Charm Person - how does it work?

[tank]

After this weekend's game, two my players have said that they think Charm Person is too good a spell for first level, specifically after a combat in which the kobold chieftain charmed the party's 3rd level fighting man with nearly disastrous consequences. My reading of charm person (the M&M version) is that since the fighting man failed his saving throw, he was "completely under the influence" of the chieftain until the spell was dispelled or the chieftain died. The chieftain then commanded the fighting man to "kill the humans."

After the session ending, we talked about the spell, and I agreed to include the Greyhawk Supplement provisions about additional saving throws according to intelligence, but my players are still not too happy about it.

Does anyone know how the spell was originally intended? How do you handle charm person? Does it allow complete influence, or as the AD&D PHB says, the target sees the caster "as a trusted friend and ally to be heeded and protected. The spell does not enable the druid to control the charmed creature as if it were an automaton, but any word or action of the druid will be viewed in its most favorable way."

[philotomy]

I favor the "completely under the influence" interpretation. Yep, that makes the spell very powerful, but it also makes it work like charms in fiction or movies (e.g. Indiana Jones after drinking the blood of Kali, or whatever, in Temple of Doom). Magic users are wimps, but if they get the "arcane drop" on you, watch out!

[codeman123]

yeah i ran into the same problem so i did institute the greyhawk rules for spell especially on that one..

[coffee]

I interpreted "influence" to mean the same amount of influence a good friend would have.

(I realize that a "magical influence" could also be the kind Philotomy mentions above. I would likely follow his suggestion next time; I'm just saying here how I did it last time.)

The party came upon bandits on the first level of the dungeon. The elf magic-user cast Charm Person on the bandit leader, who failed his save.

I allowed the player to instruct the bandit leader to let the party go free and to give him all their loot. These are requests you could easily see a friend making of you.

But when he said to give him all their weapons, I balked -- that's kind of suicidal, so a real friend wouldn't ask that.

I didn't give the bandit another save, but I did shuffle the bandits offstage as quickly as I could.


Again, not saying I'd do it that way next time, but that's what I did last time.

[Zulgyan]

I treat it as I treated dominate person (5th level spell) in 3E edition. Only that this one is permanent.

I follow what Phil says.

[makofan]

I think of Charm Person now as if you had a reaction roll of 12 and a loyalty roll of 18

[oldgeezer]

Well, I actually discussed this with Rob Kuntz, so how's that? (My 1st level MU had just Charmed a 5th level fighter who attacked him).

"Charm Person", as Rob and Gary used it, used the 20th century meaning of "charm". That is, this person is now your bestest buddy.

But it does not take over his mind, nor erase memories; it just changes the way the target feels about the caster, so the target has the most favorable possible reaction to the caster. His former friends are still his friends, and so on.

I have used that since 1974 because, frankly, it's more FUN to use that interpretation.

[tank]

Thanks to all for some very informative responses. I had previously been interpreting the spell as PJ and Zulgyan do, but I am very interested to hear the way Rob and Gary played, and I will suggest that way to the party. They'll probably be happier for it. Thanks again, and I'll let you know how it turns out when we play next month!

[jjarvis]

Charm person and the "friends" clause. This "friends" clause really should be used with caution and many people really ignore it's implications. Many a D&D adventuring party is made up of drinking buddies who kill things and take stuff for a living.

Think about that for a moment... how many lasting relationships have you made down at the local bar? Would you support your best friend against a drinking buddy who got in a fight with you over a treasure share just last week, who killed prisoners against your wishes last month and whom you are pretty sure has been stealing from you and the others for a year or two now?

How many rounds does the average potentially hostile NPC fighter last? Why should a bunch of homicidal kleptomaniac sellswords last much longer, even if they were once ones "friends"?

[Deleted]

I would have ran it with dominance, but who am I to go against Rob, Gary, and Mike's insight. :-)

[coffee]

Jul 15, 2008 20:03:58 GMT -6 @ptingler said:

I would have ran it with dominance, but who am I to go against Rob, Gary, and Mike's insight. :-)

You're the DM, that's who.

Gary in particular has gone on record as saying that it's your game and even he has no business telling you you're doing it wrong. (or words to that effect)

It's your game; do what you want with it.

[Deleted]

Oh I know. But I'm also of the opinion that the original rules as written aren't the best example of clarity in writing. lol

[oldgeezer]

Jul 16, 2008 9:16:45 GMT -6 coffee said:

Jul 15, 2008 20:03:58 GMT -6 @ptingler said:

I would have ran it with dominance, but who am I to go against Rob, Gary, and Mike's insight. :-)

You're the DM, that's who.

Gary in particular has gone on record as saying that it's your game and even he has no business telling you you're doing it wrong. (or words to that effect)

It's your game; do what you want with it.

Preach it, bro!

Now, I play it "He's your bestest buddy" because it's more fun for me and my group.

If playing it elsewise is more fun for YOU and YOUR group, then do it that way!