Proper Reaction to Charm Person.

[sophontteks]

Let us consider friends. It gives you Advantage on Charisma-based checks against the target for 1 minute; after that, the target becomes Hostile to you because he realizes you messed with his head. Interestingly, this latter is framed as non-magical and given a fluff explanation, but (for example) would you really expect somebody to become hostile to you for doing this if, say, they asked you to demonstrate how it worked? Or other contrived circumstances where they'd be grateful by the time the minute was over (e.g. they're afflicted by a mental control effect and you use it to gain Advantage on an opposed roll with their controlling caster to try to counter the controller's orders)? The spell makes no provision for this, so either we're in "rulings, not rules" territory for the DM to decide if that bit doesn't apply, or it's actually part of the spell to sour attitudes towards you as a sort of rebound effect.

Why do I bring up friends? Because it is an interesting contrast with charm person in that charm person contains no text dictating the attitude dropping to Hostile. Indeed, the spell specifies that the Charmed creature is Friendly to you, and that, when the spell ends, it knows it was Charmed by you. The latter suggests that it doesn't know (or doesn't care) that it's Charmed by you while under the effects of the spell. The former could be read in a twisty way to say that the Charmed effect ends with the spell's duration, but the Friendliness doesn't.

Friends makes a creature hostile in order to prevent friends from being spammable. It only works on creatures who aren't hostile, and makes them hostile afterwards. It is terribly written and has better use making creatures hostile then it does charming them. I appreciate the example, I just think friends is terribly written. It shouldn't make creatures hostile.

[Monster Manuel]

(Charming the guy who's dedicated his life to killing you for what you did to his family won't stick, obviously.)

But, what if you didn't actually kill his family? What if you used Charm Person to get him to sit down and talk it out. You spend the time while he is Charmed laying out what really happened, presenting strong evidence of who the real killer was, and expressing your desire to see the killer brought to justice just as much as he does. You're also completely honest with him; you tell him that you know how angry he is, and the only reason you're able to sit and tell him this is because of a spell you used to calm him down.

He never would have sat down with you to hear you out without the spell; you were on his kill-on-sight list. But after the Charm wears off, he doesn't forget the new information you provided him with. He's seen the evidence that he would have ignored otherwise, and remembers that you and he have a common enemy. All that DOES stick.

He also knows that you've enchanted him against his will. He'll naturally be skeptical of everything you just told him. But he also knows WHY you enchanted him.

Honestly, in this sort of situation, I think the victim comes out of the Charm LESS upset with you, not more.

If you used the Friends cantrip to try to Persuade him with advantage, he'd come out of it Hostile to you, regardless of what was said. With Charm, I think it's more nuanced.

[JackPhoenix]

To be fair, the way it more likely is expressed is, "He bewitched me! I wasn't in my right mind! He made evil things sound reasonable!" Without articulating that "hanging out with him" is an "evil thing" in this guys mind, now, because he's mad as heck about being Charmed.

Here's the thing: the victim can't trust their memory. Sure, we, the players, know messing with someone's memories is more difficult, less accessible and has limits, but commoner who's only heard inaccurate rumors about what mages can do to your mind? The victim remember they've had a pleasant chat with the caster, but is that actually what happened? Why would someone used magic to mess with someone's mind if they only wanted to hang out? What else has happened... is the memory true? Is there some hidden curse waiting in the victims mind? After all, you've all heard the tales about friend's friend's aquitance who claimed someone used magic to mess with him, but nobody believed him until he snapped and murdered his whole family before commiting suicide.... surely work of evil magic and not just the result of mental problems....

