So we masles do have pheromones of our own.

Though, they don't make them aroused justy not in pain.

Still, I think if females can release pheromones to arouse males than we can charm person them. Seems fair to me.

Rutee
2008-05-30, 09:13 AM
Still, I think if females can release pheromones to arouse males than we can charm person them. Seems fair to me.

One is subconscious, one is not.
How is this funny, really?

Solo
2008-05-30, 09:14 AM
Male arm sweat makes a women's periods more comfortable. So we masles do have pheromones of our own.

Though, they don't make them aroused justy not in pain.

Still, I think if females can release pheromones to arouse males than we can charm person them. Seems fair to me.

Pheremonal effects aren't quite in the same category as magical mental manipulation.

Starbuck_II
2008-05-30, 09:36 AM
One is subconscious, one is not.
How is this funny, really?

'Tis both subconscious: unless you tell her you charmed her.

Solo:


Pheremonal effects aren't quite in the same category as magical mental manipulation.

I disagree. Their body purposely produces the pheromones (while their mind may not do it pirposely). Both manipulate you.

Solo
2008-05-30, 09:46 AM
Solo:

I disagree. Their body purposely produces the pheromones (while their mind may not do it pirposely). Both manipulate you.

And the body purposely produces magical mental manipulation as a natural act, does it?

Rutee
2008-05-30, 09:48 AM
'Tis both subconscious: unless you tell her you charmed her.

Spellcasting requires deliberate effort. I'm pretty sure you don't cast spells subconsciously. If you do, my apologies.

Blanks
2008-05-30, 09:48 AM
People talk about diplomacy like its a spell. You can "cast" diplomacy on unwilling teammates or cheerleaders.

But that way of talking about it is causing problems in the perception of the problem. Diplomacy cannot be turned off. It is an increased understanding of something, knowing the right way to appear, and guessing what argument would be most effective. Someone who has a high diplomacy skill automatically uses it in every discussion. Otherwise we are saying they do not choose the most efficient argument.

Diplomacy is therefore a constant, nonmagical effect, which the user may or may not be aware of.

Charm is a oneshot, magical effect, which, without DM ruling otherwise, the user is always aware of.

Diplomacy is not evil because saying "wanna ****" and "want to go watch the stars together", really is no different, just phrasing something differently or choosing the superior argument.

HidaTsuzua
2008-05-30, 10:16 AM
If DnD was real life, then the DM would disallow diplomacheese.


While diplomacy in D&D hurts my gamer soul every time I take a look at it, it is RAW. And the argument is that diplomacy and charm are very similar in their effects (target becomes friendly after a round). The GM could disallow diplomacheese or charm or make them 5d10 damage or whatever.

Now realistically diplomacy doesn't work like that, but really could it just be a sign that free will and choice isn't that strong in D&D to begin with? If that's the case, then charm isn't anywhere near as bad some people make it out to be. It's magical assault at the least however. Not okay in many circumstances, but not a horrible autoevil crime against nature.

Solo
2008-05-30, 10:18 AM
While diplomacy in D&D hurts my gamer soul every time I take a look at it, it is RAW. And the argument is that diplomacy and charm are very similar in their effects (target becomes friendly after a round). The GM could disallow diplomacheese or charm or make them 5d10 damage or whatever.

Now realistically diplomacy doesn't work like that, but really could it just be a sign that free will and choice isn't that strong in D&D to begin with? If that's the case, then charm isn't anywhere near as bad some people make it out to be. It's magical assault at the least however. Not okay in many circumstances, but not a horrible autoevil crime against nature.

You know, even assuming diplomacheese is allowed, if you really charmed a girl, she woudn't necessarily hop into bed with you. Charming doesn't override chastity, fidelity, and etc.

elliott20
2008-05-30, 10:21 AM
but diplomacy *IS* different. at least, from a more fundamental level it is. While yes it is a deeper understanding of human nature and social interaction, it is hinged on one thing: that your target is going to be receptive to what you're saying. In order for it to function, the target must be willing to listen to what you have to say or at least be willing to observe you.

By RAW, you're right, diplomacy is competely unavoidable by anyone who is not outright hostile. But in real life, diplomacy is anything but a certain. And sometimes, a person is just not going to want to have anything to do with you. you can't reach out to them to convince them because they simply do not give you the chance to even reach out to them.

charm person? guy's just gotta be able to see you.

Starbuck_II
2008-05-30, 10:24 AM
charm person? guy's just gotta be able to see you.

Unless he can see with his hands: than he just has to feel you. (Synesthete how I love thee)

Dervag
2008-05-30, 10:36 AM
Imagine the same nerdy wizard, only instead they use Charm Person to overcome the initial barrier of acquaintance.

There are a lot of nerdy people who are actually fairly personable, but have trouble approaching people and talking to them. It's not that they're consciously obnoxious or that they have terrible hygiene or anything, it's just that their social skills are underdeveloped to the point where it's hard for them to make friends.

So the wizard casts Charm Person on the cheerleader, but instead of using it as a tool for getting an immediate make-out, he uses it to start a conversation in which he seems really smart and funny to her and so forth. Then he leaves after a while, and the spell wears off.

The next day, the cheerleader remembers him being smart and funny, which will likely improve her perception of him enough that they will continue to interact. The wizard doesn't keep casting the spell, they just use it the once.

What's the morality of that?

Solo
2008-05-30, 10:40 AM
Imagine the same nerdy wizard, only instead they use Charm Person to overcome the initial barrier of acquaintance.

There are a lot of nerdy people who are actually fairly personable, but have trouble approaching people and talking to them. It's not that they're consciously obnoxious or that they have terrible hygiene or anything, it's just that their social skills are underdeveloped to the point where it's hard for them to make friends.

So the wizard casts Charm Person on the cheerleader, but instead of using it as a tool for getting an immediate make-out, he uses it to start a conversation in which he seems really smart and funny to her and so forth. Then he leaves after a while, and the spell wears off.

The next day, the cheerleader remembers him being smart and funny, which will likely improve her perception of him enough that they will continue to interact. The wizard doesn't keep casting the spell, they just use it the once.

What's the morality of that?

IMHO, it'd be like buying someone a few drinks and talking with them.

Except they don't choose to down the drinks. You choose for them.

Starbuck_II
2008-05-30, 10:41 AM
Imagine the same nerdy wizard, only instead they use Charm Person to overcome the initial barrier of acquaintance.

What's the morality of that?

That sounds like a genuinely good and pure reason. Somehow, my conscious says I still shouldn't do it. Probably the whole absolute power corrupts issue.

But if you can contain yourself: seems fine enough to me.

Scintillatus
2008-05-30, 10:41 AM
The use of ANY force in order to alter an individual's perception and mind is an evil act.

The end, quite frankly. Dressing up does not alter an individual's perception, it alters your appearance. Applying perfume is the same. The line is drawn when you alter SOMEONE ELSE. Simple as that.

