Proper Reaction to Charm Person.

[patchyman]

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

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

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

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

[jh12]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[gloryblaze]

Sorry, it's not mind control.

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

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

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

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

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

[ashtrails]

Very interesting thread!

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

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

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

[NorthernPhoenix]

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

[Imbalance]

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

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

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

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

[Segev]

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

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

Incorrect. I am quite specifically taking pains to include the Advantage on Charisma checks into account. You're actually reinforcing my point, too: in an emergency, your neighbor could convince you to loan/give him $100. Could he also convince you to sleep with him? To hide him from the cops? To be the wheelman in a smash-and-grab burglary?

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

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

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

This is an interesting question. What IS your impression, aside from "I kind-of like him, but don't necessarily know him very well," of the Charmer? This would be extremely context-dependent.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now you're splitting hairs. I'm not sure if you're deliberately misunderstanding me to try to justify disagreeing more strongly, or if you genuinely don't understand what I'm saying, but I can't really help this either way. Suffice it to say that "trick" wasn't trying to imply anything positive, here, when I used it, so attacking the comment by saying the Charm-guy's actions didn't involve cleverness is missing the point so much that I am wasting time refuting it even this much.

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

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

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

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

I can see the difference, however you are trying to argue the point by presuming the conclusion.

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

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

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

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

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

It actually doesn't take a check at all to shift attitude. That's something that is supposed to happen through player skill during the conversation prior to the check, the latter occurring when you get to you request/demand. But not by more than one step, so no hostile --> friendly.
DMG p244-245.

Ah, my bad. Man, Charisma is useless at actually making friends, then. Weird. The dump-Cha fighter brute with a player who has a silver tongue IRL is more likely to make friends in game than the silver-tongued bard whose player is trying desperately to play such a character for the same reasons a parapalegic cancer patient wants to play a physically fit warrior-athlete.

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

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

Seems reasonable.

- Loan them $20 if they forgot their wallet and needed to buy some lunch, but by default expect it back the next day.

Note how very important context is, here: you expect to see them again soon. This wouldn't apply, I'm sure, if you saw this coworker very rarely and weren't sure you'd see him again. (Would you gift $20 to a coworker for lunch?)

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

Guy from the pub friendly aquaint:
- agree it's my turn to buy the next round

Implies a certain amount of reciprocation again.

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

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

Right.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If that was your point, it probably wasn't what I'm referencing. Or you made that point very poorly (sorry). It was in response to me discussing somebody who dressed to the nines and did everything he could to make his presentation of himself appealing, and asking if that was also a terrible, horrible thing to do. And somebody responded, essentially, with "yes, and in fact, I'd find it very suspicious."

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

What commitment have they garnered from me?

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

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

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

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

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

[jh12]

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

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

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

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

Now you're splitting hairs.

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

I can see the difference

Then there's hope for your friends yet.

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

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

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

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

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

[Imbalance]

So much wall.

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

FULL STOP

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

[Segev]

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


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


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

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


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

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

[jh12]

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

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

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

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

[Segev]

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

Sure. And if you're mad because you hate his guts when not charmed, that's fine.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Hail Tempus]

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

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

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

[Unoriginal]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[jh12]

Sure.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Imbalance]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Segev]

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

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

Not comparable. Drugging somebody's drink can get them to make choices they wouldn't make regardless of who asked them to, because it interferes with their decision-making capability. The only decision charm person interferes with is a decision to attack the caster. Outside of situations like the Dastardly one, this is not normally part of the discussion as to why charm person is horrible. What people are getting at with those discussions is the implication that Ella is taking unfair advantage of James, making him do things he'll later regret. Except the spell can't do that. Not unless the regret is specific to James realizing later that Ella is somebody he actively dislikes and would not have wanted to benefit. Otherwise, the spell can only enable Ella to persuade James to do things he would normally do for a friendly acquaintance.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

[sophontteks]

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

The only decision interferes with is attacking???

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

That is legitimately scarier then drugging someones drink.

[jh12]

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

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

Except the spell can't do that.

Except it can and does.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One final analogy, since people keep comparing it to assault

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

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

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

[Segev]

The only decision interferes with is attacking???

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

That is legitimately scarier then drugging someones drink.

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

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

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

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


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

[Imbalance]

What is brainwashing by your definition, Segev?

[Segev]

What is brainwashing by your definition, Segev?

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

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

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

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

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

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

[gloryblaze]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[jh12]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Imbalance]

I think a closer identification might be Stockholm Syndrome

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

How should the target feel?

