Proper Reaction to Charm Person.

[Potato_Priest]

How I imagine a group of npcs might react to a casting of charm person in-game:

A lone wizard walks into town, asks a man standing in the street if they are in need of his services.
“Shove off,” he says, “we don’t like your type around here, and can definitely take care of our own, no matter what those Jenson boys say.”

“Aww, that’s a shame,” says the wizard, his fingers beginning to perform the somatic component of a spell. Before the local can react with alarm, Charm Person has been cast.

“What spell were you casting, there?” He asks the wizard with friendly curiosity.

“Oh, I was just refreshing my mage armor. Sorry if I startled you. Would you mind showing me the way around town and introducing me to those Jenson boys who were looking for help?”

“Eh, might as well, I haven’t much going on today anyway” the local replied, taking the wizard on a brief tour of the village before pointing the way to the Jensons’ shack.

While the Wizard was at the Jensons’ abode discussing a job, the local who had guided him suddenly realized he’d been charmed with the wizard’s spell. Quickly, he ran to the hut of his best friend, the pensive farmer Harry.

“Come on, Harry, we need to assemble the boys to burn a mind-meddling witch!” He cried. “That stranger just cast a spell that made me think he was friendly!”

“Oh, my!” Harry exclaimed, clearly worried. “What did he make you do?”

“Had me give him a tour around town. Quick, grab an axe or a pitchfork before he leaves!”

Harry paused as he was reaching for the nearest farm implement turned weapon. “Wait, this man can cast magic spells, right? I can see you’re upset, but couldn’t we try asking him for an apology instead? I don’t want to end up turned into a newt, especially with a third child on the way.”

“Come on, are you some sort of coward?” screamed the local, “that wizard violated my free will! He could do it again! What if he cast that spell on your daughter?”

“Well,” Harry deliberated, “she probably wouldn’t be any worse off than if her father died from being exploded by a fireball. Besides, all he did was get a tour around town, are you sure we can’t just ask him not to do it again?”

As the two were arguing, the wizard sauntered out of town, the bag of coins the Jensons paid him for dealing with their rat infestation jingling in his pocket.



Essentially, opinions on how bad this is and whether it’s the violation of free will or what that violation is used for that matters would likely be mixed, just as our opinions on the spell are not universal. Said mixtures of opinion and the significant threat factor of a spellcaster might tend to prevent vigilante justice, but it could still occur in a group with unified leanings.

[Witty Username]

Sounds like you would have been better off just relying on the facts and your natural gifts. I have a very hard time believing that a noble (or anyone else) would consider himself responsible for any commitments he made while bewitched. I also believe that any of the good arguments you made during your hour would be tainted by the knowledge that you cast a spell on him.

That assumes willing, I doesn't matter how persuasive you are if a character is unwilling to listen to you, charm person can get a foot in the door in these kind of situations. As can disguise self(which seams more invasive, mimicking a friend of yours and appearing initially friendly seem like different magnitudes) or position of privilege(but that is not something that can be practiced as a skill really).
I take it you think deception is on par with bodily harm as well? no accusations one way or the other just making sure I understand your argument correctly.

I think you meant off, not on, in the bold but I disagree. Mind control spells aren't a bad means if they are a substitute for violence. See, I would also say it was wrong of you to use violence to convince the noble to be more generous.

I believe that is called revolution.
In seriousness, I would say that can very wildly on the noble, violence is perfectly acceptable if the noble is say Baron Von Straid. Most nobles I would agree that an assault is not the best course of action.

As for my word choice, I meant to say what I said (on not off), I may have chosen poor words but It appears you have understood what I was getting at. Sorry for any confusion.

edit: I think that this thread is a fairly good answer to the question of how to react to a charm spell, responses are mixed to say the least.

[Segev]

You completely ignore that I said the person was free to leave at any time and end your bothering of them. If they are in an establishment, they are also free to ask the proprietor to have you kicked out. That right there completely distinguishes it from a spell which forces them to view you as a friendly acquaintance.

Please show me where in the text of charm person the target becomes Restrained, or otherwise unable to leave?

If you're going to say, "He's mind-controlled into not wanting to leave," then the pest who keeps pestering can make a Charisma(Persuasion) check to keep the target from leaving, too.

Again, the Dastardly example isn't just about not being able to attack him. It's also about being forced to view him as a friendly acquaintance and being more receptive to his desires. It's a demonstration of just how much more powerful the Charm Person spell is than the Socialite.

And remains irrelevant to situations where the caster isn't being Dastardly.

The huge, hulking brute that saunters into the bar, politely asks the toughs who were about to engage in a brawl to separate and get out of his way, and sits down to order a drink, leaving the toughs very, very quietly sitting in opposite corners could have picked them up, broken their necks, and used them as improvized weapons to beat the tar out of anybody who looked at him funny. But he didn't. Should the fact that he could have done so with the same two hands he used to gently separate them be used as an argument to say that his massive strength is just plain evil to use?

No, I'm saying because it's mind control it's generally evil unless used as a substitute for violence. Dastardly demonstrates that it is, in fact, mind control.

And I'm saying that, used in the ways I've been speaking of, it's no more mind control than, say, the Diviner using his Portent-rolled 20 to force a good reaction.

Absolutely. And I've never suggested otherwise. Kyutaru is the might makes right one.

Okay. Then please stop trying to use Dastardly's deeds to prove that Ella is evil.

I've don't need to use Dastardly to prove that Charm Person is evil. It's one of the most evil examples of what can be perpetrated with the spell, but if you remember the point of the example (not mine) was to dispute your (or someone on your side) claim that Charm Person isn't mind control.

If you don't need to use Dastardly to prove it's evil, stop bringing him up. The aspect of charm person being referenced there is compulsion. But I am expressly discussing uses which don't rely on that, nor would even relying on that be more problematic than casting sanctuary on yourself before entering a discussion.

Or would you say that the Bard who has sanctuary on his list who casts it before going and hitting on women to prevent them from slapping him in the face is also engaged in evil, wicked, nasty mind control?

Once again, that's not all the Charm Person spell does, so we need a further explanation.