Starbuck_II
2008-05-30, 10:44 AM
The use of ANY force in order to alter an individual's perception and mind is an evil act.

The end, quite frankly. Dressing up does not alter an individual's perception, it alters your appearance. Applying perfume is the same. The line is drawn when you alter SOMEONE ELSE. Simple as that.

But the Book of Exalted Deeds lets you as a good act force evil being to become good.
So at least in D&D, it is good to force an altering of another perception. Niot just good, exalted. Paladins look like crack whores compared to exalted people. It is just that good.

MartinHarper
2008-05-30, 10:48 AM
The use of ANY force in order to alter an individual's perception and mind is an evil act.

The end, quite frankly. Dressing up does not alter an individual's perception, it alters your appearance. Applying perfume is the same. The line is drawn when you alter SOMEONE ELSE. Simple as that.

By making this post, you indirectly ALTERed my plans for the next five minutes. Previously I was going to read another thread, but now I have decided to tell you that you're wrong.

Solo
2008-05-30, 10:50 AM
But the Book of Exalted Deeds lets you as a good act force evil being to become good.

It is also bollocks.

Craig1f
2008-05-30, 10:50 AM
You know, even assuming diplomacheese is allowed, if you really charmed a girl, she woudn't necessarily hop into bed with you. Charming doesn't override chastity, fidelity, and etc.

Likewise, charming just makes the subject regard you as friendly. It wouldn't override, say, 15 years of loyalty to the captain of a ship, if you charm his crew for example. They'd regard you as a friend, but would remain fanatic to their captain.

Charm is a form of attack, but I'd argue it is a lesser evil than violence. Any time you are able to avoid killing someone by charming them, you've done a good thing.

I would say that the "evilness" of charming someone depends on how much the victim would hypothetically disagree with his charmed actions, after coming out of the charm.

So like, if you charm a good person into stealing something for you, that's pretty bad. But if you charm a thief into stealing something for you, that's not as bad, since the person is a thief anyway. It's in their nature.

Wraith_Lord
2008-05-30, 10:52 AM
So...

How does perfume or cologne fit into this picture? You wear it to smell nice, and in many cases the point of the exercise is to exert a subconscious influence on others.

I agree there is a line between acceptable steps to take in the quest for likeability and unacceptable steps. But where do we draw that line? What counts as unacceptable messing with the other person's head and what doesn't?

Kantian Deontological ethics would say that you cross the line when you use another moral agent (ie. person) as a means to an end rather than treating them as an end in themselves.

Essentially you cross the line when you attempt to override another person's moral will...

Of course, with that said, deontology is only one branch of normative ethical theory and you could just as equally take a utilitarian consequentialist view of things and say that you cross the line when the suffering caused by your action outweighs the happiness resulting from it. The greatest good for the greatest number as they say...

Solo
2008-05-30, 10:53 AM
Likewise, charming just makes the subject regard you as friendly. It wouldn't override, say, 15 years of loyalty to the captain of a ship, if you charm his crew for example.

You may make charisma checks to convince a subject to do something he would not normally do.


But if you charm a thief into stealing something for you, that's not as bad, since the person is a thief anyway. It's in their nature.
Don't go there.

GoC
2008-05-30, 11:01 AM
btw: Suppose there are a race of people who expel pheromones that make others sexually attracted to them. One of them decides to magically increase his natural pheromone release rate. Has he done something wrong?
No answer to this?
Anyway here's two more questions:
1. Why is it ok to charm someone with wit and a sexy body but not with a carefully crafted charm spell? Both have the same net effect (charm isn't a date-rape drug).
2. Would it be wrong to give someone greater empathy? This would lead them to like you better. Interestingly, today we force people via mind-altering drugs to have greater empathy.


If the female is not aroused, it turns into a really messy affair. Trust me.
Similar to the monkey show on discovery?

Solo
2008-05-30, 11:02 AM
No answer to this?
Anyway here's two more questions:
1. Why is it ok to charm someone with wit and a sexy body but not with a carefully crafted charm spell? Both have the same net effect (charm isn't a date-rape drug).

Charming and Charming are two different things. One is voluntary, the other is less.

I take it you agree that relationships must be consensual, right?

HidaTsuzua
2008-05-30, 11:05 AM
You know, even assuming diplomacheese is allowed, if you really charmed a girl, she woudn't necessarily hop into bed with you. Charming doesn't override chastity, fidelity, and etc.

Yeah. They get friendly attitude either way. For some, they might be enough to sleep with you with others not. Technically you might still be able to bed someone when an opposed charisma roll (flat probability curve ftw) with charm, but that implies some degree of interaction anyways (just like diplomacy). Diplomacy is worse in its own way since it's only another +10-15 to get them to helpful (we won't touch epic usage).

I'm only talking about charm X spells not dominate X. My point is that diplomacy and charm are very similar in terms of outcome and morally equivalent in terms of means (casting a not [evil] spell in D&D is morally neutral just like talking to someone).

GoC
2008-05-30, 11:12 AM
People talk about diplomacy like its a spell. You can "cast" diplomacy on unwilling teammates or cheerleaders.

But that way of talking about it is causing problems in the perception of the problem. Diplomacy cannot be turned off. It is an increased understanding of something, knowing the right way to appear, and guessing what argument would be most effective. Someone who has a high diplomacy skill automatically uses it in every discussion. Otherwise we are saying they do not choose the most efficient argument.

Diplomacy is therefore a constant, nonmagical effect, which the user may or may not be aware of.
It isn't constant by RAW (requires you to decide to roll) and the user is aware of it. He can decide not to use his charming ways.


The use of ANY force in order to alter an individual's perception and mind is an evil act.

The end, quite frankly. Dressing up does not alter an individual's perception, it alters your appearance. Applying perfume is the same. The line is drawn when you alter SOMEONE ELSE. Simple as that.
Dressing up alters their perception indirectly. Putting chemicals in the air is also indirect.
And being charming is a force that alters perceptions.


Charming and Charming are two different things. One is voluntary, the other is less.
In D&D they are both involuntary.

Solo
2008-05-30, 11:12 AM
Yeah. They get friendly attitude either way. For some, they might be enough to sleep with you with others not. Technically you might still be able to bed someone when an opposed charisma roll (flat probability curve ftw) with charm, but that implies some degree of interaction anyways (just like diplomacy). Diplomacy is worse in its own way since it's only another +10-15 to get them to helpful (we won't touch epic usage).


Friendly. Not that kind of friendly.


Technically you might still be able to bed someone when an opposed charisma roll (flat probability curve ftw)
Explicitly stated to work in the spell Charm Person. Undefined in use of Diplomacy.

HidaTsuzua
2008-05-30, 11:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by HidaTsuzua View Post
Yeah. They get friendly attitude either way. For some, they might be enough to sleep with you with others not. Technically you might still be able to bed someone when an opposed charisma roll (flat probability curve ftw) with charm, but that implies some degree of interaction anyways (just like diplomacy). Diplomacy is worse in its own way since it's only another +10-15 to get them to helpful (we won't touch epic usage).

