|
|
Post by delta on Jun 7, 2021 20:27:00 GMT -6
I asked a poll about the guaranteed effects of a successful charm person elsewhere, and now I'm wondering how different the interpretation in OD&D might be. So here it is:
A magic-user casts charm person on an enemy fighter in melee, who fails their saving throw. Which of the options here can the magic-user force the fighter to do -- without any further die rolls? Check all that apply.
|
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jun 7, 2021 22:35:14 GMT -6
I think this depends somewhat on whether "A magic-user casts charm person on an enemy fighter in melee" implies that the fighter (or anyone else) was meleeing the M-U.
-- If the M-U was meleed, then either s/he couldn't get the spell off at all, or there was a possibility the spell would be interrupted (perhaps nearest to the "Nothing" option in the poll, except that the fighter already failed a saving throw... so... not quite).
-- However, if the M-U was not "meleed" then the spell goes ahead.
Since the scenario says the M-U gets the spell off, we might presume this implies that the fighter wasn't attacking the M-U, and neither was anyone else.
FWIW, I ticked "defend the caster" but I also think "surrender" and "flee" would be plausible in a near contest, but less so if the enemies had a clear advantage. If I thought it was a line call, perhaps it could trigger--and be resolved by--a morale test.
|
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Jun 7, 2021 23:53:22 GMT -6
Went with "Nothing", although that's not quite what I think. It's just the closest applicable.
I assume first that the Charm Person is cast during surprise or otherwise before combat has actually begun, because general consensus is that spells can't be cast while the m-u is in combat, or at least while the m-u is engaged.
But you specify "without any further die rolls", and so I couldn't pick the other options. The Charm Person would prevent the target from attacking the m-u (target sees m-u as a friend,) but the other options would require morale or reaction rolls. The m-u would have to ask them to turn on their allies, defend them m-u, surrender, or flee, the same way they'd have to ask a henchman to do those things.
|
|
ratikranger
Level 3 Conjurer
D&D is 50? That makes me ... even older.
Posts: 70
|
Post by ratikranger on Jun 8, 2021 0:31:53 GMT -6
Looking at this from the DM's side, if my succubus "charms" a player character and that character CANNOT then be made to attack his former allies, that would be a wasted, boring, sad charm. So if I want to be "fair" I also have to allow a player character to "charm" my "chaos champion" and have that dude attack his EHP master. Who hopefully has a Dispel Magic memorized for just such a situation.
Also note that M&M says "Monsters can be lured into service if they are of the same basic alignment as the player-character, or they can be Charmed and thus ordered to serve." Emphasis on "ordered to serve". That monster is now my henchman and attacks on my behalf. A morale/loyalty check may be called for in some situations.
|
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jun 8, 2021 0:48:30 GMT -6
Other interesting passages include the hold person (M&M p25) and charm monster (M&M p27) spells, and the various potions of plant, animal, giant, dragon, and human control (M&T p32).
Considering OD&D as a "fantastic medieval wargame" between two sides, then spells likely emphasise their combat impacts. However, considering OD&D as a "fantastic role play" where players have broader agency, the combat impact of spells might be entirely moot.