[Daghoulish]

I think I'm on the side of not so harsh. I mean, if someone charmed me with the spell and convinced me to give them 10$ (something I might do for a friendly acquaintance) and went about their day after having a nice conversation with them. An hour passes and the spell fades and it says I know I was charmed, but how would my mind actually articulate this? Would a voice tell me "YOU HAVE BEEN CHARMED BY MAGIC!" or would it more likely be "huh, that person was kind of a jerk. I don't think I like them anymore". I know it's magic, but the brain tends to rationalize things that happen and you can't explain. Suddenly disliking someone sounds like the instance your brain would kick into high gear and rationalize it. As a reasonable person the thing to do is go talk with them and see if you could reverse whatever happend (Hey man, could I have those 10$ back I need it for something.). People don't immediately go for "BURN THEM, BURN EVERYTHING THEY OWN!". That is a knee-jerk reaction if I've ever heard one. If it was really bad and they got something precious to me (family heirloom or things equivalent) then I'd notify the guards that I'd been robbed (leaving anything about mind control out) and alert my friends to not trust or talk to those people. But for 10$? My life,family,and friends are worth far more than 10$. I'll stick by them and get on with my life.

[Constructman]

In Eberron, using mind affecting magic is considered a form of fraud. Another form of fraud is "Counterfeint of identity with criminal intent", which covers Disguise Self and shapeshifting, but the wording suggest that unless you cause problems, you can shift into whatever you want. Cases of fraud require court resolution, and usual punishments are fines, exile (may not be relevant outside Sharn) and branding.

I think this is the correct degree of response. Anything more severe would be like organizing lynch mobs to go after MLM stooges. As much as I want to hang the Amway salesman from the trees for peddling ****ty goods and making me listen to his potentially hours-long spiel, that would just be excessive.

[Sigreid]

I think we've got 2 different looks at the spell going. Seems one side views it as kind of a magical rufi, where as I fall on a side that sees it as more the magical equivalent of setting up an impressive and comfortable lobby with pleasant music playing and some calming fragrances in the air to put me at ease before the salesman comes in for the kill.

From my perspective, if you view charm in that hostile of a light, you should be positively livid at the intentionally manipulative crap companies subject us to day in and day out.

[jh12]

I think we've got 2 different looks at the spell going. Seems one side views it as kind of a magical rufi, where as I fall on a side that sees it as more the magical equivalent of setting up an impressive and comfortable lobby with pleasant music playing and some calming fragrances in the air to put me at ease before the salesman comes in for the kill.

A lobby that can turn a mortal enemy into a friendly acquaintance for an hour is one impressive lobby.

[Sigreid]

A lobby that can turn a mortal enemy into a friendly acquaintance for an hour is one impressive lobby.

I still maintain that in my view it's no more insidious than the things we are exposed to every day by companies, governments and politicians using applied psychology.

[sophontteks]

Being charmed is about the same as being drugged. There are mind-altering drugs that can perform a similar role. It doesn't matter what you did afterwards, you still drugged someone. This is not a path toward friendship.

[Sigreid]

Being charmed is about the same as being drugged. There are mind-altering drugs that can perform a similar role. It doesn't matter what you did afterwards, you still drugged someone. This is not a path toward friendship.

I don't think I've seen anyone argue that it's a friendly act, just not necessarily any more evil/despicable than any other form of psychological warfare.

[sophontteks]

I don't think I've seen anyone argue that it's a friendly act, just not necessarily any more evil/despicable than any other form of psychological warfare.

Apples and oranges really. This an act between two individuals, two people. Gotta be careful applying human traits to large entities IMO.

But a lot of people are arguing that it's not a bad act, more like a prank, or something easily dismissed. It's messing with someone's head, taking away their control over their body and mind. That is a pretty terrible thing to do to someone.

[FaerieGodfather]

So are we assuming, if charm for an hour = rape, minimum, that the girl from harry potter should have been kicked out school, possibly barred from magic altogether?

Like most YA fiction these days, Harry Potter is a horrifying dystopia. Unlike most YA fiction these days, this is seemingly accidental.

Practically everything about the Hogwarts school would be called criminal negligence in a court of law, and yet powerful and respected wizards are proud to send their own children there.

It's the most realistic thing about the series.