[Justin Sane]

Raise Dead is mind control - if Alice was dead, Raising her would change her mind (from non-functional to functional, but a change nonetheless).

Wall of Force is mind control - if Alice wanted to get to her bedroom, a Wall of Force would change her mind (from wanting to go into her bedroom to finding whoever prankster pulled this off).

A door lock is mind control - if Alice wanted to leave her home, a locked front door would change her mind (from wanting to leave her home to figuring out why she's being dragged into hypotheticals).

If all mind control is evil and the only appropriate reaction is to get the torches and pitchforks, what does that make of the local Cleric? The travelling Sorcerer? The locksmith's Guild?

[Segev]

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

I agree that you can't discuss it in a vacuum. I am, however, pointing out that it is, once again, in how you use it. And wanted to make sure we weren't leaving other ways of causing the Charmed condition out of consideration.

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

Here's the thing, though: methodology is important because of the consequences of using those methods.

It's important whether you look both ways and wait at the crosswalk for the "walk" sign not because both doing so and not doing so (under the right conditions) won't both get you to the other side of the road, but because the risks to the walker are different. (As well as consequences to any poor driver who happens to hit the irresponsible walker.)

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

This actually extends from the fact that it's important to be able to tell that the government side of this equation has not been engaging in activities that could not just technically violate the rights of the guilty, but be used to frame the innocent. Additionally, rooting through people's private property, papers, etc. can reveal things nobody has any business knowing, and can cause distress and harm directly.

The closest you can come, here, is in saying that realizing you were affected by charm person can cause you distress over the sense of violation of the sanctity of your mind. This does require presuming that "magic made me think they were cool" is a violation of your mind. I could construct an argument that any sort of effort to make you think somebody is cooler than they are is equally a violation. I typically don't, because I don't believe it to be true, but I also don't see the "friendly acquaintance" and "advantage on Charisma" aspects to be such violations. I don't even see the "can't bring yourself to attack them" clause that way under most circumstances; Dastardly is a pretty extreme example.

Similarly, I wouldn't see Doctor Ambiguo taking on the job of saving the life of your child/spouse/loved one pro bono as a wicked deed by itself. If you later found out he was a monster who also serially raped and murdered people of a type which lets you know your loved one is not a potential victim, and saw him doing so to your best friend, the fact that you need him alive to finish the life-saving course of treatment might make it very hard, or even impossible, for you to bring yourself to attack him. That might make his offer to do so take on a much more sinister light, but it doesn't make the offer a malevolent effort at evil mind control when anybody does it.

Contrived? Yes, but I trust it still makes my point: the method is not important if the method doesn't have, itself, further consequences.

Charm person, used as Ella does, doesn't have the kinds of consequences that the doctrine of the poisoned fruit was developed to prevent.

I suppose my point is that the taboo we have over anything mind-affecting stems from how we don't have it in real life. Note how almost every form of mental influence we have IRL is considered just fine (right, Don?) unless it's also involving other forms of abuse that are already over the line on physical violence, or are hallmarks of abusive intent. Stockholm syndrome requires, first, a kidnapping. Brainwashing requires imprisonment and complete control over someone for an extended period of time. The seductor only becomes skeevy when he takes advantage of somebody, not when he just makes pleasant conversation that leaves her eager to see him again. The guy striking up a conversation to make quick friendly acquaintances is only a jerk if he then scams his new "friend."

We don't have real-world examples of people who can use magic to make it easier for them to get along with and break the ice with strangers. Therefore, it must be wicked!

Let's explore a new spell. This spell, called smarmageddon, buffs the caster, giving him a subtle bit of cleaning up and helping his clothing hang to best presentation for whatever style it represents, making his voice clear and generally pleasant, and enhancing his ability to read other people so that he has an almost preternatural sense of what they want, how they're perceiving him, and what they care about. People who fail a Charisma save are open books to him, and he knows just what to do or say to put them at ease (making them tend to regard him as a friendly acquaintance or better after a bit of conversation, if you go by the DMG rules about improving attitude based on their bonds/flaws/etc.), and has a pretty good idea how to present anything he wants to in the most influential light (giving him Advantage on Charisma checks). Further, anybody he can read so well makes utterly predictable attacks, enabling him to automatically dodge all their attacks, make all his saves, and ignore any status effects they inflict that he doesn't like, and reduce all damage they do to zero. i.e., they can't attack him, at least not meaningfully.