And pulling people gently aside isn't all that massive monstrous strength can do, but we don't hold the other things it COULD do against somebody who doesn't use it for those things. If Ella's use of charm person winds up invoking the "can't attack her" clause, that suggests more about the kind of dangerous man James is than anything Ella's done.

Themrys, I think, was the one who mentioned how women have more to fear than men due to, essentially, the possibility of being raped. Ella is asking a man she doesn't know out, because she hopes to get to know him. But if he turns out to be the sort to, shall we say, press for things she's not willing to give, him being Charmed means he can't act on those impulses in a physical fashion. Now, I'm not saying this "justifies" the spell's use, but I am pointing out that the only way Ella's situation has the "no attack" clause of Charmed come up is actually a situation where she absolutely should have cast it.

This is true, we have no established social norms surrounding spell casting. We do have social norms involving bodily integrity and autonomy that are pretty well established. If you want to argue that there's an exception to those for spell casting, go right ahead. But you have to do better than claiming that it's no different than being good looking or slick talking when it's been repeatedly demonstrated that it is, in fact, different. And Dastardly is one of those examples showing just how different it is.

Except that Dastardly, by actions other than casting charm person, moves well beyond those established norms. We have established norms about what is and is not acceptable to do with or on behalf of inebriated people while they're in an impaired state. If you're out and see somebody falling-down drunk with no friends in any better state, offering to drive people home is an almost heroic act of generosity with your time. If that's really all you do, you're a good person; if you take advantage of them while they're impaired, you're a bad person.

Now, I know, the difference here is that the drunks got themselves drunk, and casting charm person, if you want to claim it impairs judgment, is more akin to spiking their drinks. I dispute that it has NEARLY that powerful an effect provided you aren't already stepping over other lines that would be over the line whether they were charmed or not.

We have established norms about flirting and dating and getting people to follow you to private spaces for private activities. If all you do when you go there is stuff both of you enjoy and agree to, nobody accuses you of being wicked for convincing them to go off with you. If, on the other hand, you rape, mug, murder, or trick them into jaywalking, the act of seducing them into going off with you becomes pretty sinister.

What you do with it is the important thing, not what you could have done were you a bad person. (Yes, yes, I know you're eager to jump in here and say "you're a bad person for casting charm person, but that's the point that's in dispute.)

No, we keep going around in circles because you keep pretending the spell is a different spell than the one actually cast and ignoring anything inconvenient to your argument.

I have not once pretended the spell didn't do what its text says it does. What I have rejected is your premise that it is inherently evil, and any uses of Dastardly as an example of how it CAN be used to "prove" that it's always as bad as if Ella acted like Dastardly.

I have also asserted that, the way Ella uses it, it's actually a weaker effect than Denise the Diviner walking up to James the next day (after he stood up Ella because he got mad over the charm preson because he was told it was wicked mind control) and uses her Portent-granted 20 to persuade him to like her.

This is a prime example of you just ignoring things that are inconvenient for your argument. Alice cannot change her perception of Dastardly based on his actions. Ella cannot change her perceptions of Brad the Bad Bard based on his actions (which don't have to be nearly as extreme as Dastardly's). Someone who is not the victim of a spell can.

Nonesense. The only thing they can't do is view him as a person they hate. They can still view them as awful people, in whom they're very disappointed, and who need to be stopped (albiet they can't bring themselves to use attacks on the person to stop them).

You're attributing way more power to "friendly acquaintance" than is deserved. In extremis, your friendly acquaintance is not automatically in the right, or even justified. Your BEST FRIEND can be viewed with horror at actions they take, and still have all that history as being best friends mean that you'd much rather forget about the horrible things you've seen them do...even though you can't. People don't typically stop feeling love for one another (platonic or otherwise) just because they also are mad at them. Actually shifting your emotions so that you don't have some part htat wants them to be better, wants to like them, to forgive them, is hard.

Friendly acquaintences aren't people you "love" (platonically or otherwise), but being stuck viewing them as somebody you'd rather be having a pleasant chat with than seeing them do this awful thing doesn't mean you're compelled to approve of their actions, to view their actions as justified, or to help them or even (despite the way it's portrayed in the Dastardly example) stand idly by and not thwart them by any means short of physical attack.

Heck, you can probably cast charm person on them to try to convince them to stop! Though whether it would work is an open question, because, again, it's not a compulsion (in anything other than "you can't attack me"), and thus if they wouldn't stop for a friendly acquaintance, they almost certainly aren't stopping for you, even with charm person.

I can appreciate that, but it boils down to a question of how can you react to what you don't know. Opinions about people can definitely change on a whim without rhyme or reason. So, the target would have a nice memory and perhaps some sense that their judgement of the caster's status as an acquaintance had no basis in their own decision-making, but without knowing the spell had done it, what is there to respond to?

I suspect that, if Ella Enchantress did it right, she actually got him to a natural point of "friendly acquaintanceship" during that hour. After all, it doesn't take much to develop that kind of relationship, so simply acting the part and being friendly when they start there is probably enough.

If, somehow, she failed at that, then his attitude towards her goes back to neutral when the spell ends. I assume he isn't mad at her, and she's now an acquaintance (even if not a friendly one) who is not unfriendly, so...how does that work?

Here's a more mechanical question: if the caster outright tells the target that they are under the effect of charm person before the duration is up, nothing happens according to the text. The spell only ends prematurely if someone in the party harms the target (harm meaning hp damage, yes?). Why is that?

Well, clearly charm person isn't an attack. And, if they're telling the target they've Charmed them, the target may or may not be okay with that action. How do you react if a friendly acquaintance admits they did something you don't like, but you are firm enough into friendly acquaintanceship that you don't automatically say "ew, get away from me, I revise my opinion to hating you?"

In older editions, where the spell was much more a full-on mind whammy, telling them would have them say, "Well, I'm glad you did! I love you! I don't ever want to not love you!" and be quite willing for you to keep them Charmed so they keep liking you.

In 5e, the spell is most definitely not that powerful. But it does mean the friendly acquaintanceship doesn't end for the duration of the spell.