[Segev]

Apples and oranges really. This an act between two individuals, two people. Gotta be careful applying human traits to large entities IMO.

But a lot of people are arguing that it's not a bad act, more like a prank, or something easily dismissed. It's messing with someone's head, taking away their control over their body and mind. That is a pretty terrible thing to do to someone.

I’m arguing that treating it the way you’re suggesting makes it next to useless on bards, sorcerers, and anybody who is meant to be social. It also should be considered more evil than creating undead.

Since it isn’t treated that way by the rules, your interpretation must be somehow wrong.

[BurgerBeast]

But, what if you didn't actually kill his family? What if you used Charm Person to get him to sit down and talk it out.

...

If you used the Friends cantrip to try to Persuade him with advantage, he'd come out of it Hostile to you, regardless of what was said. With Charm, I think it's more nuanced.

No it’s not more nuanced. Just because, under very specific circumstances, you can use it for a good cause (i.e. just because sometimes the ends justifies the means) does not prove that it is generally justifiable (i.e. that the means itself is justifiable). [Edit: what I mean to say is not even remotely justifiable. I know you’re not trying to claim it is generally justifiable. I just mean that even generally unjustifiable things have specific exceptions, but this is not enough to claim they are nuanced.]

Just because sometimes a doctor can drug you and cut you up with a scalpel and it is helpful does not make the drugging and cutting up of people “more nuanced.”

It is a disgusting thing to do. Even knowing that doctors can do it to good effect in some specific circumstances - it’s still disgusting and horrible, generally, for one person to drug and cut up another. [Edit: there’s no nuance to it. It’s understood that “nuance” is not a requirement for specific exceptions exist.]

- - -

To others who see my view as absolutist or extreme: I’m not equating the spells to rape (as others may be), personally, but I am saying that it is undeniably wrong, in principle, morally, to rob someone of their autonomy. We can argue the degree, but to my view it remains a matter of principle even while accepting that there are differences in degree.

It’s a bit like saying that stealing $2 is no big deal. I disagree. I think stealing is always a big deal. You’re free to say that stealing $1 million dollars is worse, and I’d agree, but that doesn’t change the fact that stealing $2 is still wrong, in principle.

(This example is relevant only insofar as you think theft is a moral concern, but for the purpose of this example just play along or invent a more relevant example that is moral and varies by degree.)

[Segev]

It doesn’t rob three of autonomy. That would be dominate. Charm just makes you more likable and persuasive.

[BurgerBeast]

It doesn’t rob three of autonomy. That would be dominate. Charm just makes you more likable and persuasive.

I maintain that it robs you of your autonomy, not entirely but to some degree.

This is because I disagree with you that it makes you more likeable and persuasive. It charms another person so that the target views you are as more likeable and persuasive than you actually are, which is why you are only more likeable and persuasive to the target but no one else.

It’s as if the target has had a couple of cocktails and has his or her beer-goggles on. But nobody else does. It’s mind-affecting.

If the target drank the beers himself (or herself), then it’s on him (her). If you secretly slipped him (her) the beers, it’s on you.

[Sigreid]

I maintain that it robs you of your autonomy, not entirely but to some degree.

This is because I disagree with you that it makes you more likeable and persuasive. It charms another person so that the target views you are as more likeable and persuasive than you actually are, which is why you are only more likeable and persuasive to the target but no one else.

It’s as if the target has had a couple of cocktails and has his or her beer-goggles on. But nobody else does. It’s mind-affecting.

If the target drank the beers himself (or herself), then it’s on him (her). If you secretly slipped him (her) the beers, it’s on you.