Friendly. Not that kind of friendly.


Quote:
Technically you might still be able to bed someone when an opposed charisma roll (flat probability curve ftw)

Explicitly stated to work in the spell Charm Person. Undefined in use of Diplomacy.

Both diplomacy and Charm use friendly attitude. Also I said what that entails depends on the person. There are people that'll go with just friendly and others not. What it does mean is that they're friendly and thus wish me well and possibly chat, advise, offer limited help, advocate. My point is that charm and diplomacy are extremely similar in net effect and each is worse in its own way; charm in the opposed test and diplomacy in no-save nature and better than friendly results.

Also,

Technically you might still be able to bed someone when an opposed charisma roll (flat probability curve ftw) with charm

elliott20
2008-05-30, 12:44 PM
The use of ANY force in order to alter an individual's perception and mind is an evil act.

The end, quite frankly. Dressing up does not alter an individual's perception, it alters your appearance. Applying perfume is the same. The line is drawn when you alter SOMEONE ELSE. Simple as that.

Obi-wan: "You don't want to sell me deathsticks"
Drug Pusher: "I don't want to sell you deathsticks"
Obi-wan: "You want to go home and think about your life"
Drug Pusher: "I want to go home and think about my life"

damn, does his evil know no bounds?

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-30, 12:51 PM
Obi-wan: "You don't want to sell me deathsticks"
Drug Pusher: "I don't want to sell you deathsticks"
Obi-wan: "You want to go home and think about your life"
Drug Pusher: "I want to go home and think about my life"

damn, does his evil know no bounds?

That's not evil. It's merely useless. The guy's gonna go home, think about his life, and then decide he likes it as is.

Dervag
2008-05-30, 01:09 PM
The use of ANY force in order to alter an individual's perception and mind is an evil act.

The end, quite frankly. Dressing up does not alter an individual's perception, it alters your appearance. Applying perfume is the same. The line is drawn when you alter SOMEONE ELSE. Simple as that.What about using illusions to alter someone's perception and make you impossible for them to see? Or to create the perception that you have a huge fierce bodyguard?

I can easily imagine scenarios where the use of illusions could be a Neutral act, despite the fact that illusions definitely "alter an individual's perception," if not their mind.

As for mind-altering, what about magic that hypnotizes a subject, used for purposes of temporary distraction? Is that intrinsically evil?
______________________________


Kantian Deontological ethics would say that you cross the line when you use another moral agent (ie. person) as a means to an end rather than treating them as an end in themselves.

Essentially you cross the line when you attempt to override another person's moral will...Very well. Now, where does that line lie? Presumably, verbal persuasion does not involve using a moral agent as a means to an end because you're trying to persuade them. What about dressing up to look more impressive? Cologne? Pheromones? Space-based mind control lasers?

You've identified a reasonable place to draw the line, but where am I to find that place?
_____________________________


That's not evil. It's merely useless. The guy's gonna go home, think about his life, and then decide he likes it as is.Well, that depends on whether or not he likes himself, doesn't it? I mean, it isn't a surefire way of convincing the guy to quit pushing drugs. But it might work, and it definitely gets him out of Obi-Wan's hair. So it's good enough for a rush job.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-30, 01:17 PM
What about using illusions to alter someone's perception and make you impossible for them to see? Or to create the perception that you have a huge fierce bodyguard?

I can easily imagine scenarios where the use of illusions could be a Neutral act, despite the fact that illusions definitely "alter an individual's perception," if not their mind.

As for mind-altering, what about magic that hypnotizes a subject, used for purposes of temporary distraction? Is that intrinsically evil?
______________________________

Very well. Now, where does that line lie? Presumably, verbal persuasion does not involve using a moral agent as a means to an end because you're trying to persuade them. What about dressing up to look more impressive? Cologne? Pheromones? Space-based mind control lasers?

You've identified a reasonable place to draw the line, but where am I to find that place?
_____________________________

Well, that depends on whether or not he likes himself, doesn't it? I mean, it isn't a surefire way of convincing the guy to quit pushing drugs. But it might work, and it definitely gets him out of Obi-Wan's hair. So it's good enough for a rush job.

Essentially, what wraith lord seems to think is that direct manipulation, for any kind of benefit other than self defense, is evil. Which makes sense, in fact. Forcing someone to be good doesn't make them good, it just hides things under the carpet.

And of course, the mind trick is useful to get the guy out of the way. But I don't think that's what elliot was talking about. I could be wrong, though.

Scintillatus
2008-05-30, 01:20 PM
This crosses over from raw evil and into the realm of justification and intent, which is just as easily responded to with "any manipulatons of free will for solely selfish purposes are evil".

It's weird how ethics discussions are so similar to RAW/RAI discussions...

Collin152
2008-05-30, 01:43 PM
You all know that, IRL, they have invented female pheromones that girl can put on and guys (any guy) will act.. quite irrationnaly around them? Will want to help them, talk to them, etc...

The product itself is quite costly, if I remember. Is it immoral to use such device?

I remember getting something like that on me. It diddn't last nearly as long as I'd have preferred. It works, to be sure.
Must get some of it. In high enough quantities, it might override the greatest flaw in most guys...

elliott20
2008-05-30, 02:01 PM
I remember getting something like that on me. It diddn't last nearly as long as I'd have preferred. It works, to be sure.
Must get some of it. In high enough quantities, it might override the greatest flaw in most guys...

overwhelming BO?

PaladinBoy
2008-05-30, 02:05 PM
The use of ANY force in order to alter an individual's perception and mind is an evil act.


This crosses over from raw evil and into the realm of justification and intent, which is just as easily responded to with "any manipulatons of free will for solely selfish purposes are evil".

These two aren't the same thing. I don't agree with the first, because as others have mentioned, there are circumstances where manipulating someone's mind can have good effects. The second is more specific and probably correct.

Really, I view charm and dominate magic in much the same way I view violence: acceptable under certain circumstances. I don't see either as being inherently good or evil. Rather, I hold that it is impossible to morally define either without knowing the circumstances, the reasons, and the use it was put to.

With that definition, it is possible to say that violence is not always evil, but murder (defined as killing for selfish reasons) is always evil. Charm magic is a little more complicated, given the absence of lasting harm (provided the spell is allowed to wear off) but it could be morally defined in a similar fashion. I don't think I'd go so far as to say that any selfish use of such magic is evil, but I can think of a few uses which would always be evil.

Collin152
2008-05-30, 02:12 PM
overwhelming BO?

Heterosexuality.

Jayabalard
2008-05-30, 03:14 PM
Wikipedia is your friend (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pheromone#Humans)

But do not really tried to find pheromones on sale.

