Charm Person: Ogres included?

[Zulgyan]

In your OD&D games, can Charm Person charm Ogres? This doubt showed up in my game today.

OD&D and 1E do not explicitly mention ogres in spell description.

But Moldvay Basic says: "It will not affect undead, nor creatures larger than an ogre". So it looks like ogres would be included there.

I am inclined to include them.

[Zulgyan]

Gary Gygax in Dragon #90 wrote:

With the vast array of new monsters found in the FIEND FOLIO® Tome and the Monster Manual II, most players and DMs are left wondering which "humanoid" types are affected by the charm person and hold person spells. No need for further concern — the expanded list is printed below.

The creature types are keyed to the book in which they are found: (M) for the original Monster Manual, (II) for Monster Manual II, and (F) for the FIEND FOLIO book. Note that the half-elf and half-orc are also included, even though they don't have "monster" descriptions, because they are character races.

Aarakocra (F)
Atomie (II)
Azer (II)
Booka (F)
Brownie (M)
Buckawn (II)
Bullywug (F)
Dark Creeper (F)
Dark Stalker (F)
Derro (II)
Dryad (M)
Duergar (II)
Dwarf(M)
Elf(M)
Firenewt (F)
Flind (F)
Forlarren (F)
Frost Man (F)
Gibberling (F)
Githyanki (F)
Githzerai (F)
Gnoll (M)
Grig (II)
Gnome (M)
Goblin (M)
Grimlock (F)
Halfling (M)
Half-elf
Half-orc
Hobgoblin (M)
Jermlaine (F)
Kenku (F)
Killmoulis (F)
Kobold (M)
Korred (II)
Lizard King (F)
Lizard Man (M)
Meazel (F)
Men (M)
Mite (F)
Mongrelman (II)
Nereid (II)
Nixie (M)
Norker (F)
Ogrillon (F)
Orc (M)
Pech (II)
Pixie (M)
Quaggoth (F)
Quickling (II)
Qullan (F)
Shade (II)
Sirine (II)
Snyad (F)
Spriggan, size S (II)
Sprite (M)
Svirfneblin (F)
Swanmay (II)
Taer (II)
Tasloi (II)
Troglodyte (M)
Xvart (F)[/quote]

[Zulgyan]

So Ogres are out of that list. I am still inclined to include them. What do you guys think?

[Desparil]

I would say not, since ogres are the upper limit on Sleep (affects 1 creature of 4 or 4+1 HD). Since a charmed creature is more valuable than a sleeping one, I would err on the side of disallowing the ogre. Also, the description says "near to or less than man-size" - which leaves it somewhat up to interpretation, but I think most people wouldn't consider ogres at 7 to 10 feet being near enough to man-size to count.

[talysman]

None of the example creatures in the spell description has more the 2 hit dice, so I suppose not. Notice also that Medusae and Gargoyles are left off the list (HD 4 creatures, and presumably smaller than ogres.)

Also see the Charm Monster spell description, which mentions: "If animals or creatures with three or fewer hit dice are involved determine how many are effected [sic] by the spell by rolling three six-sided dice." So maybe a good guideline is:

- Charm Person: one "person" with up to 3 hit dice.
- Charm Monster: 3 to 18 creatures with up to 3 hit dice, or one creature with more than 3 hit dice.

[Finarvyn]

Sept 15, 2019 0:49:04 GMT -6 talysman said:

Also see the Charm Monster spell description...

Talysman has actual quotes and HD numbers, I have a gut feel. There are two charm spells -- Charm Peron and Charm Monster. I would ask if an ogre feels more like a "person" or a "monster" and then rule that the appropriate spell should be used. For me an ogre is a no-brainer (clearly a monster) but the harder choice would be an orc or a vampire or something a bit more human-like.

Just remember that however you rule it, you should make a note to yourself and always do it that way in your campaign from then on. Just because your party encounters one ogre with a personality, don't let that influence you unless you want all ogres to fall into the same category. Same with any monster.