This is why I think we're talking a couple of different understandings of what it does. My reading it does not rob you of your autonomy, with the exception that it prevents the target from initiation hostilities against you (nothing in the spell would stop them from attacking any of your allies). If hostilities have already started, they get advantage on the save. Beyond that, they're marginally more likely to view what you say in the best light possible. It's not Suggestion, it won't plant an absurd idea in their head. It's not dominate, they won't do anything that is against their nature or code, or that will likely lead to harm for themselves or their actual friends/allies. It could, admittedly help you haggle with a merchant, but he's still not going to sell at a loss if he knows he can get a profit from someone else. And all of this is besides the fact that unless you have a decent charisma/charisma skills it's probably pretty useless, except for that bit about them not attacking you while under its effects.

[MadBear]

To me, the fact that the "Friends" spell exists, at least gives us an idea as to the intent of Charm Person. If Charm Person was supposed to provoke a hostile reaction, it'd probably say so, since there's already precedent.

[Reversefigure4]

An hour passes and the spell fades and it says I know I was charmed, but how would my mind actually articulate this? Would a voice tell me "YOU HAVE BEEN CHARMED BY MAGIC!" or would it more likely be "huh, that person was kind of a jerk. I don't think I like them anymore". I know it's magic, but the brain tends to rationalize things that happen and you can't explain.

This is about where I sit, too. It's feels like when a slick talking salesman convinces you to buy a product you don't want. Or the girl at the bar suddenly walks away and stops flirting with you the moment you've paid for her drink. Or when you realise that beggar you were feeling sympathy for is only pretending to be homeless. You feel conned, a little embarrassed, and a little angry.

You feel like the person was friendly and you were happy to help them out, but now that you've had some time to think about it, you feel a bit ripped off. Your reaction is dependent on the circumstances in which you've been cheated. If it's a small cheat (your new friend 'borrowed' $10), most people will just shrug, be unhappy, and move on with their lives. If it's a big cheat (you bought a new car), you'll attempt to reverse the transaction, possibly bringing the law into it.

The Charm can't make you do things you wouldn't do for a friend anyway, so you're generally not parting with vast hordes of money you absolutely can't afford to lose, or sleeping with someone despite your vows of chastity, or breaking a series of massive rules that'll instantly cost you your job.

(That's the reaction from the average man on the street, anyway. Somebody with enough knowledge of magic to recognise the specifics of Charm Person - ie, somebody who makes their Arcana roll - might react differently).

[jh12]

It doesn’t rob three of autonomy. That would be dominate. Charm just makes you more likable and persuasive.

That's not what the spell does at all. You don't cast the spell on yourself--you target a victim. It doesn't make you more likable and persuasive. It makes them less able to resist you. The spell affects them, not you. If that's what the spell did, it would work on anyone you interacted with over the course of the hour instead of just the victims.

And if the spell isn't robbing them of their autonomy, why are you casting it? If it doesn't affect their ability to make decision, what's the point? You are casting it because you want them to do what you want them to do, not what they want to do. That's robbing them of their autonomy.

[sophontteks]

I think you're overstating charm person a touch. It doesn't change your mind or your very essence. It makes you marginally more amiable to the person who cast it. Heck, while it does make it a bit easier to talk you into something you're not that opposed to anyway, it has 0 chance of someone talking you into something you absolutely would not do. Heck, if you hate someone such that they'd have disadvantage in talking you viewing anything they say in a favorable light, charm person would only get you back to an even chance.

I think a lot of people underestimate how strong the spell is. The charmed effect is very minor, but the spell also changes the targets opinion of you to a friendly aquantance. Its the later part people underestimate.

You are a friendly aquantance to the target for the entire duration of the spell, no matter what you do, or how you behave. This makes it very difficult for them to rationalize your behavior when you do things that would, under normal conditions, change their stance towards you.

[Sigreid]

I think a lot of people underestimate how strong the spell is. The charmed effect is very minor, but the spell also changes the targets opinion of you to a friendly aquantance. Its the later part people underestimate.

You are a friendly aquantance to the target for the entire duration of the spell, no matter what you do, or how you behave. This makes it very difficult for them to rationalize your behavior when you do things that would, under normal conditions, change their stance towards you.