Solo: It simply create an irrational sexual arousal of male around that woman. Off course, I guess if a potential victim is.. err.. "cold", that person will simply warm up to the woman for no reason. I have read the article of a reporter who said she tried it and went shopping to the grocery. She met a guy in an alleyway, and the man seemed really confused by his own over-courtesy toward her.Looks like the linked article doesn't really back that up: "Despite these claims, no pheromonal substance has ever been demonstrated to directly influence human behavior in a peer reviewed study.[14][16][15]"

AKA_Bait
2008-05-30, 03:25 PM
Looks like the linked article doesn't really back that up: "Despite these claims, no pheromonal substance has ever been demonstrated to directly influence human behavior in a peer reviewed study.[14][16][15]"

Yeah, that's what I thought. Didn't read the linked article, although I've seen/read several articles/science shows on the topic, all of which concluded at the end that there was no proven effect.

GoC
2008-05-30, 04:25 PM
This crosses over from raw evil and into the realm of justification and intent, which is just as easily responded to with "any manipulatons of free will for solely selfish purposes are evil".

What is a "manipulation of free will"?
I've also got three other unanswered questions in this thread.

Blanks
2008-05-30, 04:26 PM
there was no proven effect. I have read at least 3 different studies (well, articles about them...) that says "pheromones should work theoretically, we just can't get them to in practice" :smallsmile:

Scintillatus
2008-05-30, 04:28 PM
Domination of the mind, re-writing memory, coercion, other applications of force against another person. Essentially, something that changes them as a person; the examples of "well what if I put on deoderant" is simply a change to make yourself less foul-smelling. Changing someone's perception of you by way of magically altering their mind is crossing the line.

Does that answer your question?

Collin152
2008-05-30, 04:31 PM
Domination of the mind, re-writing memory, coercion, other applications of force against another person. Essentially, something that changes them as a person; the examples of "well what if I put on deoderant" is simply a change to make yourself less foul-smelling. Changing someone's perception of you by way of magically altering their mind is crossing the line.

Does that answer your question?

So...
Illusion=Good
Enchantment= Evil?

I object.

Starbuck_II
2008-05-30, 04:36 PM
So...
Illusion=Good
Enchantment= Evil?

I object.

So is a he saying the illusion of an enchantment is neutral or good?

Scintillatus
2008-05-30, 04:49 PM
All actions are neutral or good depending upon their intent and the resulting circumstances. But unprovoked force for no greater reason than personal benefit = evil.

Simple? I'll just bow out if I'm not making it too clear, I suck at this compared to my more ethically-oriented buddies.

Devils_Advocate
2008-05-30, 05:56 PM
The ethics of mind-effecting magic are tricky. For starters, the notion that you're violating the target's free will is questionable. I don't know about you, but I have limited control over my own emotions. I don't necessarily consciously choose how I feel about somebody, only how I act on my feelings. If my feelings about a person are the result of a magic spell, well, that doesn't make them any less involuntary.

Of course, similarly, we have limited control at best over when and how we die. So let's say that there's an old hermit living in a shack on top of a hill. What if you kill him in his sleep and take all his stuff? Well, his soul reforms as a petitioner on one of the outer planes without memory of his previous existence. Now, his death was forced on him without his consent, but that was probably going to happen anyway, whether it was done by the natural workings of the unfeeling multiverse or by a sentient being. At least this way it's benefiting somebody, i.e. you. And you made sure he didn't suffer in dying, which he might have otherwise. (Let's assume that you are a trained assassin, skilled in such things.) And he can't regret losing a life that he doesn't even know he had...

So is killing someone OK so long as there's nobody else who's going to miss him? (That's not a rhetorical question, by the way. I'm sincerely asking what exactly makes killing Evil, in whichever cases you consider it to be Evil.)

"Look, I can't be the only one who appreciates the symmetry of the situation. He had a donkey, and we needed a donkey to pull the cart. Now, we have a donkey, and he doesn't need anything anymore. Everybody wins!"


People who don't have friends are sad.
People who have friends are happy.
Making people happy is a good thing to do.

So, I would surmise that giving people more friends would make them happier, thus making a casting of Charm Person a good act!

(Also, a tangent about solving Good/Evil D&D morality problems)

Use Detect Good
Kill all the Good-aligned people so they go to the Upper Planes, a place of pure happiness and bliss.
Then, torture all the evil and neutral people until they agree to do enough Good acts to become Good-aligned.
Kill them too.
Then, since this has turned you Evil, slap on a Helm of Opposite Alignment.
Choose to fail your save automatically, thus turning you Good.
Kill yourself.
Now everyone is in eternal happiness with absolutely no negative consequences.
I would suggest that torture might be considered a negative consequence of your plan.

If your goal is eternal bliss for everyone, it's far better and just more straightforward to simply transport everyone to the Blessed Fields of Elysium and imprison them there. There, the plane of ultimate goodness will force them to be happy whether they want to or not. And if any of them would actually prefer not to be happy, the plane will eventually make them stop wanting not to be happy, the big sillies, and want to be happy instead. If turns them into outsiders, even, so they get all the benefits they would have if you had just killed them, like not needing to eat or sleep.

So over the long term, you maximize happiness and preference satisfaction and minimize coercion. (Elysium's residents are generally respectful of each other's rights. At least moreso than people on the Prime Material Plane.) There may be some short term losses involved, but such is the case with a lot of good plans. Do not be dissuaded simply because a lot of the minimized number of unpleasant things going forward may have to be done by you, personally. There is no room in Goodness for such self-centered concerns.

Of course, in either case, we're definitely looking at an "easier said than done" scenario, but I'm thinking that transporting everyone on one planet to another plane would probably be easier than sorting everyone out by alignment, and coercing people to do Good. (There's also the complicated issue of whether anything agreed to for one's own benefit can even be considered a Good deed.) A sufficiently epic spell could probably do it in one go, even. You might even be able to move the whole planet and not just its inhabitants; I mean, we're talking about sticking it somewhere in an infinite plane; there must be room there somewhere; I'm sure appropriate arrangements could be made. It ought to be easy to find a bunch of solars willing to help with such a noble endeavor.

Then you can move on to the next planet.

Worira
2008-05-30, 05:59 PM
No answer to this?
Anyway here's two more questions:
1. Why is it ok to charm someone with wit and a sexy body but not with a carefully crafted charm spell? Both have the same net effect (charm isn't a date-rape drug).


Being able to issue someone an order to have sex with you, regardless of whether they want to or not, is the same as being handsome and amusing? Really?

Collin152
2008-05-30, 06:05 PM
Being able to issue someone an order to have sex with you, regardless of whether they want to or not, is the same as being handsome and amusing? Really?

How handsome are we talking here?

PaladinBoy
2008-05-30, 08:21 PM
The ethics of mind-effecting magic are tricky. For starters, the notion that you're violating the target's free will is questionable. I don't know about you, but I have limited control over my own emotions. I don't necessarily consciously choose how I feel about somebody, only how I act on my feelings. If my feelings about a person are the result of a magic spell, well, that doesn't make them any less involuntary.