[delta]

Here's the spell description from OD&D (Vol-1):

Charm Person: This spell applies to all two-legged, generally mammalian figures near to or less than man-size, excluding all monsters in the "Undead" class but including Sprites, Pixies, Nixies, Kobolds, Goblins, Orcs, Hobgoblins and Gnolls. If the spell is successful it will cause the charmed entity to come completely under the influence of the Magic-User until such time as the "charm" is dispelled (Dispell Magic). Range: 12".

The key language for the spell is "generally mammalian figures near to or less than man-size". The given list is all 1 HD creatures, with the exception of Gnolls at 2 HD. One thing I realized recently is that these are all also the same creatures that have Numbers Appearing in the hundreds in the Vol-2 list. (E.g., Hobgoblins/Gnolls appear jointly on one line, with NA 20-200; the next line, Ogres, only have NA 3-18). So one could possibly interpret this as a category like "normal men", against whom Heroes and the like get multiplied attacks, and therefore appear in groups in the hundreds to compensate for their frailty. Clearly Ogres aren't in the same class.

Personally, it bothers me that even Gnolls are included there; they clearly seem larger than man-size. In my recent games, I cut them out and say the spell only affects humanoid creatures with a base 1 HD (seems more elegant than maintaining an expanding list of creatures).

Note to self: This limitation also exists for a Potion or Ring of Human Control, which back-references the effect of Charm Person (an oversight I've made in the past, the way the potion language refers to individual hit dice beyond 10).

[Zulgyan]

Why did Moldvay include Ogres?

Charm Person
Range: 120'
Duration: See below
This spell can be used on any human, or human-like creature (such as bugbears, gnolls, gnomes, goblins, hobgoblins, kobolds, lizard men, ogres, pixies, or sprites). It will not affect undead, nor creatures larger than an ogre.

[Desparil]

Sept 15, 2019 12:14:42 GMT -6 Zulgyan said:

Why did Moldvay include Ogres?

Charm Person
Range: 120'
Duration: See below
This spell can be used on any human, or human-like creature (such as bugbears, gnolls, gnomes, goblins, hobgoblins, kobolds, lizard men, ogres, pixies, or sprites). It will not affect undead, nor creatures larger than an ogre.

Possibly he intended "larger than or equal to," but that's just conjecture - I've actually never noticed this before or seen any discussion about it.

[Zulgyan]

Ogres are explicit mentioned in the humanoid list, before the size thing.

[Zenopus]

Holmes Basic (both in the manuscript and as published) follows the original rules:

This spell applies to all two legged, generally mammalian humanoids of approximately man size including sprites, pixies, nixies, kobolds, goblins, orcs, hobgoblins and gnolls. It does not affect the undead or large monsters.

So it seems like a deliberate change by Moldvay to include Ogres in that list, for reasons unknown. The fundamental nature of the spell was also changed, from complete control (which Holmes still has) to "instant best friend", but that was change was also implemented in the AD&D PHB, so that alone can't be the reason.

[doublejig2]

That makes for a significant addition... anyone knows that ogres are deadly against first level adventurers.

[Desparil]

Sept 15, 2019 15:51:01 GMT -6 Zulgyan said:

Ogres are explicit mentioned in the humanoid list, before the size thing.

Oops, skimmed over the list and missed that entirely

[Vile Traveller]

My first ever use of a spell in D&D was to charm person an ogre in Moldvay Basic, but the earlier versions clearly exclude them. It makes for a very different dynamic, in B/X you can use the spell to get muscle, in OD&D/ Holmes it's more for sneaky stuff like making "friends" in high places.

[delta]

My guess for Moldvay is that including Ogres makes that 1st-level spell fully congruent with sleep (slso having ogres at the top end of effect). I'm kind of soft for that streamlining and making it easy to remember.