I've got a lot of friendly acquaintances, they aren't people I lend money or give special deals. They're people I will do minor favors for if they dont inconvenience me much.

[Segev]

That's not what the spell does at all. You don't cast the spell on yourself--you target a victim. It doesn't make you more likable and persuasive. It makes them less able to resist you. The spell affects them, not you. If that's what the spell did, it would work on anyone you interacted with over the course of the hour instead of just the victims.

And if the spell isn't robbing them of their autonomy, why are you casting it? If it doesn't affect their ability to make decision, what's the point? You are casting it because you want them to do what you want them to do, not what they want to do. That's robbing them of their autonomy.

It makes you more charming to them.

And if rolling Charisma (Persuasion) isn’t robbing them of autonomy, why are you doing it?

If wearing clothing that flatters you and fits the situation, avoiding giving you Disadvantage on that Charisma(Persuasion) roll isn’t robbing them of autonomy, why are you doing it?

If bringing them a gift that gives you advantage on the Charisma(Persuasion) roll isn’t robbing them of autonomy, why are you doing it?

[strangebloke]

I've got a lot of friendly acquaintances, they aren't people I lend money or give special deals. They're people I will do minor favors for if they dont inconvenience me much.

I think his point is that the effect can be very powerful if used on someone who hates you, or depending on what is done to you while you're under the spell.

For example, if a friendly acquaintance came by and stole my car, I wouldn't consider them a friendly acquaintance any more. But with charm person in effect, I still do. I might be generally opposed to them, but I, almost literally, can't get too mad about it.

But this is getting towards context.

No it’s not more nuanced. Just because, under very specific circumstances, you can use it for a good cause (i.e. just because sometimes the ends justifies the means) does not prove that it is generally justifiable (i.e. that the means itself is justifiable). [Edit: what I mean to say is not even remotely justifiable. I know you’re not trying to claim it is generally justifiable. I just mean that even generally unjustifiable things have specific exceptions, but this is not enough to claim they are nuanced.]

Just because sometimes a doctor can drug you and cut you up with a scalpel and it is helpful does not make the drugging and cutting up of people “more nuanced.”

It is a disgusting thing to do. Even knowing that doctors can do it to good effect in some specific circumstances - it’s still disgusting and horrible, generally, for one person to drug and cut up another. [Edit: there’s no nuance to it. It’s understood that “nuance” is not a requirement for specific exceptions exist.]

- - -

To others who see my view as absolutist or extreme: I’m not equating the spells to rape (as others may be), personally, but I am saying that it is undeniably wrong, in principle, morally, to rob someone of their autonomy. We can argue the degree, but to my view it remains a matter of principle even while accepting that there are differences in degree.

It’s a bit like saying that stealing $2 is no big deal. I disagree. I think stealing is always a big deal. You’re free to say that stealing $1 million dollars is worse, and I’d agree, but that doesn’t change the fact that stealing $2 is still wrong, in principle.

(This example is relevant only insofar as you think theft is a moral concern, but for the purpose of this example just play along or invent a more relevant example that is moral and varies by degree.)

I think this is a very fair take on things. However, I want to be clear that I'm not trying to establish a "morality of charm person" thread, because any and all internet morality discussions degenerate into poo-flinging within five posts.

I'm asking what a reasonable response would be in a variety of situations. There's actually been a lot of interesting discussion here levied although its gotten lost in the noise of people with absolute opinions. Actually, although I've seen absolutist arguments for "Cast Charm Person? WHOLE TOWN KILL YOU" I've yet to see someone here describe it as a good thing, merely a bad thing that sometimes people will let slide for personal/contextual reasons.

anyway, to highlight some posts that I found interesting:

Yes. ABSOLUTELY yes.