Note that smarmageddon hasn't done anything that being very skilled at Wisdom(Insight) couldn't do, in theory. I've exaggerated a bit, but only in the sense that I've taken the notion of reading somebody to an extreme.

Do you find this spell to be acceptable, even if Ella casts it with the intent to ask James out on a date?

Obviously, Dastardly would still be reprehensible for how he took advantage of Alice's inability to help Lucy while he had the spell up.

Okay, let's pretend for a moment you said the spell wasn't acceptable, anyway. What if we just expanded the rules for social interaction so that it was possible to read somebody that well? That is, after all, what social interaction is supposed to be modeling. At what point does mundane social skill become unacceptably wicked to use, because you're just too good at it?

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

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

Except that Don Juan made you enjoy having lunch with him because he's an excellent conversationalist. Is that not as bad?

If Ella "made you" enjoy lunch with her despite being an awkward conversationalist because she is gorgeous and was wearing a skimpy top, is that also wicked?

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

By that logic, animate dead shouldn't be inherently evil, eitehr, since you can use it for only good and make sure to clean up after yourself if there's an issue with uncontrolled undead doing bad things.

That may be another debate entirely, so to stay focused, I'll grant that animate dead is evil, and that's why people should react poorly to its users. But if I grant that, I must point to the fact that charm person is not evil to indicate that reacting poorly to its use when it isn't used to harm anybody is questionable.

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

How should the target feel?

The trouble here is that you're exaggerating what charm person does. Yes, if you've been magically made to be loyal to, love, trust unduly, or otherwise render yourself vulnerable to them in ways they took advantage of, of course you should be upset when you realize how you were used.

Charm person makes you think of them as a friendly acquaintance, not as a protector-figure of great benevolence who cares about you like a parent or liege lord should.

But let's grant a half-way point, because I know you're not trying for the most extreme expressions of Stockholm Syndrome, here, but just to emphasize the sense of connection that is, in fact, false.

So, let's say greater charm person does everything charm person does, except it makes you actively regard the person as a trusted friend.

If they in no way took advantage of that trust to wriggle out secrets you'd prefer to keep, and if all they did with it was get you to trust them enough to do something you find, after the fact, you don't regret doing, why should you be angry? Okay, okay, I get it: the thought of what he COULD have done is upsetting. But what he could have done and what he did are two different things.

If you spend a day with a new acuqaintance - perhaps you're on vacation somewhere and met a charming individual who offered to show you around - and you later found out that he was carrying a deadly weapon the whole day, are you mad at him for having had the ability to have killed you at any time? Unsettled? Sure. But he didn't, and he actually seemed pretty friendly, and you've parted ways amicably.

Personally, I wouldn't even be bothered; he clearly isn't abusing that weapon if I didn't know about it until later, and he didn't do anything I, in retrospect, found objectionable (leaving aside the weapon, since whether that should be found objectionable or not is the matter in question, here).

Barring the subject of the spell knowing its full capabilities, even jumping to the conclusion that "he could have raped my best friend in front of me and I'd have been powerless" is a stretch. Knowing he didn't abuse what you are aware has changed in your attitude with the passing of the spell should be reassuring.

I do understand it being a little sour. What I don't agree with is the excessive "burn the witch!" reactions that some are insisting should be the norm.

[strangebloke]

The only decision interferes with is attacking???

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

That is legitimately scarier then drugging someones drink.

It has potential for that. Sure. I mean, you can totally cast it on someone and kill all of their friends.

But that isn't generally how its used, because it isn't a very good spell for that. I mean, it only stops people from attacking you, so its combat applications (even as a first level spell) are pretty weak. And if combat is occurring, the reaction of the person in question isn't really in any doubt. They're probably just as willing to fight you when the spell ceases as when they started. Heck, they'll fight you as combat is going on, just not with attack rolls.

More often, I see this spell used as an "counter panic" button. IE, you catch a thief in the act, and he gets ready to knife you, and you charm him because you're more interested in just talking to him than in having a fight. The bartender thinks you're with the cartel and goes for his crossbow, and you charm him to cool him down.

Their is also the social engineering angle. You cast it on a stranger, then make some social checks with advantage. In this case, although you have effected their mind, the effect is subtle. I'd say that it is comparable to spiking their drink, but only with more alcohol than they'd expect. You've inhibited (though not prevented) their ability to reason, and their anger upon sobering up and discovering this is going to highly depend on the target and what you were trying to do.

Raise Dead is mind control - if Alice was dead, Raising her would change her mind (from non-functional to functional, but a change nonetheless).