That is... actually a very good point. We do have limited control over our emotions and reactions, though, which charm magic tends to limit even further and dominate magic tends to remove. It doesn't seem good to remove that free will.


Of course, similarly, we have limited control at best over when and how we die. So let's say that there's an old hermit living in a shack on top of a hill. What if you kill him in his sleep and take all his stuff? Well, his soul reforms as a petitioner on one of the outer planes without memory of his previous existence. Now, his death was forced on him without his consent, but that was probably going to happen anyway, whether it was done by the natural workings of the unfeeling multiverse or by a sentient being. At least this way it's benefiting somebody, i.e. you. And you made sure he didn't suffer in dying, which he might have otherwise. (Let's assume that you are a trained assassin, skilled in such things.) And he can't regret losing a life that he doesn't even know he had...

So is killing someone OK so long as there's nobody else who's going to miss him? (That's not a rhetorical question, by the way. I'm sincerely asking what exactly makes killing Evil, in whichever cases you consider it to be Evil.)

"Look, I can't be the only one who appreciates the symmetry of the situation. He had a donkey, and we needed a donkey to pull the cart. Now, we have a donkey, and he doesn't need anything anymore. Everybody wins!"

In most cases where it is evil, killing is evil because it is a matter of you not having the right to decide how they die. It is not good to decide that someone's life is over without their consent (with their consent is a whole other issue entirely). You are denying them any potential or chance for future development. The way I often say it is that everyone has a heart, dreams, and potential. Even if the first two aren't worth keeping, I hold that the third always is (although I do concede that some circumstances merit killing anyway).

Similar analogies can be drawn with charm magic. You don't have the right to usurp what limited control people have over their emotions. Charm magic is generally less severe, though, since it is more reversible - there are fewer (or no) lasting consequences.


If your goal is eternal bliss for everyone, it's far better and just more straightforward to simply transport everyone to the Blessed Fields of Elysium and imprison them there. There, the plane of ultimate goodness will force them to be happy whether they want to or not. And if any of them would actually prefer not to be happy, the plane will eventually make them stop wanting not to be happy, the big sillies, and want to be happy instead. If turns them into outsiders, even, so they get all the benefits they would have if you had just killed them, like not needing to eat or sleep.

So over the long term, you maximize happiness and preference satisfaction and minimize coercion. (Elysium's residents are generally respectful of each other's rights. At least moreso than people on the Prime Material Plane.) There may be some short term losses involved, but such is the case with a lot of good plans. Do not be dissuaded simply because a lot of the minimized number of unpleasant things going forward may have to be done by you, personally. There is no room in Goodness for such self-centered concerns.

I don't agree with this. In the end, that would be a hollow victory. Good is much more lasting and meaningful when it is not coerced. Evil methods, such as denying the free will of millions of people on a permananent basis, essentially mean that you're aiming lower that ultimate Good. That will inevitably taint whatever you manage to accomplish.

Besides which, I would worry that the influx of large populations of neutral and evil people would corrupt the plane itself and make it nongood before the entrapment took hold. There are some precedents for a plane's inhabitants affecting its alignment...... I think.

Dervag
2008-05-30, 11:42 PM
All actions are neutral or good depending upon their intent and the resulting circumstances. But unprovoked force for no greater reason than personal benefit = evil.

Simple? I'll just bow out if I'm not making it too clear, I suck at this compared to my more ethically-oriented buddies.Well, now it's clear enough. However, the real question is where the boundary between 'force' and nonforce lies. Magic to enhance your appearance is apparently kosher, but magic to remove your intended's perception that your appearance is bad not. Why? There ought to be an underlying reason.
____________________________


Domination of the mind, re-writing memory, coercion, other applications of force against another person. Essentially, something that changes them as a person; the examples of "well what if I put on deoderant" is simply a change to make yourself less foul-smelling. Changing someone's perception of you by way of magically altering their mind is crossing the line.What if you magically render them unable to smell your personal foul odor, but do nothing otherwise? You are in no way endangering or harming them. I'm not saying it isn't wrong then, but why is it wrong if it's wrong?
_____________________________________


I remember getting something like that on me. It diddn't last nearly as long as I'd have preferred. It works, to be sure.
Must get some of it. In high enough quantities, it might override the greatest flaw in most guys...I don't think that would work. You might horribly confuse them, and leave them with memories that would haunt them for the rest of their lives, but I suspect you could not completely override visual and tactile information via olfactory channels.
____________________________


This crosses over from raw evil and into the realm of justification and intent, which is just as easily responded to with "any manipulatons of free will for solely selfish purposes are evil".

It's weird how ethics discussions are so similar to RAW/RAI discussions...I'm not sure you know what my line of reasoning is. I'm not saying you'd agree with it if you did, but here goes:

Note that I am not arguing RAW. The people at Wizards of the Coast are not good moral philosophers and I cannot trust their judgement. This is therefore an argument of ethics and moral philosophy. I use the concepts of alignment because they make sense in the game universe, but I do not feel it is either wise or possible to restrict myself to rules as-written in coming up with a coherent philosophy of Good and Evil in D&D.
_______________________________

I believe that an action is only aligned for Good/Evil if the following conditions are met:

-The action is likely to have significant good/bad results. Actions such as choosing to wear a different color shirt normally don't count, for instance. They have no significant results of any kind.

-The result is a foreseeable consequence of the action. A good person who feeds a starving orphan has not committed an Evil act, even if the orphan grows up to cause all kinds of horrible things to happen. Conversely, warlord Frazznargth the Impious has not committed a Good act if, in the process of rampaging through the countryside, his troops spontaneously decide to detain the messenger an evil cult was relying on for its foul aims. He had no idea the cult was going to be stopped. His decision to rampage through the countryside led to the cult being stopped, yes, but even if he did no evil whatsoever it would still be merely a Neutral act.

-Intent roughly matches consequences. To return to the previous example, Frazznargth the Impious did not intend to stop an evil cult. Even if he could reasonably have known it was going to happen, it doesn't matter if he didn't want it to happen. Similarly, if an evil villain inadvertently provides food to a starving orphan getting fed without that villain's knowledge or consent, the act of feeding an orphan is not Good for that villain; it is Neutral.

You may not agree, but I hope you'll at least agree this makes some sense and is a reasonable viewpoint.
_______________________________

Some actions could be right in some cases, wrong in others, and neutral in still others, depending on intent and circumstances. For example, lighting a fire is neutral if you're doing it to cook your supper. Lighting a fire is Good if, at great personal risk, you lit the signal fire to summon the Armies of Light to forestall the Great Evil from destroying the world. Lighting a fire is Evil if you are trying to burn down the orphanage for giggles.

I would argue that "using mind-affecting magic" is, in broad, Neutral, just as "lighting a fire" is Neutral. Saying that a person used mind-affecting magic does not give us sufficient information to tell us whether they have done something wrong.

For example, I might use mind-affecting magic as a tranquilizer to remove someone's ability to feel pain from a terrible injury while a powerful magical cure takes effect.

