Proper Reaction to Charm Person.

[Potato_Priest]

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

Not really, because with charm person (and with grabbing them on the arm) you still need to do actual diplomacy to get them to stop heckling- it’s just a lot easier because of the force you applied. Command is straight up brief duration mind control (though could be fluffed as body control instead) with no real world counterpart.

[Hail Tempus]

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.

Right, we don't live in a world where magic is a thing. So, we don't have laws forbidding the casting of spells on others. But, if we did live in such a world, wouldn't you expect that there would be laws forbidding the casting of spells on others without their consent? Casting prestidigitation on someone without their consent would probably be a fairly minor crime, Charm Person would probably be a lower-level felony in of itself (with the severity increasing based on what you did to the victim), and spells like Dominate Person would be treated as very serious felonies.

And no, stinky people don't count as 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.

By entering private premises, such as airplanes, you are generally deemed to have consented to the normal operation of that private property by its owners. You're free to spray air fresheners in your house, just like the owner of the airplane is.

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...

Prestiditigation is as offensive as spraying someone with Febreze because it alters their personal property without their consent. Charm Person is as offensive as drugging someone because it alters the operation of their body without their consent.

Even if you knew with 100% certainty that the drug you slipped into someone's drink would have purely positive effects on the person with no negative side effects, you still would have no moral or legal right to do so.

It's a really disturbing position you're taking in arguing that someone's consent doesn't matter if the person ignoring that consent doesn't believe what they're doing is bad.

[Hail Tempus]

@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.

A property owner and his agents certainly have the right to set rules of conduct for their guests and patrons, and they have the right to eject people (using the proportionate level of force) who violate such rules of conduct.

But, I can't imagine that using some sort of mind altering substance to quiet down unruly customers would pass legal muster anywhere in the real world. Why would you treat Charm Person any differently?

[diplomancer]

I have no interest at all in what you think about my morals, Im interested in what is the expected reaction to a casting of Charm Person.
In the one I mentioned, everyone would cheer, (assuming a setting where magic is common and is not in itself alarming) and if the target afterwards went to the City Watch about it, I suspect the expected response would be "well, try not to spoil other people's entertainment next time. You got off easy and had a great time"

[Kyutaru]

A property owner and his agents certainly have the right to set rules of conduct for their guests and patrons, and they have the right to eject people (using the proportionate level of force) who violate such rules of conduct.

But, I can't imagine that using some sort of mind altering substance to quiet down unruly customers would pass legal muster anywhere in the real world. Why would you treat Charm Person any differently?

True, real life uses Shocking Grasp to quiet down unruly customers.

[Hail Tempus]

I have no interest at all in what you think about my morals, Im interested in what is the expected reaction to a casting of Charm Person.
In the one I mentioned, everyone would cheer, (assuming a setting where magic is common and is not in itself alarming) and if the target afterwards went to the City Watch about it, I suspect the expected response would be "well, try not to spoil other people's entertainment next time. You got off easy and had a great time"

The world of Faerun is more rough and tumble than ours. But, places like Waterdeep have laws against casting spells on someone without their consent. If you cast Charm Person on a noble, for example, you would very likely find yourself in front of one of the Magistrates.

In other, less organized places, you might not be in trouble with the law, but the threat of violence would be there.

We don't know exactly how people would react to having spells on them without their consent, since we don't live in the real world. So, think about similar real world examples, and you can extrapolate from there.

I'd advise against spraying people on the Metro with anything, frankly.

[Witty Username]

'snip'

I will give a fair enough. I disagree some with the spells being used for outside their intended purpose, but I can understand the reasoning. As well, there are some fairly open-ended spells (prestidigitation comes to mind) that I would say this gets muddier for.
I don't agree, but I see the logic.

[Segev]

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.

This is a reasonable way to understand what I'm getting at.

A close-up magician who pulls a rose from behind a woman's ear as part of flirting with her could have jabbed her with a drugged thorn on that rose. He didn't, but he could have. By the "digital" interpretation of things, we must treat all sleight-of-hand as if it were the worst thing that could be done with it. He also could have stolen the necklace she's wearing, copped a feel without her noticing, and slipped a roofie in her drink, all as part of his "performance" of flirting.

In the digital interpretation, then, sleight of hand is evil to use at all times. Any display of it, even for harmless entertainment meant to break the ice and make friends, is to be interpreted as a hostile act because if the sleight-of-hand magician is secretly as wicked as Dastardly, he COULD use it for all those horrible, evil things. Therefore, the "digital" interpretation is that he has done the equivalent of all those things by producing that rose with sleight of hand.

Likewise, while Ella, having cast charm person on James, could proceed to demonstrate the depths of her depravity using some knock-out pills, a toothbrush, and a thousand live spiders on James's best friend that she's knocked out, and James would be as powerless to stop her or to view her as anything but a friendly acquaintance (at whom he's probably quite angry and/or of whom he's likely quite afraid). Because she COULD do this, the "digital" interpretation says we must consider that she has already done the equivalent by casting charm person and using it as a social lubricant.