So, again, I suspect it has a lot to do with what you do with it during the time. Ella tells James - admits, really - that she Charmed him because she's shy and doesn't know how to break the ice. With her Advantage on Charisma and the fact that he views her as a friendly acquaintance, he probably is a little uncomfortable, but is understanding. He certainly keeps giving her a chance, and tries to keep an open mind. When the spell ends, he knows it, and he also knows she admitted it and that he believed her reasons when she told him. Whether she succeeded in engendering some measure of friendly acquaintanceship during the time he was Charmed likely has a lot of impact; he'll likely forgive a friendly acquaintance for Charming him to make friends, when he still views the loose friendship as positive. If she tried and failed, he'll probably be annoyed that she did it, but not really furious, unless he's made mad by that kind of thing.

There's also the possibility that, upon being told she Charmed him, he gets uncomfortable enough to leave. Sure, she can try to persuade him to stay (with Advantage), but nothing says you have to stay and talk to a friendly acquaintance who just admitted they tricked you or otherwise did something you don't like.

Nevertheless, unless he's a vengeful jerk, calling out the authorities or lynch mobs, or even hating her in the future, is probably overkill.

I will agree to disagree on that point. Charm Person is as mechanical as the Charisma check. They both operate in a strict rules setting that messes with permissions that are hard-coded into the system. It's easier to see the skill check from a roleplaying view but I can view Charm Person operating the same way. They both have strict mechanical benefits but seen abstractly operate in much the same way.

This is a big part of my point. In the end, the mechanics are no more or less able to compel obedience than mundane equivalents.

I interpret the “sound reasonable” aspect of Suggestion to mean “reasonable to a person”, not “reasonable to this particular person.”

“Drop your weapons and go home” is a reasonable suggestion, generally, even if it might not be reasonable to, say, fanatical zealots. Suggestion’s power level is a pretty well-designed medium between Charm Person and Dominate Person.

Who is the "person," though? "Drop your weapons and go home" is perfectly reasonable to anybody not caught up in the lynch mob in most western societies; it is not perfectly reasonable to a bunch of orcs in their own homeland engaging in a vengeful attack on another orc who wronged them (in their own minds).

I think it has to lean towards "the suggestion DOES sound reasonable as long as it doesn't obviously endanger the person or his loved ones."

Essentially, opinions on how bad this is and whether it’s the violation of free will or what that violation is used for that matters would likely be mixed, just as our opinions on the spell are not universal. Said mixtures of opinion and the significant threat factor of a spellcaster might tend to prevent vigilante justice, but it could still occur in a group with unified leanings.

Excellent examples and points!

[patchyman]

I've answered them, but I can do so better now. So I shall: The same thing that gives Denise the Diviner the right to walk up to somebody and use her Portent-rolled 20 for her Charisma check gives Ella the right to walk up to somebody and use a spell to give herself Advantage on her Charisma check.

What a spell does (the spell description and effect) is different and broader than the effect the spell has on a die roll.

I bring this up because it is not only the difference between Ella and Denise, but also why your “Socialite” examples are completely irrelevant to me.

If you don’t accept the principle that Charm person is not just the effect the spell has on the dice, you and I (and probably jh12) will never agree.

From the spell description, it is clear that Charm Person messes with a person’s mind and that at the end of the spell they know you used magic to influence them. In and of itself, using magic on an unwilling person to mess with their minds is not a good act, and to return to the initial post, someone affected in that manner will react badly in almost all cases.

[patchyman]

I think talking out of turn next to a noble is punishable by death is most medieval circles, so I am not going say I won't be punished. But you are saying I would deserve it in this case.

as for the over hype, I was thinking charm person to get the conversation started then persuasion (cha 20, plus expertise for double proficiency) with advantage over the course of an hour. With economics data and petitions from locals for good measure.

The question of in which circumstances the ends justify the means caused many casualties in the Alignment Wars in the days of yore, but suffice it to say that using underhanded or illegal means for a good cause is irrelevant to how Charm Person should be characterized.

[Kyutaru]

Who is the "person," though? "Drop your weapons and go home" is perfectly reasonable to anybody not caught up in the lynch mob in most western societies; it is not perfectly reasonable to a bunch of orcs in their own homeland engaging in a vengeful attack on another orc who wronged them (in their own minds).

I think it has to lean towards "the suggestion DOES sound reasonable as long as it doesn't obviously endanger the person or his loved ones."

Truly, if attack is imminent they aren't going to back down. But if they were a orc lynch mob picking on some other orc, I think they might totally be up for "dropping their weapons, going home, and making a nice spot of tea". Tea sounds lovely, what a marvelous idea! We can always lynch this guy later. I heard the next episode of Game of Bones is on tonight.

[rmnimoc]

Hey look, you don't even need to mention alignments to get kick start alignment wars. Neat. Anyway I got to about page four before realizing I was looking at the start of the battle between "It's the only moral thing to do and everyone should always do it" and "I will dedicate my life to torturing and eating the souls of the babies of anyone who does this" (I'm assuming that's what it has devolved into by now, that's usually the type of thing that happens whenever anyone mentions something as subjective as morality), so I'm going to pretend none of that happened and instead try to help with my input on the OP's original question.

At my table the reaction is pretty dependent on the magic level of the setting and what exactly the caster did while under the effect.

In a setting like ASoIaF, people would probably be pretty confused by it. They'd know you did something and that the something made them like you more for a while, but it's unlikely they'd know exactly what. They'd probably be rather intimidated if they had reason to suspect it was magic since that's a pretty rare thing for most people in that setting to deal with, but I imagine most people would rationalize it away since magically manipulating people to like you isn't a common thing there.

In a higher-magic setting like Faerun if you cast that in a town odds are good that if your spell disrupted someone's life in a negative way they'd probably have a good guess what that is and they'd go to the guards and you might get to spend some time enjoying a cell. If it didn't disrupt someone's life or day or turned out beneficial to them, they probably would just accept that it happened and be on guard around you in the future.

As a general rule I assume everyone responds to things like I do unless given reason to suspect otherwise, because I'm human and that's what we do (see, doing it already), and as such I assume the character would act as I would unless something in their backstory gives them reason not to.