|
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Jun 8, 2021 8:14:42 GMT -6
Our tradition here in the Austin TX original edition scene (I was "traditioned" by austinjimm, Bloodmaster, etc.) is to interpret charm as believing the caster to be your long lost best friend or lover. With that in mind, they would never harm their best friend. So all of the above that indicate no harm apply. But it does not mean you do not acknowledge the party or friends you came with or that you have lost your own personal goals. But it does mean that you could, perhaps in time, be dissuaded from your current company and agenda. Agreeing with what smart folks above have already said, this assumes successful casting from before or well outside of melee range. In melee, casting charm is impossible. Charm is not a "combat" spell, per se, although it can have obvious ramifications. It is rather a spell that enhances "exploration," or "role play" (in the wargames campaign sense). It is therefore extremely powerful and important, even if it does not have direct implications on combat. Anyway, that is my read and it comes from our local assumptions and interpretations. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 8, 2021 9:59:53 GMT -6
Looking at this from the DM's side, if my succubus "charms" a player character and that character CANNOT then be made to attack his former allies, that would be a wasted, boring, sad charm. So if I want to be "fair" I also have to allow a player character to "charm" my "chaos champion" and have that dude attack his EHP master. Who hopefully has a Dispel Magic memorized for just such a situation. Also note that M&M says "Monsters can be lured into service if they are of the same basic alignment as the player-character, or they can be Charmed and thus ordered to serve." Emphasis on "ordered to serve". That monster is now my henchman and attacks on my behalf. A morale/loyalty check may be called for in some situations. I would go with this; however, if the PC is ordered to attack someone they have an emotional connection to, i.e. more than just a party member (close friend, brother, etc) then they would immediately get to try to save to break the charm. The other three options or attacking just a party member, the charm will rule. |
|
|
|
Post by delta on Jun 8, 2021 10:58:00 GMT -6
Looking at this from the DM's side, if my succubus "charms" a player character and that character CANNOT then be made to attack his former allies, that would be a wasted, boring, sad charm. So if I want to be "fair" I also have to allow a player character to "charm" my "chaos champion" and have that dude attack his EHP master. Who hopefully has a Dispel Magic memorized for just such a situation. Also note that M&M says "Monsters can be lured into service if they are of the same basic alignment as the player-character, or they can be Charmed and thus ordered to serve." Emphasis on "ordered to serve". That monster is now my henchman and attacks on my behalf. A morale/loyalty check may be called for in some situations. Great catch on the "ordered to serve" passage under gaining new followers, I'd overlooked that. Need to add that to a few of my blog entries. |
|
|
|
Post by acodispo on Jun 8, 2021 11:56:05 GMT -6
Also note that M&M says "Monsters can be lured into service if they are of the same basic alignment as the player-character, or they can be Charmed and thus ordered to serve." Emphasis on "ordered to serve". That monster is now my henchman and attacks on my behalf. A morale/loyalty check may be called for in some situations. Great catch on the "ordered to serve" passage under gaining new followers, I'd overlooked that. Need to add that to a few of my blog entries. The first time I dealt with Charm Person in OD&D I was much puzzled as to how to adjudicate "completely under the influence of the magic-user", but that M&M section on NON-PLAYER CHARACTERS ("thus ordered to serve") was the key to my interpretation.
Specifically, my ruling is that the Charm Person spell (if successful) serves as an "expedited hiring process" -- the monster so influenced needn't be offered a reward, nor is there an initial reaction check. Instead, we move straight to determining loyalty. From then on the monster acts as any other hireling. Which of course means they have their own agenda & personality, and will act in accordance. They will also expect pay, though perhaps not right away. “Periodic re-checks of loyalty should be made”, and particularly if there is a difference in alignment between the Charmed monster and the magic-user, or if payment is not forthcoming, penalties will be applied to those checks.
As to the poll (with the mentioned caveat that the magic-user can't cast while engaged in melee), the middle three options "yes". "Attack former allies" would depend very much on context. A mercenary hiring who is Charmed away from their previous employer? Yes, they might obey an order to attack. One member of a tight-knit rival adventuring group? No, I don't think they would attack their friends, at least not without a heavily penalized test of their morale. |
|
|
|
Post by delta on Jun 8, 2021 13:01:01 GMT -6
Great catch on the "ordered to serve" passage under gaining new followers, I'd overlooked that. Need to add that to a few of my blog entries. The first time I dealt with Charm Person in OD&D I was much puzzled as to how to adjudicate "completely under the influence of the magic-user", but that M&M section on NON-PLAYER CHARACTERS ("thus ordered to serve") was the key to my interpretation. Specifically, my ruling is that the Charm Person spell (if successful) serves as an "expedited hiring process" -- the monster so influenced needn't be offered a reward, nor is there an initial reaction check. Instead, we move straight to determining loyalty. From then on the monster acts as any other hireling. Which of course means they have their own agenda & personality, and will act in accordance. They will also expect pay, though perhaps not right away. “Periodic re-checks of loyalty should be made”, and particularly if there is a difference in alignment between the Charmed monster and the magic-user, or if payment is not forthcoming, penalties will be applied to those checks. As to the poll (with the mentioned caveat that the magic-user can't cast while engaged in melee), the middle three options "yes". "Attack former allies" would depend very much on context. A mercenary hiring who is Charmed away from their previous employer? Yes, they might obey an order to attack. One member of a tight-knit rival adventuring group? No, I don't think they would attack their friends, at least not without a heavily penalized test of their morale. Wow, I like that interpretation of charm-as-hiring very, very much. That's pretty neat! |