My claim - and I will accept the term "Analog" for this - is that what you COULD do iwth it doesn't matter if you DON'T do it with it, and aren't using the threat of it. (Obviously, if our stage magician starts intimating all the awful things he could do as threats, the analog interpretation of his actions changes dramatically from one where he makes no such intimations and is seriously just trying to be entertainingly flirtatious.)

Therefore, if all you're using charm person for is 'social lubrication,' then that's all it is, and at worst, the negative reaction should be around the level of "he tricked me into enjoying that hour of conversation!"

[JackPhoenix]

Snip

Once again, you fail to aknowledge the fact that the very act of casting Charm Person is messing with the victim's mind. Unlike the stage magician who *could* have done something morally dubious, but didn't, the caster already did it by casting the spell. The stage magician's skill does have a potential for abuse, sure, as do having Charm Person amongst the spells known, but the magician choose to not excercise that power.

Try to drug someone, and then try defending it as only doing it for "social lubrication". See how well that goes. That's what you're supporting when you claim casting Charm Person on someone in casual social interaction is acceptable.

[Segev]

Once again, you fail to aknowledge the fact that the very act of casting Charm Person is messing with the victim's mind. Unlike the stage magician who *could* have done something morally dubious, but didn't, the caster already did it by casting the spell. The stage magician's skill does have a potential for abuse, sure, as do having Charm Person amongst the spells known, but the magician choose to not excercise that power.

Try to drug someone, and then try defending it as only doing it for "social lubrication". See how well that goes. That's what you're supporting when you claim casting Charm Person on someone in casual social interaction is acceptable.

It’s almost as it what you’re accusing me of “refusing to acknowledge” is what’s in dispute, or something.

You have to prove that what you want me to acknowledge is true if you want to be doing more than insisting that you’re right because you say so.

“You’re refusing to acknowledge that being a wizard is evil. Unlike the fighter, who could do evil deeds but didn’t, the wizard already did evil by being a wizard. The fighter’s skills have potential for abuse, sure, but the fighter chose not to use them that way, while the wizard already did by being a wizard.”

Your argument is exactly as logical as this one is if this one’s goal is to prove that wizards are all evil.

[Reversefigure4]

Try to drug someone, and then try defending it as only doing it for "social lubrication". See how well that goes. That's what you're supporting when you claim casting Charm Person on someone in casual social interaction is acceptable.

Like... buying them a drink? A social act of drugging somebody often for the express purpose of socially lubricating them?

You can buy a girl a drink, roofie her, and abuse her... but 99.9% of drink buyers not only don't, but have no intention of ever doing so. It would be an odd reaction to freak out and call the cops every time somebody offered to buy you a drink.

[JackPhoenix]

It’s almost as it what you’re accusing me of “refusing to acknowledge” is what’s in dispute, or something.

You have to prove that what you want me to acknowledge is true if you want to be doing more than insisting that you’re right because you say so.

“You’re refusing to acknowledge that being a wizard is evil. Unlike the fighter, who could do evil deeds but didn’t, the wizard already did evil by being a wizard. The fighter’s skills have potential for abuse, sure, but the fighter chose not to use them that way, while the wizard already did by being a wizard.”

Your argument is exactly as logical as this one is if this one’s goal is to prove that wizards are all evil.

No, in all your examples, the wizard *did* abuse his abilities by casting a spell on a victim in situation where such action was not warranted. You're constantly claiming that fighter having an ability to force someone to do something is equal to a wizard not only having an ability to do so, but using it.

Like... buying them a drink? A social act of drugging somebody often for the express purpose of socially lubricating them?

You can buy a girl a drink, roofie her, and abuse her... but 99.9% of drink buyers not only don't, but have no intention of ever doing so. It would be an odd reaction to freak out and call the cops every time somebody offered to buy you a drink.

No, like forcing someone to drink or drugging them without their knowledge or consent, and without any chance to defend themselves. It doesn't matter if you're drugging them (charming them) as "social lubrication" or to rape them. The drug (or the charm spell) was used on unwilling victim in either case.

I don't remember the casters in the examples (I don't really care about names) asking the victim if they can use mind-affecting magic on them with the purpose of "enjoying the conversation" first. I wonder why... perhaps because the victim would find that less enjoyable and much more creepy than getting a free drink in a place where they wanted to drink anyway?

[Shuruke]

So the steam punk dnd world im running all casters have to be certified legally with the fantasy equivalent of U.N

Using a divination spell they can see what spells you know and what spells you Have in your spellbook

Their is a certification for each school of magic both of which having rules and etc.

Evocation is like concealed firearm

Divination is like having a journalism pass

Necromancy is having same certifications someone running a morgue uses (lesser undead in my world are inherently nuetral as they are part of circle of life )


Rather than naming them all ill just go to enchantment

Enchantment has the same certification and alot of same rules as being certified to handle chemicals. Think pesticides , chemocals science teachers use for demonstrations , etc

[LibraryOgre]

The Mod Wonder: I think this has run it's course.