Wall of Force is mind control - if Alice wanted to get to her bedroom, a Wall of Force would change her mind (from wanting to go into her bedroom to finding whoever prankster pulled this off).

A door lock is mind control - if Alice wanted to leave her home, a locked front door would change her mind (from wanting to leave her home to figuring out why she's being dragged into hypotheticals).

If all mind control is evil and the only appropriate reaction is to get the torches and pitchforks, what does that make of the local Cleric? The travelling Sorcerer? The locksmith's Guild?

Yeah, I mean, I think that, while you could call charm person mind control, it requires a pretty broad definition of mind control. You're being rather hyperbolic, but the power of the effect varies a lot depending on the nature of the person you're casting it on.

To reiterate:

• Cast it on a good friend? All you've done is stopped them from attacking you. They probably won't mind, since it was probably countering some other compulsion effect.
• Cast it on a stranger? It's like you slipped an extra shot of vodka into their drink. They might be very pissed about this depending on the circumstances.
• Cast it on an enemy? It's very akin to mind control. They'll hate you for this. But they already did.

Note that even in the last case, the spell doesn't make them forget who you are. They still know that you're a dangerous murderer with a long history of violence, they'll just see you as a friendly acquaintance who is also a murderer with a long history of violence. It isn't like they just abandon all manner of reason and immediately give you their social security number, address, and ring size.

To be clear, I don't quite agree with @Segev. I think that using charm person is nastier than other forms of social engineering, because you are forcing it on someone in spite of their will. It isn't much nastier than playing on a person's primal desires/fears to get them to behave favorably towards you against their better judgement, but it is different.

[Segev]

To be clear, I don't quite agree with @Segev. I think that using charm person is nastier than other forms of social engineering, because you are forcing it on someone in spite of their will. It isn't much nastier than playing on a person's primal desires/fears to get them to behave favorably towards you against their better judgement, but it is different.

Side note: the @ doesn't do anything to call attention of a poster to a thread.

And actually, you've just done a better job of expressing the nuance I've been trying to get across than I have, since I more or less agree with your formulation, here. My one quibble is that I don't agree it's like spiking his screwdriver with a little more vodka, because that implies impaired judgment. As you note, he doesn't forget that you're a dangerous murderer with a long string of victims; he just feels like you're a friendly acquaintance. So an affable murderer who is still dangerous but, as long as this affable dangerous murderer isn't engaging in murder, he's pleasant enough to hang out with, possibly in spite of yourself.

A guy who's drunker than he thinks could be persuaded to forget about the whole murder thing because he doesn't really have the judgment to keep all of that consequence-evaluation stuff in his head at once.

The trouble is that there is no real-world equivalent to properly analogize it.

Still, I agree that it is worse than Don Juan's approach, sufficiently that James may react a little less well than the bar maid Don seduced. But I don't agree that it's so bad that it would necessarily make a long-term difference to Ella's potential relationship with James.


And you did an excellent job framing why I say it's circumstantial. The guys you were fighting are going to be mad when it wears off, yes, but as you said, they already were.

The stranger is going to be off-put, but will largely still depend on his own personality and what, exactly, you did while he was charmed.

[jh12]

Except that Don Juan made you enjoy having lunch with him because he's an excellent conversationalist. Is that not as bad?

No he didn't. I enjoyed the lunch because Don Juan made excellent conversation and I enjoy excellent conversation. If I didn't enjoy excellent conversation, I wouldn't have enjoyed the meal. If he says something stupid, my mind can change. Charm Person doesn't give me those options.

If Ella "made you" enjoy lunch with her despite being an awkward conversationalist because she is gorgeous and was wearing a skimpy top, is that also wicked?

Again, Ella didn't "make me" enjoy lunch by wearing a skimpy top. I enjoyed lunch because Ella was wearing a skimpy top and I enjoy beautiful women in skimpy tops. Not everyone does. And sometimes even beautiful women in skimpy tops are so annoying that they aren't worth be friendly with anymore. Charm Person doesn't give me those options.

Dastardly made Alice view him as a friendly acquaintance even as he gleeful raped and murdered her sister right before her eyes. That's the level of mind control Charm Person imposes, regardless of what you use it for.

Two simple question for those who believe casting Charm Person on unwilling targets in social situations is no big deal:

1. What gives the caster the right to cast any spell on an unwilling target?
2. What gives the caster the right to determine that the target should view the caster as a friendly acquaintance for an hour?