Personally if someone used charm person to borrow something from me and ran off, I'd probably see them as an evil wizard monster who stole my stuff and if I saw them again I'd be much more cautious and willing to resort to violence against them. If they did this regularly, I'd probably get more and more hostile until my first action on seeing them is pulling out a gun, though that might take a while.

If they used charm person on me while I was at the bar and spent the hour after that building rapport to the point they were a friendly acquaintance in truth, I'd probably just point out that they're kind of a **** after spell wore off and otherwise treat them as I would any other friendly acquaintance who is kind of a ****, if with a bit of suspicion because last I checked magic wasn't a thing that actually existed. If they did that for months at a time until we were true friends they'd probably get a few discussions to the effect of "What the hell is wrong with you?" and "Why are you such a control freak? You should really talk to someone about this."

If someone cast charm person on me at the bar and used that friendly acquaintance thing to successfully seduce me, I'd probably be pretty pissed. Would I jump straight to violence? Probably not. Would I tell the cops and try to get the other party arrested? Almost definitely.

Obviously the greater the disruptive effects the spell has had on my life, the less favorably I'm likely to react, unless it benefited me in some way.

I think, like with basically all situations, context is important and I'm not going to make any definitive statements (I have never personally been the target of charm person in real life), but I'd think that by and large that would be the kinds of reactions you'd get, although some people would handle it better and some people would handle it significantly worse.

Hope this helps with the story.

[gloryblaze]

The huge, hulking brute that saunters into the bar, politely asks the toughs who were about to engage in a brawl to separate and get out of his way, and sits down to order a drink, leaving the toughs very, very quietly sitting in opposite corners could have picked them up, broken their necks, and used them as improvized weapons to beat the tar out of anybody who looked at him funny. But he didn't. Should the fact that he could have done so with the same two hands he used to gently separate them be used as an argument to say that his massive strength is just plain evil to use?

And pulling people gently aside isn't all that massive monstrous strength can do, but we don't hold the other things it COULD do against somebody who doesn't use it for those things.

I think I finally understand why we disagree so fundamentally.

In my perception, using one’s muscles to apply force is an analog process - it can be done in degrees, it can be represented by continuously variable quantity. When a monstrously strong person grabs another person, he can grab them gently. When he does this, he exerts no more force than a pathetically weak person who grabs the same target. Then, the strongman can squeeze - the amount of pressure he applies increases continuously until he reaches his maximum output. At some point, he’ll exceed the force produced by the pathetically weak man, but up until that point, his grab and the weak grab are identical and indistinguishable.

Charm person, on the other hand, is a digital process in my opinion. Unlike an analog process, which is continuously variable and has a hypothetically infinite number of degrees, a digital process has only two states: off or on. Either a person is under the effects of charm person or they are not. You cannot partially cast charm person on someone - you either have done it or you have not done it.

What this means to me is that we can and should look at the extreme case (Dastardly). Remember, Alice is unable to fulfill an oath sworn on her honor as a paladin, is incapable of attacking Dastardly to prevent the rape and murder of her sister, and then at the end of the day still considers him a friendly acquaintance. That means she has an 85% chance of accepting a serious risk or sacrifice to fulfill one of Dastardly’s (+17 to Charisma (Persuasion) checks) requests! (DMG p245).

After considering the extreme example, we can ask: is this mind control? I say yes. Dastardly used mind control on Alice.

Now, because I view charm person as digital, rather than analog, everything else falls into place. If Dastardly used mind control on Alice, then Ella necessarily used mind control on James since they both used the same digital process. Ella did not do bad things to the person she mind controlled, unlike Dastardly, but she did still mind control him.

To go back to the force analogy re: a strongman exerting force by squeezing, an example of a digital exertion of force might be firing a gun. Any given gun exerts force in a single, discrete package (i.e., it expels a bullet). You cannot shoot someone hard or shoot someone gently. If you shoot someone, you shoot them. Until you change some parameter (like which gun you are using, or what the bullet is made of), you will exert the same quantity of force every time you shoot someone.

Now, a person with a gun can choose how they exert that discrete packet of force. Shooting someone in the head or the heart is very likely to be lethal. Shooting the arm or leg is drastically less likely to be lethal. But if a witness or survivor of a shooting recounts the tale later, the statement “that man shot me/that poor person”! is equally valid no matter where the victim was shot. Similarly, threatening to shoot a person in the knee is considered assault with a deadly weapon under the law just as much as threatening to shoot a person in the face. Actually performing said act is just as much battery, no matter the location, if the victim survives. And it is just as much murder, no matter the location, if the victim dies.

With the analog process (applying muscle strength), the same cannot be said to be true. If I touch someone’s face gently, say to convey affection or brush off some dirt, that person cannot in good faith say “she hit me.” If I slap him hard enough to leave a mark, he can.

Thus, since I view charm person as digital, Ella’s use of the spell on James (shot in the leg) is just as much mind control as Dastardly’s use on Alice (shot in the heart).

It seems to me that you view charm person as an analog process. You seem to believe that since Ella’s use of charm person likely will not trigger the mental compulsions that Dastardly’s use did (i.e. inability to attack the caster, inability to change attitude towards caster from “friendly” to “indifferent” and then “hostile” as per the “Changing Attitude” rules on DMG p 244), then those compulsions essentially are not there and should be considered irrelevant when considering the moral weight of Ella’s actions. Because you view charm person as analog, you can visualize a world where Ella can use charm person as social lubricant and thus the spell is not mind control, while Dastardly can still use charm person to compel Alice’s behavior - mind control her - and these two scenarios are reconcilable and make logical sense to you.

If the above is correct, I understand basically all your previous points and concede that they are correct and true if we are operating under the base assumption that charm person is an analog process and its force can be exerted in continuously variable degrees.

However, I personally cannot and do not accept that base assumption at my tables and in my campaigns, because it goes against my understanding of how D&D magic works.

A spell is a discrete magical effect, a single shaping of the magical energies that suffuse the multiverse
into a specific, limited expression.