Separately, re: my reduction to 1 HD above -- so of course I had a new player tonight with her first-ever PC, a wizard, cast charm person at a gnoll. At which point I broke my own rule and let it work (and then played a hysterically laughing bloodthirsty gnoll for a couple hours thereafter). Watcha gonna do.

[Zulgyan]

Ok, I voted Other: it's quite clear Ogres are not included in the original Charm Person, but I am quite inclined to go the Moldvay way.

[retrorob]

delta

Actually, we don't know what Gnoll is. I'm not sure if "they clearly seem larger than man-size". Zombies are dead men and have 2 HD as do Ghouls and Dryads. I've recently read Lord Dunsany. "You did not trespass twice in the dells of the gnoles"; unfortunately, there is no description.

Back to topic. No, according to the vol. I, Ogre can't be charmed by means of the Charm Person spell.

[Vile Traveller]

I can't remember the source, but aren't Ogres "giant-types"? I always assumed that charm person only applied to "man-types" in OD&D. But I've learned to be wary of my assumptions!

[Desparil]

Sept 17, 2019 2:37:32 GMT -6 Vile Traveller said:

I can't remember the source, but aren't Ogres "giant-types"? I always assumed that charm person only applied to "man-types" in OD&D. But I've learned to be wary of my assumptions!

By the time AD&D Players Handbook put down the definition of "giant-types" in writing, it basically encompassed the majority of the most common humanoid monster in addition to the larger types like ogres, trolls, and actual giants - orcs, goblins, hobgoblins, kobolds, bugbears, etc. Most of which are explicitly included in the charm person list later in that same book! So they're really two separate and unrelated lists, at least in AD&D, so the salient point is really just that ogres aren't included on the list of charmable "persons."

[Vile Traveller]

I doubt my recollection comes from AD&D, as both editions bypassed me completely. I wonder if it shows up in Chainmail?

[Zenopus]

The original rules equate Hobgoblins and Gnolls in many ways, with the latter simply being envisioned as "the next stronger type". They are listed on the same line ("Hobgoblins/Gnolls") in both the Monster List and the alignment table; and Elves can speak both languages, and the Gnoll entry while speculating they are a cross between "Gnomes and Trolls" says that "otherwise they are similar to Hobgoblins". So it's not surprising to see them together on Charm Person list with Gnolls being the cut-off for what is affected.

[Zenopus]

Chainmail tends to use "normal combat", "normal men", "normal opponents", "normal figure" for non-fantastic combat. Hobbits, Dwarves, Elves, Goblins, Orcs appear on the Fantasy Reference Table --- where they are given equivalents to the various "Foot" troops for combat --- but not the Fantasy Combat Table, so they are "normals" in Chainmail.

OD&D occasionally uses the "normal man" or "normal figure", and it's not clear if it is referring to just humans or still using the broader Chainmail terminology, particularly because the combat table says "Normal men equal 1st level fighters", which implies that only humans are normal men. But many of the uses are probably referring to the Chainmail terminology.

Vol 2 of OD&D uses "man-type" or "men-type" in some of the monster descriptions without particular defining the term, but it seems to be a catchphrase for all character races (human, dwarf, elf, halfling). It's generally in reference to "man-types" being affected by undead.

In OD&D, all humanoids (Kobolds to Giants, Gnomes, Dwarves, Elves and Ents) are on the "Giant Types" wilderness table in Vol 3. That's the origin of the AD&D terminology.

Just to further muddy the waters, Holmes at one point refers to "man-type monsters like goblins and orcs".

[retrorob]

Vile Traveller  

Charm spell affects "all two-legged, generally mammalian figures", so I guess Lizard-Men are excluded I would say that Troglodytes also fall into "men" category.

Giants in OD&D are simply humanoids, but I guess some kind of distinctiveness is indicated in "Eldritch Wizardry": Giant Types and True Giants.