In a world where magic is known and understood, you can assume the people writing the laws have at least a basic understanding of what a Charm spell can do. Laws are pretty harsh about what happens to traitors and secret-spillers. When the ruling class is interested in keeping secrets, the fact that someone with ill-intent can very easily make anyone on their payroll into a "trusted acquaintance" would be extremely threatening to them. Laws against that kind of manipulation would be accordingly harsh, and in many cases probably harsher than the crime committed under the Charm.

As a corollary, I would see Guards in this setting getting increasingly annoyed with apprehended perps who claim that they were Charmed into doing their mis-deeds. "Honest, guv'nor. Oi NEVAH woulda' taken it, only me boss CHARMED me into takin' it. 'E MAGICKED me into doin' it, 'e did". How could they ever prove he was lying?

They would know that all the "this one is a friend" feelings they had were fake.

An appropriate response depends on the character. A coward might flee, someone like the Mountain would cleave you in two were you stand, someone like Aria would put you on her list, some might tolerate your behavior if there is something important enough at stake.

[Vogie]

I think there's some issue with what precisely the "charm" term means.

Dominate Person, Geas & a GOO warlock's Create Thrall is the one that is akin to Mindrape - you are literally puppeting a person around.

Enthrall & an enchantment wizard's Hypnotic Gaze is more akin to mesmerizing or hypnotizing the target - they can't see anyone but you, so the rest of the party can just pass by that guard you're talking to. They may not realize what had happened, unless they realize time has passed.

Command and Charm Person is akin to making the target believe you're instantly as convincing as a good friend would be - you are twice as likely to convince them to do things due to advantage. How they feel about it afterwards depends on what it is you ask them to do: are you making them hold the murder weapon while you escape? Are you commanding the room to flee before something terrible happen? Did you tell them these aren't the droids you're looking for?

Friends, on the other hand, is more like you're being pulled one over on, like by a con man or a smooth talker - there's a defined moment where the target says "... Wait" at the end of the minute, with the varying level of Hostility coming as a Delayed Reaction or Double Take as soon as the duration runs out.

[Sigreid]

I think his point is that the effect can be very powerful if used on someone who hates you, or depending on what is done to you while you're under the spell.

For example, if a friendly acquaintance came by and stole my car, I wouldn't consider them a friendly acquaintance any more. But with charm person in effect, I still do. I might be generally opposed to them, but I, almost literally, can't get too mad about it.

But this is getting towards context.


I think this is a very fair take on things. However, I want to be clear that I'm not trying to establish a "morality of charm person" thread, because any and all internet morality discussions degenerate into poo-flinging within five posts.

I'm asking what a reasonable response would be in a variety of situations. There's actually been a lot of interesting discussion here levied although its gotten lost in the noise of people with absolute opinions. Actually, although I've seen absolutist arguments for "Cast Charm Person? WHOLE TOWN KILL YOU" I've yet to see someone here describe it as a good thing, merely a bad thing that sometimes people will let slide for personal/contextual reasons.

anyway, to highlight some posts that I found interesting:

I guess I'd say that I would much rather someone charm me for an hour and steal my car than conk me on the head with a pipe or threaten my life and steal my car.

[Imbalance]

If a person takes steps to make themselves presentable, such as keeping clean and neat grooming, fresh attire, splashes on a pleasing fragrance, makes themselves personable, and can be interesting in conversation and demeanor, you would say this person was charming. Personally, I would be wary about such a one, because my suspicion would be that all of that effort was based on the confidence and history of someone who is used to getting what they want from those who are easily swayed. This isn't to say that we couldn't be friends, but I would constantly be on guard against subtle manipulation. This is my will.

The spell in question removes my willful wariness, and is thus an equal violation to my individual sovereignty as any other assault on my natural rights. It is the real world equivalent to slipping a mickey into someone's drink with the intent of chemically altering their state of mind or degree of consciousness. I have no tolerance for this. At the very least, I would make the treachery publicly known and would be certain to have no further interactions with the caster. Beyond that, I would do everything in my power to ensure justice to the fullest extent of whatever laws govern the protections of such rights be levied against the perpetrator of the act. I don't know how much more egregious an influence of this spell's magnitude I would find abhorrently evil, but the utmost reciprocity would be to do whatever it takes to make damn sure they never do it again.