This is almost exactly the definition of a digital process: a spell is “single”, “discrete”, “specific”, and “limited”. It is not “variable”, “fluid”, “additive”, etc. The spell takes some aspect of reality (default state: 0) and creates a single, discrete, specific, limited effect (state: 1). Either there exists a fireball in space X or there does not. Either the mage is under the effects of mage armor or he isn’t. Either James is under the effects of charm person (to the precisely same extent as Alice is) or he is under none of those effects.

This digital understanding of spellcasting is what preserves my suspension of disbelief when a wizard tries to use ray of frost to freeze water but cannot, or when he tries to use acid splash to corrode an object but cannot. The wizard is not literally creating a blast of supercooled air, nor is he literally conjuring any quantity of acidic liquid. He’s creating a discrete, digital magical effect that imitates some but not all of the properties of supercooled air or acidic liquid.

[Themrys]

The huge, hulking brute that saunters into the bar, politely asks the toughs who were about to engage in a brawl to separate and get out of his way, and sits down to order a drink, leaving the toughs very, very quietly sitting in opposite corners could have picked them up, broken their necks, and used them as improvized weapons to beat the tar out of anybody who looked at him funny. But he didn't. Should the fact that he could have done so with the same two hands he used to gently separate them be used as an argument to say that his massive strength is just plain evil to use?

No, but separating people who are about to engage in a brawl is a reasonable reason to go against someone's free will. We employ police to interfere with such people acting to their own free will.

Now, apply this to romance. Say the huge hulking brute grabs a woman's arm because she wants to walk away from him and he wants to talk to her in spite of this. Perhaps in most real world countries, men would still like him, the world being what it is, but I can tell you I would run for the hills and not want to have anything to do with him anymore. The woman in question might not go to the police (because, world being what it is, she wouldn't expect to get any justice) but certainly, no friendly acquaintance could ever result from this.

A man would likely not react favourably to a huge hulking brute grabbing his arm and threatening to not let hiim go unless he tells him about the town's problems, either. Someone not wanting to talk to you is not a reasonable reason to use force.

And that's regardless of whether you view something as analogous or digital. Gloryblaze is right, your huge hulking brute doesn't have to use any more violence than a weaker person could. His obviousy strength works as deterrent to those who'd use violence against him. With a mind control spell, either you put someone under it, or you don't. (I think in a setting where people exactly know what it is and what it does, they wouldn't do the lynchmob thing if you used it to break up a brawl, but as said before, breaking up a brawl is a reasonable occasion to use violence or the threat of it - a lot of other things very obviously are not.)

As for your "but it is reasonable to use charm person to prevent rape" - that use would create a logic problem in D&D, as the game clearly isn't made for realistically roleplaying sexual violence. Men frequently rape friendly acquaintances! Or even women they are closer to! It's what "date rape" means! And you yourself have argued that "charm person" doesn't change someone's behaviour in any way other than the "view someone as friendly acquaintance" thing. Men don't usually punch friendly acquaintances in the face, so the "can't attack" part makes sense in a pen&paper game if you play as intended (which is without sexual violence against PCs), but once you try and apply the rules to rape, it doesn't make much sense anymore.

Of course, if it really worked the way you propose, Ella's chosen sexual partner would likely not object to have her consensually cast it on him if that's what it takes to have sex with her, so why do it non-consensually?



The question was originally asked for use in a Harry Potter fanfic.

Harry Potter has the Imperius curse. It is wholly illegal and everyone who uses it would in theory get prison time. Could you use it to make someone stop being violent? Sure. It is still illegal, because it completely removes someone's free will, and the one teacher who demonstrates it on students (after gaining special permission to do so, mind) turns out to be an evil guy, so ...

[Potato_Priest]

A man would likely not react favourably to a huge hulking brute grabbing his arm and threatening to not let hiim go unless he tells him about the town's problems, either. Someone not wanting to talk to you is not a reasonable reason to use force.

Great post, themrys! that’s a perfect analogy for charm person. Forcibly grabbing someone’s arm to talk to them is rude and mildly unsettling regardless of circumstance, and one is well within one’s rights to expect an apology for it or avoid the person in future, but it’s not really something worth killing or wounding someone for outside of an extreme honor culture. Seems like a great standard for a “default” reaction to charm person.

There are also legitimate uses that might get people to excuse you doing either, such as talking an upset friend out of making a life changing mistake or as an alternative to a violent altercation.

[JackPhoenix]

The huge, hulking brute that saunters into the bar, politely asks the toughs who were about to engage in a brawl to separate and get out of his way, and sits down to order a drink, leaving the toughs very, very quietly sitting in opposite corners could have picked them up, broken their necks, and used them as improvized weapons to beat the tar out of anybody who looked at him funny. But he didn't. Should the fact that he could have done so with the same two hands he used to gently separate them be used as an argument to say that his massive strength is just plain evil to use?

That's not really comparable to what's being talked about. The huge, hulking brute (HHB) hasn't used his strength, but the spellcaster(s) mentioned all over this thread DID used Charm Person. It's not evil to have Charm Person amongst known or prepared spells, just like it's not evil to have massive strength. Once either gets used, well, that's different matter.

[Kyutaru]

That's not really comparable to what's being talked about. The huge, hulking brute (HHB) hasn't used his strength, but the spellcaster(s) mentioned all over this thread DID used Charm Person. It's not evil to have Charm Person amongst known or prepared spells, just like it's not evil to have massive strength. Once either gets used, well, that's different matter.

But then the massive strength guy doesn't necessarily need to use his force to simulate the spell. He can simply clench his fists together and activate Alarm Person. Sufficiently dissuaded from attacking him and now much more open to being helpful, the person has been adequately Charmed.

[JackPhoenix]

But then the massive strength guy doesn't necessarily need to use his force to simulate the spell. He can simply clench his fists together and activate Alarm Person. Sufficiently dissuaded from attacking him and now much more open to being helpful, the person has been adequately Charmed.

Um... what?

Using the same logic, the spellcaster may just declare he's a powerful spellcaster for the same effect.

[Kyutaru]

Um... what?