Conversely, I might use it as a ghoulish execution method- if by removing their ability to perceive pain I guarantee that they will unknowingly suffer a lethal injury because they didn't avoid the pain before it became lethal.
_________________________

Simply the fact that I used magic that affected my subject's mind does not mean I have done Good or Evil, because it contains no information on intent or circumstances. Both of which are highly relevant. We cannot in good conscience construct an absolute Kantian Rule that mind-affecting magic is always Evil, because quite often it simply isn't a wrong thing to do.

Collin152
2008-05-31, 12:14 AM
Confusing them will work juuuuuuust fine.

Frosty
2008-05-31, 12:32 AM
So, if altering yourself is ok, then let's say there's a spell which gives you +30 to Diplomacy, and you used that skill to get someone into bed, because gosh darn it, you're just that DARNED convincing for CL x 10 minutes. Would that be better than using Charm Person?

Solo
2008-05-31, 12:52 AM
You're basically asking if it's ok to make yourself a sexy beast for 10 minutes?

Cuddly
2008-05-31, 01:07 AM
Envision this scenario. A lonely high school guy can't get it on with girls, so he goes to a party, exposes a cheerleader with huge.... charisma to a mind altering substance, and retreats into the bedroom with her.

What do you think?

I call it a ****ing good party.

Solo
2008-05-31, 01:22 AM
I call it a ****ing good party.

I shall invite your female relatives to the next one that I attend. :smalltongue:

Blanks
2008-05-31, 02:04 AM
Isn't there a big difference between "spell of gain charisma" and "charm person"?
In one, you are changing yourself, thereby changing the way people percieve you. In charm person, you are reaching into their brain and changing them.

Thats a big difference to me. Net results may be the same, but there is clearly a moral difference.


Oh, and as others have said, DnD have actions being good or evil independent of results. Torture is always bad.
But I think a lot of people play their games a little bit more sophisticated than what WotC planned...

Ether
2008-05-31, 07:33 AM
1. Why is it ok to charm someone with wit and a sexy body but not with a carefully crafted charm spell? Both have the same net effect (charm isn't a date-rape drug).

Because with a Charm Spell you're infringing on a persons right to choose.

SolkaTruesilver
2008-05-31, 09:11 AM
Because with a Charm Spell you're infringing on a persons right to choose.

Since we have established that wits and sexy body can alter favorably one's opinion, I think anything that you do to influence is infringing on a person's right to choose.

Solo
2008-05-31, 09:15 AM
Since we have established that wits and sexy body can alter favorably one's opinion, I think anything that you do to influence is infringing on a person's right to choose.

If you are equating making yourself more charming to altering someone's mind so as to make yourself appear more charming...

Well, let's say the difference is like giving a kid a self esteem boosting talk and a makeover vs getting a girl drunk in order to charm her. And by "getting the girl drunk", I mean you force alcohol into her system, not allowing her the choice of whether to drink it or not.

Increasing your own attributes makes you more attractive, but the other person ultimately gets to choose whether or not to accept you as a friend or whatever.

Charm Person doesn't give that choice.

Yes, I know, by the rules a high diplomacy check is a trump card, but that's meta-knowledge.

Plus, I think in these kinds of discussions, where we have a hypothetical setting run by DnD rules, it is assumed that Gate-rape, candle of invocation exploits, Pun-Puning, and etc cheese do not exist.

Starbuck_II
2008-05-31, 09:19 AM
Because with a Charm Spell you're infringing on a persons right to choose.

There are many psychologist that say we do not have free will. So Charm Person cannot take away what we do not have.

In fact, some will go as far to say that a coerced confession is valid because there is no confession given of your own will. It is the stimulus in your environent that caused it.

Philosophy classes showed me that. I don't agree, but they do have a point. If we do not, than Charm Person is not wrong.

Solo
2008-05-31, 09:21 AM
There are many psychologist that say we do not have free will.

There are also many psychologists who say we do have free will. I think you forgot to mention that.

But in any case, assuming it is true about us not having free will, what would you think of someone who habitually drugged people in order to make friends/get laid?

He's not depriving them of free will, right? They never had it in the first place!

SolkaTruesilver
2008-05-31, 09:24 AM
If you are equating making yourself more charming to altering someone's mind so as to make yourself appear more charming...

Well, let's say the difference is like giving a kid a self esteem boosting talk and a makeover vs getting a girl drunk in order to charm her. And by "getting the girl drunk", I mean you force alcohol into her system, not allowing her the choice of whether to drink it or not.

Increasing your own attributes makes you more attractive, but the other person ultimately gets to choose whether or not to accept you as a friend or whatever.

Charm Person doesn't give that choice.

Yes, I know, by the rules a high diplomacy check is a trump card, but that's meta-knowledge.

Plus, I think in these kinds of discussions, where we have a hypothetical setting run by DnD rules, it is assumed that Gate-rape, candle of invocation exploits, Pun-Puning, and etc cheese do not exist.

Solo, you keep comparing Charm Person with getting someone drunk to abuse of them. It's not the same thing at all.

Drunk: - You loose all coherent cognitive function
- You loose (probably) memories of what happens
- You get a huge headache in the following morning

Charm Person: - You retain all your cognitive functions
- You remember everything that happened
- No side effect

The only thing a Charm Person spell does is make someone consider you as his trusted friend. It's not even remotely like alchool. Or rape-drug. The victim still has a choice wether or not sleeping with you. Or to talk or not to you.

Worira
2008-05-31, 09:30 AM
Solo, you keep comparing Charm Person with getting someone drunk to abuse of them. It's not the same thing at all.

Drunk: - You loose all coherent cognitive function
- You loose (probably) memories of what happens
- You get a huge headache in the following morning

Charm Person: - You retain all your cognitive functions
- You remember everything that happened
- No side effect

The only thing a Charm Person spell does is make someone consider you as his trusted friend. It's not even remotely like alchool. Or rape-drug. The victim still has a choice wether or not sleeping with you. Or to talk or not to you.

Again, you can issue orders. "Engage in sexual intercourse with me" is neither suicidal nor obviously harmful, so it's a valid order.

Solo
2008-05-31, 09:37 AM
The reason i use alcohol is because it makes you more vulnerable to suggestions, like Charm Person, though Charm Person does more than alcohol can.

A better analogy could me made with some sort of mild mind control drug, but we don't have those.


Officially.

Solo
2008-05-31, 09:47 AM
I fail to see why this debate is still on.

Just ask yourself this:

Would you like to be under the influence of Charm Person so that someone else can make you their friend?

If no, we can agree that Charm Person should probably not be used for the purposes that the OP described.

If yes, then well...

SolkaTruesilver
2008-05-31, 09:53 AM
I fail to see why this debate is still on.

Just ask yourself this:

Would you like to be under the influence of Charm Person so that someone else can make you their friend?

If no, we can agree that Charm Person should probably not be used for the purposes that the OP described.