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Jun 8, 2021 17:22:56 GMT -6
Specifically, my ruling is that the Charm Person spell (if successful) serves as an "expedited hiring process" -- the monster so influenced needn't be offered a reward, nor is there an initial reaction check. Instead, we move straight to determining loyalty. From then on the monster acts as any other hireling. Which of course means they have their own agenda & personality, and will act in accordance. They will also expect pay, though perhaps not right away. “Periodic re-checks of loyalty should be made”, and particularly if there is a difference in alignment between the Charmed monster and the magic-user, or if payment is not forthcoming, penalties will be applied to those checks. This is close to the way I handle things now. Charm Person skips negotiation and rolls for gaining a henchman. Of course, this parallels the way I handle Read Magic (skips research costs, time, and rolls,) which is definitely not the way RM is handled by the book, so not everyone is going to agree with that approach. Where my approach doesn't match yours is loyalty. I assume loyalty for charmed characters starts at the maximum, no rolls needed. Loyalty will change based on how the character is treated. This means instead of worrying about how long Charm Person lasts, I can just set the duration to instantaneous. Charm Person changes the target's mental state to "friend". What happens after that is just what would normally happen to a friendship under those circumstances. But how did I handle Charm Person back in the day? I don't think I dove that deep into it. Charmed targets acted like henchmen, but I don't think I thought much about whether they really were henchmen or not. They usually didn't hang around for more than a day or two. |
|
premmy
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 295
|
Post by premmy on Jun 8, 2021 18:19:23 GMT -6
I'm not sure if it's originally from the 1st or 2nd edition of AD&D, but I like the interpretation that the charmed person considers the spellcaster as his best friend. Not less, but not more.
Consider this: imagine you're a soldier today and you're guarding the front gate of a military base. You best friend, who has nothing to do with the military and has no reason or permission whatsoever to enter the base, drives up to the gate and asks you to let him in. Would you? You wouldn't. You might turn him away in an unusually friendly manner, you might not report the event, or you might chuckle about how crazy he is, but you wouldn't let him in.
Now, imagine that your post comes under attack by terrorists who drive up in black vans, jump out and start spraying everything with automatic fire. As you're returning fire, your best friends jumps out from one of the vans and shouts "Hey, it's all right! Stop shooting back! In fact, why don't you just change sides?" What would you do? Sure as hell not what he's telling you.
|
|
|
|
Post by Desparil on Jun 9, 2021 1:18:13 GMT -6
I'm not sure if it's originally from the 1st or 2nd edition of AD&D, but I like the interpretation that the charmed person considers the spellcaster as his best friend. Not less, but not more. Consider this: imagine you're a soldier today and you're guarding the front gate of a military base. You best friend, who has nothing to do with the military and has no reason or permission whatsoever to enter the base, drives up to the gate and asks you to let him in. Would you? You wouldn't. You might turn him away in an unusually friendly manner, you might not report the event, or you might chuckle about how crazy he is, but you wouldn't let him in. Now, imagine that your post comes under attack by terrorists who drive up in black vans, jump out and start spraying everything with automatic fire. As you're returning fire, your best friends jumps out from one of the vans and shouts "Hey, it's all right! Stop shooting back! In fact, why don't you just change sides?" What would you do? Sure as hell not what he's telling you. Hm, you seem to be working on a lot of assumptions pertaining to the modern world. Before professional armies and nationalism, discipline was often quite lax and conflicts of interest didn't always resolve themselves in favor of the army. Read about Alcibiades or Götz von Berlichingen and tell me they might not consider switching sides if their best friend was asking. Or that an ordinary mercenary soldier who sees a friend during a small, out of the way skirmish might be convinced, "Hey, your side is losing, so how about you switch sides and join up with us? They don't keep real detailed lists of all the men, we'll just say you're such-and-such who died a few hours ago and the paymaster will be none the wiser." |
|
|
|
Post by dicebro on Jun 9, 2021 8:00:40 GMT -6
“Completely under the influence” means just that. A charmed person will fight for the caster if so requested. But there will be consequences. The charmed creature can be killed in combat. His former buddies will notice the spell and they will seek the assistance of a magic user who can dispel the enchantment. Angry villagers may seek to discipline the magic-user for abusing the spell. A thoughtful referee can easily “rein-in” the spell-caster without altering the definition of the spell. Just have your world react in turn.
|
|
ratikranger
Level 3 Conjurer
D&D is 50? That makes me ... even older.