[delta]

Sept 17, 2019 2:37:32 GMT -6 Vile Traveller said:

I can't remember the source, but aren't Ogres "giant-types"?

As others have pointed out, "giant types" was really just the early primitive term for what sometime later got called "humanoids".

My mental picture of the Vol-2 monster list is that men are first, then a half-dozen lines from kobolds to giants ("giant-types"), then seven lines from skeletons to vampires ("undead"), then other category blocks likewise...

[Punkrabbitt]

I've thought about this for a bit... I feel like the difference between "person" and "monster" might be how civilized they are. I've seen ogre miniatures with them wearing full renaissance regalia, and *my* halflings are naked cannibals using stone weapons. In these examples, the ogres certainly seem like people and the halflings more like monsters.

[gemini476]

In regards to giant types, I think the first time this was mechanically relevant was when the Ranger was introduced and got bonus damage against, and I quote, "monsters of the Giant Class (Kobolds - Giants)". Do note that that's Joe Fischer writing, though, and might just be how he personally characterized it (although I think Gygax et. al. would have agreed, given Eldritch Wizardry).

The stuff that cares about giants in OD&D itself tends to be more specifically about capital-G Giants (as in the monster), like the +3 warhammer's +3 damage. There is a line that hints at Ogres being big, though, which makes sense since they're really just Tolkien's trolls:

DWARVES: Because of their relatively small size, clumsy monsters like Ogres, Giants and the like will have a difficult time hitting dwarves, so score only one-half the usual hit points when a hit is scored.

[Scott Anderson]

If you want it to include ogres, let it include ogres. My instant response was yes.

Ogres seem charmable. And HD is not the issue - you could conceivably charm a 12th level fighting-man.

But the main argument is that you want it to happen in your game, so make it so.

[aldarron]

Sept 15, 2019 7:36:40 GMT -6 delta said:

Here's the spell description from OD&D (Vol-1):

Charm Person: This spell applies to all two-legged, generally mammalian figures near to or less than man-size, excluding all monsters in the "Undead" class but including Sprites, Pixies, Nixies, Kobolds, Goblins, Orcs, Hobgoblins and Gnolls. If the spell is successful it will cause the charmed entity to come completely under the influence of the Magic-User until such time as the "charm" is dispelled (Dispell Magic). Range: 12".

The key language for the spell is "generally mammalian figures near to or less than man-size". The given list is all 1 HD creatures, with the exception of Gnolls at 2 HD. One thing I realized recently is that these are all also the same creatures that have Numbers Appearing in the hundreds in the Vol-2 list. (E.g., Hobgoblins/Gnolls appear jointly on one line, with NA 20-200; the next line, Ogres, only have NA 3-18). So one could possibly interpret this as a category like "normal men", against whom Heroes and the like get multiplied attacks, and therefore appear in groups in the hundreds to compensate for their frailty. Clearly Ogres aren't in the same class....

Great observation! Somewhere I can't seem to find at the moment I pointed out the same idea stemming from a different source. In the FFC section titled "How to Become a Bad Guy. (pg 78 of the 1977 edition, p52 0f the 1980) Arneson tells us "The following fact should be born in mind for most creatures encountered In small groups. that is that these represent "Hero" type monsters."

Admittedly a bit ambiguous, but my reading of that is small group monsters are "fantastic" (i.e. "hero-types), and therefore large group monsters are "normals". For various reasons I figured the break to be at the number appearing range of 1-25 or less being indicative of fantastic creatures. YMMV on that.

[murquhart72]

I have to agree with delta above, ogres are clearly not meant to be affected by Charm Person. They can in B/X and later, but remember: OD&D IS Dungeons & Dragons, every iteration or "edition" after that is nothing more (or less) than the editor(s) house rules, published. So either ogres aren't charmed by Charm Person, or they are because you said so. The Referee is the final arbiter of "rules" in D&D

[derv]

You can find the answer for sure by looking into the Eye of the Beholder.