Using the same logic, the spellcaster may just declare he's a powerful spellcaster for the same effect.

And now you know why Prestidigitation is more powerful than Charm Person.

[rmnimoc]

This digital understanding of spellcasting is what preserves my suspension of disbelief when a wizard tries to use ray of frost to freeze water but cannot, or when he tries to use acid splash to corrode an object but cannot. The wizard is not literally creating a blast of supercooled air, nor is he literally conjuring any quantity of acidic liquid. He’s creating a discrete, digital magical effect that imitates some but not all of the properties of supercooled air or acidic liquid.

Digital v. Analog is an interesting take on this that I've never considered before. I can't say I agree with it being an interpretation of the rules I agree with or use, but it's certainly valid and I can't think of anything in the rules that really contradicts it.

What's below is spoilered because it's long and not super relevant to charm person.

Spoiler: Your Examples Were Problems of Scale, Not of Function

Show

I do feel the need to point out that the examples you gave seem to be problems of scale, not function though. The amount and kind of acid needed to moderately burn someone is not even remotely on the same level as what you'd need to corrode enough metal to be relevant on a turn-based timescale† and freezing enough water to be worth mentioning in the spell description would take cold enough temperatures for long enough that it'd have really good odds if straight up killing most lower level characters*, kind of like Cone of Cold which both freezes things and murders low level characters. Ray of Frost is a few seconds of temperatures in the dry ice range (cold enough for frostbite and serious pain, but it probably won't give you hypothermia) and that'd take a timescale of minutes to freeze enough water to be worth mentioning, assuming it was constant and didn't let up. Acid splash is just that, a splash of acid that won't corrode very deep into most metals no matter what it is in the short time it's in contact under normal situations.

*I'm using pretty extreme ballpark math here. It takes minutes for a bucket of water in dry ice to freeze and dry ice will give you frostbite in a scale of seconds. That means Ray of Frost is probably roughly as cold as dry ice, plus or minus around 30° C. Either way, it's not freezing enough water (enough water here being a volume roughly the size of a bucket (big bucket, little bucket, doesn't matter, still won't be frozen in 6 seconds)).

†It can often take hours for metals so develop more than surface level corrosion even when exposed to acids particularly good at corroding that particular metal. .

[Witty Username]

I think I know what you are getting at with the digital and the analog, but I am not sure.

for one, most spells have variable effects, fireball may create fire in a section but the damage is variable(between 4-48) and skilled mages can skew that one way or the other. sure that is not something the caster can finely control but it is not quite as simple as a yes/no.

Second, most abilities in d&d are not represented as analog mechanically, so I am not sure if that is part of the flavor or a need of the system to respond in a way that we can use effectively as players.

Third, charm person can be used for different needs and purposes which require some but not all of the effect. For example, If I cast it on an orc waiting in ambush, and then walk past them I am using it at minimum power. While If I use it to give myself advantage on social rolls, and as a safety to keep the target from becoming Hostile, over the full duration. that would be a different magnitude of effect. This is somewhat similar to disguise self, I can use it to look well dressed, well dressed and better looking, or well dressed, better looking and as someone I am trying to impersonate.

I could see an argument that there is a discrete range of effect, and that the minimum effect of charm person is too high to be compared to the pick up vs squish example.

[JackPhoenix]

Snip

It gets weirder when you realize Acid Splash is about as good for burning people and corroding animated armor, but it's completely unable to affect armor that's worn or just lying around. Or even regular clothes.

[gloryblaze]

I think I know what you are getting at with the digital and the analog, but I am not sure.

for one, most spells have variable effects, fireball may create fire in a section but the damage is variable(between 4-48) and skilled mages can skew that one way or the other. sure that is not something the caster can finely control but it is not quite as simple as a yes/no.

Second, most abilities in d&d are not represented as analog mechanically, so I am not sure if that is part of the flavor or a need of the system to respond in a way that we can use effectively as players.

Third, charm person can be used for different needs and purposes which require some but not all of the effect. For example, If I cast it on an orc waiting in ambush, and then walk past them I am using it at minimum power. While If I use it to give myself advantage on social rolls, and as a safety to keep the target from becoming Hostile, over the full duration. that would be a different magnitude of effect. This is somewhat similar to disguise self, I can use it to look well dressed, well dressed and better looking, or well dressed, better looking and as someone I am trying to impersonate.

I could see an argument that there is a discrete range of effect, and that the minimum effect of charm person is too high to be compared to the pick up vs squish example.

While it’s true that many spells have multiple effects that can occur in differing circumstances depending on the caster, I’d argue that spells are still digital in nature because they do not have the ability to be represented by continuously variable quantities (i.e., they do not have infinite degrees).

A wizard who casts fireball at 3rd level always creates a blast of the same size that has the same heat (i.e., potential for damage). While it’s true that 8d6 produces variable results, I’d argue that the variance is meant to model circumstance -whether foes got caught in the brunt of the blast, whether it’s cold and damp out, etc rather than modeling that each fireball is of a different potency.

The same wizard can cast the spell at 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, or 9th level to increase the fireball’s heat. But all of these are also digital - if the spell were analog, the wizard could cast a 2nd level fireball for 7d6 damage, or a 3rd and one half level fireball for 8d6 + (~1.75) damage, or a fireball that’s level 4.377851. Upcast-ability means that learning a spell gives a spellcaster a finite number of digital “switches” that they can hit, not they the spellcaster gains access to an analog “dial” that they can turn up or down as they please.

Other spellcasters, like a red draconic sorcerer, can cast the fireball and do special things like add their Cha mod. But this ability is still digital - it always happens, and always to the same degree. They can’t not add Cha, or add a fraction of their Cha. Even if they could choose to not add Cha, it would still be a digital on-off switch. The sorcerer flicks one switch (fireball) and then either flicks a second (add Cha) or does not.