Posts: 70
|
Post by ratikranger on Jun 9, 2021 10:11:06 GMT -6
Looking at this from the DM's side, if my succubus "charms" a player character and that character CANNOT then be made to attack his former allies, that would be a wasted, boring, sad charm. So if I want to be "fair" I also have to allow a player character to "charm" my "chaos champion" and have that dude attack his EHP master. Who hopefully has a Dispel Magic memorized for just such a situation. I just found Gygax "explaining" this very thing in the DMG. Whether that's a "backtrack" or just an "explaining what I really meant in OD&D" I cannot judge, but for completeness: "The magical charming power of creatures such as nixies and vampires is much more powerful than that of a simple charm person spell. ... victim almost totally subject to its will, including giving up personal possessions, betraying associates, and so forth." (AD&D DMG, page 65) I guess he may have a point, but I also cannot help what he wrote in OD&D so... Shrug? |
|
|
|
Post by dicebro on Jun 9, 2021 11:14:03 GMT -6
Looking at this from the DM's side, if my succubus "charms" a player character and that character CANNOT then be made to attack his former allies, that would be a wasted, boring, sad charm. So if I want to be "fair" I also have to allow a player character to "charm" my "chaos champion" and have that dude attack his EHP master. Who hopefully has a Dispel Magic memorized for just such a situation. I just found Gygax "explaining" this very thing in the DMG. Whether that's a "backtrack" or just an "explaining what I really meant in OD&D" I cannot judge, but for completeness: "The magical charming power of creatures such as nixies and vampires is much more powerful than that of a simple charm person spell. ... victim almost totally subject to its will, including giving up personal possessions, betraying associates, and so forth." (AD&D DMG, page 65) I guess he may have a point, but I also cannot help what he wrote in OD&D so... Shrug? OD&D without the supplements is a completely different, and ultimately more satisfying, game than anything published later. |
|
ratikranger
Level 3 Conjurer
D&D is 50? That makes me ... even older.
Posts: 70
|
Post by ratikranger on Jun 9, 2021 14:42:05 GMT -6
OD&D without the supplements is a completely different, and ultimately more satisfying, game than anything published later. I didn't quote from AD&D to imply anything about the relative quality of the various editions of the game. |
|
|
|
Post by dicebro on Jun 9, 2021 20:09:23 GMT -6
OD&D without the supplements is a completely different, and ultimately more satisfying, game than anything published later. I didn't quote from AD&D to imply anything about the relative quality of the various editions of the game. I catch your drift. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2021 6:47:23 GMT -6
The design intentions of AD&D and OD&D were somewhat different. While it can sometimes be useful for some referees to read AD&D to expand on the intention of specific bits of OD&D, half the fun of running it is our various personal interpretations. IMO
|
|
premmy
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 295
|
Post by premmy on Jun 10, 2021 8:09:03 GMT -6
Hm, you seem to be working on a lot of assumptions pertaining to the modern world. Before professional armies and nationalism, discipline was often quite lax and conflicts of interest didn't always resolve themselves in favor of the army. Read about Alcibiades or Götz von Berlichingen and tell me they might not consider switching sides if their best friend was asking. Or that an ordinary mercenary soldier who sees a friend during a small, out of the way skirmish might be convinced, "Hey, your side is losing, so how about you switch sides and join up with us? They don't keep real detailed lists of all the men, we'll just say you're such-and-such who died a few hours ago and the paymaster will be none the wiser." And you seem to be working on a lot of assumptions pertaining to the real historical world, which D&D isn't. It's a world where the enemy (your "best friend" included or not) is quite often literally a different species than your. It's a world where the chieftain of your orcish tribe might well be objectively and demonstrably working on direct orders from his god, and changing sides would mean not only betraying your tribe but also a god that takes a very active and hands-on interest in its followers. It's a world where certain cosmic forces called "Alignments" are real beyond doubt. To put the latter in something slightly approaching a historical perspective, how likely do you think it was for a Catholic soldier in the 30 Years War to change sides because his Protestant best friend asked him? Why would he have a Protestant best friend in the first place? Divisions between sides in a world with multiple coxisting species, gods and Alignments are likely to be much sharper and deeper than a historical mercenary or pre-nation states enlisted man would encounter. |
|
|
|
Post by dicebro on Jun 10, 2021 16:32:35 GMT -6
It’s magic. “Nobody can fully understand the magic they wield.” I think Dave Arneson may have said that. Then came Gygax who strived to quantify everything. So if you are okay with a world where magic fluctuates, then there is no answer to the Charm Person issue.