[Segev]

Dominate Person, Geas & a GOO warlock's Create Thrall is the one that is akin to Mindrape - you are literally puppeting a person around.

This is true for the first two, but the GOO Warlock's Thrall is actually much weaker than that. All it does is apply the Charmed condition (which merely gives Advantage on Charisma checks and prevents them from attacking the Charmer) and give a constant, distance-independent telepathic link to the Thrall. It requires much more mundane brainwashing of the "voice in my head that sounds really persuasive" variety, and doesn't even provide charm person's "they see you as a friendly acquaintance" clause.

If a person takes steps to make themselves presentable, such as keeping clean and neat grooming, fresh attire, splashes on a pleasing fragrance, makes themselves personable, and can be interesting in conversation and demeanor, you would say this person was charming. Personally, I would be wary about such a one, because my suspicion would be that all of that effort was based on the confidence and history of someone who is used to getting what they want from those who are easily swayed. This isn't to say that we couldn't be friends, but I would constantly be on guard against subtle manipulation. This is my will.

I'm sure there are, in fact, ways that somebody could dress and act that would put you at ease and make you more inclined to trust them. You, personally, don't find being well-dressed and groomed to fit that bill, but perhaps you'd find a certain kind of laid-back disheveledness, or a particular subculture's style, to be more trustworthy. There is SOMETHING you find so, or you would be an extremely paranoid and distrusting person in general.

The spell in question removes my willful wariness, and is thus an equal violation to my individual sovereignty as any other assault on my natural rights. It is the real world equivalent to slipping a mickey into someone's drink with the intent of chemically altering their state of mind or degree of consciousness. I have no tolerance for this. At the very least, I would make the treachery publicly known and would be certain to have no further interactions with the caster. Beyond that, I would do everything in my power to ensure justice to the fullest extent of whatever laws govern the protections of such rights be levied against the perpetrator of the act. I don't know how much more egregious an influence of this spell's magnitude I would find abhorrently evil, but the utmost reciprocity would be to do whatever it takes to make damn sure they never do it again.

Charm person doesn't actually impede judgment on any topic other than whether the person casting it is a stranger, enemy, or friendly acquaintance. It hard-sets to the last. (Arguable whether it downgrades from "good friend" to that; probably doesn't, but that's a DM call.)

It isn't dominate person or even suggestion.

Treating it as somehow worse than being naturally charming and likable is more than a little unfair, and basically makes the spell next to useless for anything BUT screwing people over, since its duration is only 1 hour. Treating it as an icebreaker and allowing that circumstances may make somebody say, "I know what you did, but I'll forgive it this time, since you haven't abused my trust," is reasonable.

Or do you think the girl who bats her eyes at a boy and does everything she can to get and keep his attention, flatters him, and works to get him to like her is abrogating his will because he has hormones?

[Asmotherion]

Well a good way to approach this is through hypnossis; Apparently after hypnossis you remember the interaction and may notice you responded to some suggestions you normally wouldn't have (rationalising them).

So if you were not aware of being hypnotised you'd probably go to the guy who was giving you the suggestions you were following and at least demand an explaination?

i don't believe charm person (as the spell) gives you some magical awareness of it's effects rather that you're able to rationalice and easyly deduce who was magically influencing you to act in a specific way; also that he used "something" on you (arcana for deducing the spell) and it was probably magic.

[deljzc]

I think describing the used of charm spell to your players as "Jedi Mind Trick" establishes a very good baseline of what type of suggestions are acceptable and what are not.

As a level 1 spell, there should be some pretty good restrictions on its power level of suggestion and I would argue asking too much during the spell could backfire, the subject immediately breaks out of the trance, and knows what is happening often becoming hostile immediately (or fleeing for help if at a disadvantage).