As for whether things in general are measured in digital or analog in DND, I would argue that one of the biggest strengths pen and paper has over video games is the ability to include complex analog processes more completely (obviously, video games do have some analog processes - like the analog stick on most controllers!). The core mechanic of DND is

1. DM describes the situation
2. Player describes their character’s action
3. DM describes/adjudicates how the situation responds

Because the DM is a person, rather than a computer, they can have the environment respond to the player’s action in an infinite number of ways. Talking to an NPC can be analog in DND - the DM adjusts the NPC’s attitude and responses based on who the characters are and what the characters do and say, and they can make changes to NPC attitude in a continuously variable manner. In a CRPG, however, interacting with NPCs is digital - you have a dialogue tree (a set of digital switches that you flick one at a time, each with a finite number of outcomes).

Spells are one area of DND, however, that should absolutely not be treated as analog, in my opinion. A spell should do exactly what it says, nothing more and nothing less. Allowing casters to get away with shenanigans like pouring water into a lock and freezing it with ray of frost leads to things like the “martials suck” thread on this board, where DMs let casters do anything they want because “magic” while martials are hit hard with guy at the gym fallacy.

As to your third point, I don’t believe there’s such a thing as minimum power on a charm person spell (unless we’re talking about upcasting). A person either is under the effects of charm person or they are not. What the caster does after casting the spell is irrelevant - the exertion of magical force on the victim’s mind was precisely the same every time. Just because you cast the spell on an orc and then leave without making any Charisma checks does not mean that you did not have advantage on those Charisma checks for the duration of the spell. That orc’s mind was impacted precisely as much as the person who you schmoozed with for a full hour.

[Angelalex242]

Well...burn the witch probably doesn't work in those smaller towns anyway.

He cast charm person on the local barmaid and had his way with her, quick, grab your pitchforks!

Wizard: Heh. Whaddya know, they're in perfect fireball formation. *TOASTY!*

Attacking a character with class levels is generally unwise for a 0 level commoner. Even a lot of 0 level commoners. If the 0 level commoner has a family, and typically they do, that's a lot of widows and orphans to leave behind...

[Themrys]

Um... what?

Using the same logic, the spellcaster may just declare he's a powerful spellcaster for the same effect.

Yes.

I once played a mage character who solved a lot of problems by simply using her status (having graduated at a prestigious magic academy). In a setting where mages are required by law to be recognizable and there's a lot regulations, this worked like a charm, pun intended.
Of course, one of the reasons it worked so well was that the prestigious academy is known to have no mercy with rulebreakers, and my character was therefore guaranteed to have the moral compass people who routinely solve problems by mind control lack. People didn't want to piss her off, yes, but they also genuinely trusted her.

Those who claim there wouldn't be a lynch mob if the PC spellcaster uses "charm person" on someone for fear of being fireballed to death assume that the villagers know exactly how powerful this spellcaster is. But would they? In a setting where every random guy might be able to cast spells, it is by no means guaranteed every one of them is very powerful.
(And let's be realistic here, a very powerful rapist spellcaster who is just traveling through and not backed by any lawful authority ... they might not form a lynch mob, but simply poison his drink. To be safe from that, you need either people who are loyal enough to you to take revenge, or a working legal system, the latter of which would prevent such shenanigans with magic.)

[Kyutaru]

(And let's be realistic here, a very powerful rapist spellcaster who is just traveling through and not backed by any lawful authority ... they might not form a lynch mob, but simply poison his drink. To be safe from that, you need either people who are loyal enough to you to take revenge, or a working legal system, the latter of which would prevent such shenanigans with magic.)

Or the Protection from Poison spell always memorized.

[Angelalex242]

And the caster might well have resilient con anyway just to back up his concentration save :P

[Witty Username]

Those who claim there wouldn't be a lynch mob if the PC spellcaster uses "charm person" on someone for fear of being fireballed to death assume that the villagers know exactly how powerful this spellcaster is. But would they? In a setting where every random guy might be able to cast spells, it is by no means guaranteed every one of them is very powerful.
(And let's be realistic here, a very powerful rapist spellcaster who is just traveling through and not backed by any lawful authority ... they might not form a lynch mob, but simply poison his drink. To be safe from that, you need either people who are loyal enough to you to take revenge, or a working legal system, the latter of which would prevent such shenanigans with magic.)

I think that might makes right is a poor moral argument anyway.
As for believable reactions, I think it could be argued that attempted mob justice, or do not mess with the wizard, or eh he asked for directions are all believable reactions. We should make a table from the responses on this thread so DM's can roll on it to see what the towns response is.

[Marcelinari]

Those who claim there wouldn't be a lynch mob if the PC spellcaster uses "charm person" on someone for fear of being fireballed to death assume that the villagers know exactly how powerful this spellcaster is. But would they? In a setting where every random guy might be able to cast spells, it is by no means guaranteed every one of them is very powerful.

(And let's be realistic here, a very powerful rapist spellcaster who is just traveling through and not backed by any lawful authority ... they might not form a lynch mob, but simply poison his drink. To be safe from that, you need either people who are loyal enough to you to take revenge, or a working legal system, the latter of which would prevent such shenanigans with magic.)

I completely disagree with your assertion that the villagers would fear the spellcaster only if they knew how powerful the caster was. In fact, the opposite is true - if they knew precisely how powerful the caster was, then either they would be entirely unafraid of the Charmer, or they would attempt another, less confrontational form of retribution (unless they would prefer to die on their feet than live on their knees, under the tyrant thumb of this caster who asked for directions from a recalcitrant farmer). It is only in not knowing how powerful the caster is that fear would play a significant role. The direct confrontation of a lynch mob would not be guaranteed to succeed or fail, because the precise capacities of the Charmer in question are unknown, and in uncertainty lies either fear or foolhardiness.

Also, I’m not sure whether you’re positing a spellcasting rapist going from town to town, or whether you’re asserting that casting Charm Person is not just similar to, but functionally identical to rape. I’m uncomfortable with the second assertion, as rape is the sort of horrific crime that carries a deep social stigma and connotation in our (presumably shared) Anglo-centric culture. By conflating the two, you’re very successfully manipulating the argument by associating Charm Person with those stigmas and connotations, without actually proving that it does or would do. At least, not to my satisfaction. Subjective though that may be.