If yes, then well...

I suggest we say : Would you like to know you have been under the influence of Charm Person so that someone else can make you their friend?

Since, when you actually ARE under the influence, I don't think you have a choice to like it..

Personnally, I'd say: it depends. If I remember that person simply hanged around and had a nice chat with me, then I wouldn't really care. If that person abused my friendship, then I would not like it afterward.

Solo
2008-05-31, 09:59 AM
I suggest we say : Would you like to know you have been under the influence of Charm Person so that someone else can make you their friend?

Since, when you actually ARE under the influence, I don't think you have a choice to like it..

Personnally, I'd say: it depends. If I remember that person simply hanged around and had a nice chat with me, then I wouldn't really care. If that person abused my friendship, then I would not like it afterward.

Well, since you get a will save, I think you'd know someone cast a spell on you.

So, you're saying as long as no one harms you, you're ok with giving them control over you?

SolkaTruesilver
2008-05-31, 10:16 AM
Well, since you get a will save, I think you'd know someone cast a spell on you.(1)

So, you're saying as long as no one harms you, you're ok with giving them control over (2) you?

(1) I'd say not. After all, it would ruin the purpose of the spell if the person knew he was being manipulated.

(2) They are not "gaining control over me", the guy MADE HIMSELF MY FRIEND. I do not have to obey his every order! I still have my life, I still have to go to work, have my other friends, my interests, etc..

If he made me his thrall, then sure, that's outright bad. But in the scope of what the spell actually does, then I don't really care, as long as he doesn't use the new friendship for things that would harm me, or make me regret. What do I actually care? It's not like I usually have any choice over who I like and who I don't. I just usually do, period.

Blanks
2008-05-31, 10:17 AM
Come on, saying perfume and charm person is just silly. Just like questioning the existence of free will.

Maybe you don't believe in free will, perhaps you do, but its really not relevant to the discussion...

Perfume and charm person is NOT the same (would you object if all your spell slots were switched with perfume bottles?)

Solo
2008-05-31, 10:19 AM
(1) I'd say not. After all, it would ruin the purpose of the spell if the person knew he was being manipulated.
So, when someone makes a will save, does he know he's being hit with a spell?
[
quote]
(2) They are not "gaining control over me", the guy MADE HIMSELF MY FRIEND. I do not have to obey his every order! I still have my life, I still have to go to work, have my other friends, my interests, etc..[/QUOTE]


The spell does not enable you to control the charmed person as if it were an automaton, but it perceives your words and actions in the most favorable way. You can try to give the subject orders, but you must win an opposed Charisma check to convince it to do anything it wouldn’t ordinarily do.

No, you do not have to obey his every order. However, he can still order you about.

Flickerdart
2008-05-31, 10:23 AM
Wait a moment.

If Charisma equals...er, all kinds of attractiveness, does "Eagle's Splendour" function like an "Alter Self" of sorts?

Blanks
2008-05-31, 10:26 AM
(1) I'd say not. After all, it would ruin the purpose of the spell if the person knew he was being manipulated.
Agreed


(2) They are not "gaining control over me", the guy MADE HIMSELF MY FRIEND. I do not have to obey his every order! I still have my life, I still have to go to work, have my other friends, my interests, etc..He can get you to do things you normally wouldn't with an ability check. Thats a form of control.

And lets be clear about this:
He is not your friend!
He makes you think he is your friend, but really he could hate you like the plague. Describing it as a normal friendship is misrepresenting the facts - If it was a normal friendship, he wouldn't need the spell!


EDIT:
Removed a quote to focus my message :smallsmile:

SolkaTruesilver
2008-05-31, 10:39 AM
No, you do not have to obey his every order. However, he can still order you about.

Yhea, with opposed charisma check, I know.

But as I said earlier, the only thing he do (and the only thing the OP was talking about) was simply hanging out with you. No sex involved, nothing else. Merely be friends, be it artificial friendship or not.

I wouldn't really much care about it. Since, in the inside of the spell, I'm alongside a friend, why would I care? In the outside of the spell, the memories I have of the time spent with the guy are good memories. Off course, if he shows up again, he would probably want to charm me again if he wants me to tolerate him.

Ziren
2008-05-31, 10:51 AM
Yhea, with opposed charisma check, I know.

But as I said earlier, the only thing he do (and the only thing the OP was talking about) was simply hanging out with you. No sex involved, nothing else. Merely be friends, be it artificial friendship or not.

I wouldn't really much care about it. Since, in the inside of the spell, I'm alongside a friend, why would I care? In the outside of the spell, the memories I have of the time spent with the guy are good memories. Off course, if he shows up again, he would probably want to charm me again if he wants me to tolerate him.

So, you as a person, that isn't magicaly and mind-altering influenced, would care whether you had spent the time with a real friend or just someone who tricked you into believing he/she would be your friend.

And you're seriously arguing it wouldn't be unethical?

EDIT: Paraphrased the first sentence for clarity.

SolkaTruesilver
2008-05-31, 10:59 AM
So you as a person without any magical and mind-altering influence would care whether you had spent the time with a real friend or someone who tricked you into believing he/she would be your friend.

And you're seriously arguing it wouldn't be unethical?

yup. Since I the only thing I lost in the process is my so-called free will to choose whom I like (something we already have established isn't "that" much of a free will; you can't choose who you like and who you don't). I don't really think it's that much of unethical thing to do. You are all freaking over the "loss of free-will", personnally, I don't really think there is such thing (not on the mind-scape you think it exists, anyway). We are already conditionned by our environnement anyway.

Flickerdart
2008-05-31, 11:00 AM
From the perspective of the victim, they didn't have anything forced upon them. They truly have spent time with a good friend. Now, the Dominates specifically state that the person is under your full control, which is pretty unethical (for any Good being, at least), and since they get saves to resist it could be postulated they are aware of the compulsion.

I assume Suggestion functions in much the same way as Charm? It seems to require a reasonable request to begin with, though the person wouldn't regard you as a friend, and may likely regret doing whatever you wanted them to later on.

Solo
2008-05-31, 11:01 AM
yup. Since I the only thing I lost in the process is my so-called free will to choose whom I like (something we already have established isn't "that" much of a free will; you can't choose who you like and who you don't).
I beg to differ. I definitely choose whom I like and dislike.

Tell me, how is one not able to choose whom one dislikes or likes?

You're fighting an uphill battle against reality, you know.

Ziren
2008-05-31, 11:22 AM
yup. Since I the only thing I lost in the process is my so-called free will to choose whom I like (something we already have established isn't "that" much of a free will; you can't choose who you like and who you don't). I don't really think it's that much of unethical thing to do. You are all freaking over the "loss of free-will", personnally, I don't really think there is such thing (not on the mind-scape you think it exists, anyway). We are already conditionned by our environnement anyway.