I personally believe that the response from the common folk to learning of a Charmer would be commensurate with the actual, measurable harm done. If that harm is limited to a loss of absolute personal autonomy for an hour, then the consequence may be a loss of trust, or confusion and annoyance. If the harm escalated to doing something innocuous that the victim may not have done for the Charmer otherwise, the consequence may be indignation, unfriendliness, or a more pronounced loss of trust, perhaps within the community. If the harm is something major, that the victim absolutely would not have done except for a long term friendly acquaintance with a fair amount of goodwill (like as may be garnered with a moderately difficult charisma check under the Charmed condition), then the consequences may escalate to hostility, ostracization, and the involvement of law-enforcement.

[Luin Dezlat]

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

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

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

So, I am a little biased when it comes to charm person spells. The reaction to charm person spells in 5e kinda make me sad... I liked the whole, "you don't necessarily know this happened" vibe that 3.5 had. Then again, it was always up to the DM in the long run.

I would think that there is a chance that the one being charmed would notice, but maybe not an automatic knowledge of "that guy charmed me".

Don't know if this post is a tad late or not...

[diplomancer]

I have read the entire thread, and would like to point out some things that it seems that people missed:

- About the right of casting a spell on an unwilling person. I can easily imagine a scenario where this right exists. Suppose you are on a crowded metro, you can hardly move, and the person right next to you is smelling terrible. You are justified in casting prestidigitation at his clothes to clean them up so as not to be overwhelmed with the stench. You do not need to ask permission first, especially if the person might be easily offended by your desire to clean him up.

- About the specific casting of Charm Person: I can easily imagine a scenario where casting it would be justified, and casting Magic Missile (or any damage spell) wouldn't. Suppose a Bard is doing a Performance in an inn, and there is a heckler who is spoiling the performance for everybody. The bard is fully justified in casting Charm Person at the heckler to get him to stop heckling, and he would not be justified in casting Magic Missile at him.

- About what exactly the target of the spell knows after the duration ends. He knows that you Charmed him, which means that he knows that for that time he would not have been able to attack you, and he knows that you were more Persuasive and Intimidating, that if you lied to him he would have believed you more easily. That's it. He does not know how you did it. By RAW, He does not even know that he was forced to consider you a friendly acquaintance for that period, and if he didn't know you before and if you acted like a friendly acquaintance for the whole period of time they could just as well keep considering you a friendly acquaintance. So the one reaction that is sure to happen is that they will take whatever you told him during that period with several grains of salt, anything else will vary from person to person.

-About Zone of Truth being a fool-proof way of adjudicating the claims of someone being Charmed. Zone of Truth only detects deliberate lies. The victim who is testifying "He charmed me" means "I honestly believe he charmed me, I am not making this up because I dislike him". Not enough to convict.

- About the main problem of a DM having all NPCs becoming hostile to the casting of Charm Person: Combined with the Actor feat, Dastardly could do even more Dastardly stuff, pretending to be one of his rivals while he Charms his victims.

[Hail Tempus]

- About the right of casting a spell on an unwilling person. I can easily imagine a scenario where this right exists. Suppose you are on a crowded metro, you can hardly move, and the person right next to you is smelling terrible. You are justified in casting prestidigitation at his clothes to clean them up so as not to be overwhelmed with the stench. You do not need to ask permission first, especially if the person might be easily offended by your desire to clean him up.

In the real world, you don't have the right to spray someone with Febreze in order to make them less smelly. That would constitute assault. If we lived in a world where magic existed, the legal system would treat casting a spell on someone without their permission the same way.

- About the specific casting of Charm Person: I can easily imagine a scenario where casting it would be justified, and casting Magic Missile (or any damage spell) wouldn't. Suppose a Bard is doing a Performance in an inn, and there is a heckler who is spoiling the performance for everybody. The bard is fully justified in casting Charm Person at the heckler to get him to stop heckling, and he would not be justified in casting Magic Missile at him.

Again, going with a real world analogy, a performer who dropped a drug into a heckler's drink to shut him up would be charged with a crime. I don't see why Charm Person should be treated any differently. Sure, it's not as bad as hitting the loudmouth with a Magic Missile, but that doesn't make it okay.

[diplomancer]

In the real world, you don't have the right to spray someone with Febreze in order to make them less smelly. That would constitute assault. If we lived in a world where magic existed, the legal system would treat casting a spell on someone without their permission the same way.

Again, going with a real world analogy, a performer who dropped a drug into a heckler's drink to shut him up would be charged with a crime. I don't see why Charm Person should be treated any differently. Sure, it's not as bad as hitting the loudmouth with a Magic Missile, but that doesn't make it okay.

Assault: an intentional act by one person that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent harmful or offensive contact.

You would be more justified into claiming that being smelly in a subway is assault.

Also, I have been in planes where, without any asking for consent of the passengers from the crew, it gets sprayed with some sort of air fresheners before take-off. It is annoying, but I don't think I could sue the crew for assault for it, even if some of the air-fresheners particles happen to settle on me.

Anyway, as prestidigitation instantly cleans the object without any spraying of the person with any chemicals, your analogy fails.

And yes, if you start by assuming that casting Charm Person is as offensive as drugging some then you will come to the conclusion that casting Charm Person is the equivalent of drugging soemone. To begin with, drugs can have dangerous and unexpected side-effects that Charm Person does not, all its effects are perfectly known to the Caster (there is no one allergic to Charm Person who could die if you cast Charm Person on them, for instance). Drugs can create chemical addiction, charm person does no such thing, etc...

[Potato_Priest]

@Hail Tempus In line with Themrys’ grabbing people on the arm standard, a better analogy would be if you walked up to the heckler, forcibly grabbed their arm, and asked them to stop heckling.

It’s rude, but this is a thing that concert security and bouncers can do in real life, with the implied threat of throwing you out.

[Constructman]

@Hail Tempus In line with Themrys’ grabbing people on the arm standard, a better analogy would be if you walked up to the heckler, forcibly grabbed their arm, and asked them to stop heckling.

It’s rude, but this is a thing that concert security and bouncers can do in real life, with the implied threat of throwing you out.

Wouldn't that be more akin to using the Command spell?