The thing is, charm makes you friendly towards the caster, no matter what. You probably have lost friends of yours in real life (I can tell you that I have), because some day you discovered that they have become or always been *insert swearword of your choice*. Charm doesn't give you the choice to dismiss the friendship, even if keeping it up hurts more than ending it.

SolkaTruesilver
2008-05-31, 11:22 AM
I beg to differ. I definitely choose whom I like and dislike.

Tell me, how is one not able to choose whom one dislikes or likes?

You're fighting an uphill battle against reality, you know.

I am totally not. You have you chosen if you like chocolate? If you like D&D? No, you just did. Some people don't like those things, but they never got to "choose"

It's the same with other people. Person X will like person Z, while person Y won't. Why? Because person Z have the kind of personnaly that makes him likable to X but not to Y.

You don't get to choose your own tastes, Solo. Get over it. You may (for example) get to like something (I would like to use a culinary example: arpergis). If you get exposed often ennough to the thing, you might get to grow fond of it, and eventually like it. That's one of the few example where your actually CHOSED to like something (for good or bad reason, ex: health). But except for that single event, you never have the opportunity to decide what you like in life and what you don't.

You just like them or not.

Solo
2008-05-31, 11:24 AM
So, you align yourself with the Behaviorists? As noted as B.F. Skinner was, his theories have not been conclusively proven. Other schools of psychology have different views on our freedom of will and of choice.

SolkaTruesilver
2008-05-31, 11:26 AM
So, you align yourself with the Behaviorists? As noted as B.F. Skinner was, his theories have not been conclusively proven. Other schools of psychology have different views on our freedom of will and of choice.

I can't answer that question, since I have not real knowledge of those schools of toughts.

Blanks
2008-05-31, 11:27 AM
something we already have established isn't "that" much of a free will
Lets make that "something Solka claimed", I am still a true believer of free will.


We are already conditionned by our environnement anyway. Agreed, by thats not the same as saying the world is pre-determined.

If your claim is that the world is pre-determined, and that free will therefore is an illusion, that removes the basis for morality. You cannot hold people responsible for something that they could not avoid doing. Then nothing is morally wrong (or right for that matter).

Mewtarthio
2008-05-31, 11:31 AM
From the perspective of the victim, they didn't have anything forced upon them. They truly have spent time with a good friend.

In that case, would it be ethical for me to brainwash someone into having no desire save to slave away in my carcinogenic dust mines for the rest of eternity? From their perspective, nothing is forced on them: They chose to work in my mines because they truly enjoy the activity. After all, nobody really gets to choose what sort of job they'd enjoy.

SolkaTruesilver
2008-05-31, 11:31 AM
Lets make that "something Solka claimed", I am still a true believer of free will.

Agreed, by thats not the same as saying the world is pre-determined.

If your claim is that the world is pre-determined, and that free will therefore is an illusion, that removes the basis for morality. You cannot hold people responsible for something that they could not avoid doing. Then nothing is morally wrong (or right for that matter).

No. My claim is that the will of the people is determined, and something totally immaterial. If you change the will of the people, it's not, in itself, an immoral action. If you abuse of people/blablabla/immoral acts, then it is an immoral action.

Solo
2008-05-31, 11:31 AM
I can't answer that question, since I have not real knowledge of those schools of toughts.

Well, you probably should know this then:

There are several major schools of psychology. Behaviorism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behaviorism) states that we have no free will, and our actions are mechanical and pre-determined.

It has been criticized as downplaying the role of free will and simplifying human behavior into rigidly mechanical terms.

Most of the other schools of psychology have different views on human nature, and believe we do have free will.

Being as the great minds of psychology have not come to a conclusion on this subject, I do not see how you can say with such certainty that we do not have free will.

You are certainly within your rights, however, to say that, in your opinion, people do not have free will.

SolkaTruesilver
2008-05-31, 11:33 AM
In that case, would it be ethical for me to brainwash someone into having no desire save to slave away in my carcinogenic dust mines for the rest of eternity? From their perspective, nothing is forced on them: They chose to work in my mines because they truly enjoy the activity. After all, nobody really gets to choose what sort of job they'd enjoy.

No, because you took the example to the extreme, which is a big sophism. In your example, you steal the life of someone. Even if you brainwash him into acceptance, you denied him of his life, his possessions, his friends. It's an immoral action.

In the case of Charm Person, your victim still has all that. Which removes the "immoral" aspect of it.

SolkaTruesilver
2008-05-31, 11:35 AM
There are several major schools of psychology. Behaviorism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behaviorism) states that we have no free will, and our actions are mechanical and pre-determined.

It has been criticized as downplaying the role of free will and simplifying human behavior into rigidly mechanical terms.



Then call me a mild behaviorist. I believe you can still choose to do something bad. For example, you do not get to choose if you like someone or not. But you get to choose if you are going to punch him.

People still should be responsible for their actions, but not for their beliefs.

On the other hand, I feel that parents should be responsible for the beliefs they have brainwashed their children into (Ex: rascism, religion, etc..)

edit: (please take "belief" in the most mild way possible. Like "taste", or "what-you-think")

Solo
2008-05-31, 11:39 AM
People still should be responsible for their actions, but not for their beliefs.

When people are intelligent enough to self-analyze and still choose to adhere to blatantly wrong opinions, I would call them responsible for their beliefs.

Mewtarthio
2008-05-31, 11:41 AM
No, because you took the example to the extreme, which is a big sophism. In your example, you steal the life of someone. Even if you brainwash him into acceptance, you denied him of his life, his possessions, his friends. It's an immoral action.

But charming someone into temporarily being your friend still steals from him, albeit at a much smaller scale. You have stolen his time and his attention.

My example may have been a bit extreme, granted, so how about something a little less so: What if I brainwashed someone into working at a menial but safe job with fair hours for adequate compensation?

SolkaTruesilver
2008-05-31, 11:43 AM
When people are intelligent enough to self-analyze and still choose to adhere to blatantly wrong opinions, I would call them responsible for their beliefs.

Not when they have been the victim of a brainwash when they were young. You are not born rascist or religious, but grew into it trough either ignorance of simply sheer lack of perspective.

In the 2nd category, people who are still knowledgeable, but sadly cannot see the failure of their views. As long as they realise that the society would not accept actions based on such beliefs, and they don't act upon them, then I'd say they are allowed to believe whatever they want*

*as long as they don't drain their children with them, which is happening all too often.. :(

SolkaTruesilver
2008-05-31, 11:46 AM
My example may have been a bit extreme, granted, so how about something a little less so: What if I brainwashed someone into working at a menial but safe job with fair hours for adequate compensation?

If he has the potential/capacity to do something else. Or wanted to try something else, then you denied him his dreams, or his ambition/potential, which is wrong.

Listen, I am not saying that using Charm Person to make somebody do things they wouldn't do outside of the spell effect is right. I am saying that Charm Person, merely to be friend, isn't wrong. You will not find any example when you force somebody to DO something they wouldn't naturally do that I'd say is a moral thing, because you are affecting their ACTIONS, which I find immoral.