|
|
|
|
Post by Desparil on Jun 10, 2021 17:45:57 GMT -6
Hm, you seem to be working on a lot of assumptions pertaining to the modern world. Before professional armies and nationalism, discipline was often quite lax and conflicts of interest didn't always resolve themselves in favor of the army. Read about Alcibiades or Götz von Berlichingen and tell me they might not consider switching sides if their best friend was asking. Or that an ordinary mercenary soldier who sees a friend during a small, out of the way skirmish might be convinced, "Hey, your side is losing, so how about you switch sides and join up with us? They don't keep real detailed lists of all the men, we'll just say you're such-and-such who died a few hours ago and the paymaster will be none the wiser." To put the latter in something slightly approaching a historical perspective, how likely do you think it was for a Catholic soldier in the 30 Years War to change sides because his Protestant best friend asked him? Why would he have a Protestant best friend in the first place? Divisions between sides in a world with multiple coxisting species, gods and Alignments are likely to be much sharper and deeper than a historical mercenary or pre-nation states enlisted man would encounter. Leading up to the Thirty Years' War, a big part of the tensions was that Protestantism was creeping beyond the borders that were settled at Augsburg some decades earlier. So the majority of Lutherans at the time had been so for a few generations, there were still a number who had up until recently been Catholic - and many lords made the choice for political advantage rather than any deeply-held conviction about Martin Luther's theses, so for nobility it was quite possible that a friend of many years could end up being on the other side. Albrecht von Wallenstein, for example, was a high-ranking military and political leader in the Holy Roman Empire for many years, who for political reasons considered switching to the Protestant side, although the emperor had him assassinated before he could follow through. Commoners generally had little choice in the matter, if the local count or prince decided to become Protestant then all of his subjects were expected to follow suit. Since most commoners didn't travel much, this does make it pretty unlikely that one would have a friend of the "wrong" religion, but on the other hand wouldn't necessarily feel strongly about the difference between Catholicism and Protestantism if they weren't among the literate classes - in which case, if magically charmed to believe that a Catholic was his best friend, then that might trump religious/political concerns. As for humanoids receiving instructions directly from gods, the obstacles are different depending on what edition you're talking about, but obstacles nonetheless. In OD&D, there's no indication that humanoids can even have clerics. Out of all the types listed in Volume 2, only orcs have a leadership structure as well-developed as human bandits, and even then clerics are conspicuously absent; a high-level leader is always either a fighter or a magic-user. This is also in keeping with the statement from Volume 1 that clerics are men only. Even elves, dwarfs, and halflings, close as they are to humans, do not have clerics. If you're talking AD&D, though, then restrictions on clerics were eased up and non-human deities were introduced, but you'd still be hard-pressed to find humanoids acting on the direct orders of their gods because of their low level limits. The best of them (goblins, hobgoblins, lizard men, giants) can cast Divination, and the rest of the humanoid races can't even manage that. A real Commune or Contact Other Plane spell to get some actual, detailed instructions is totally out of the question. |
|
|
|
Post by linebeck on Jun 10, 2021 19:39:24 GMT -6
Looking at this from the DM's side, if my succubus "charms" a player character and that character CANNOT then be made to attack his former allies, that would be a wasted, boring, sad charm. So if I want to be "fair" I also have to allow a player character to "charm" my "chaos champion" and have that dude attack his EHP master. Who hopefully has a Dispel Magic memorized for just such a situation. Also note that M&M says "Monsters can be lured into service if they are of the same basic alignment as the player-character, or they can be Charmed and thus ordered to serve." Emphasis on "ordered to serve". That monster is now my henchman and attacks on my behalf. A morale/loyalty check may be called for in some situations. The character may attack his former allies, but would probably first try to reason with them. It is not “control person.” Note that “hold person” is advertised in the 3llb as a spell of “greater effect.” |
|
|
|
Post by delta on Jun 10, 2021 20:56:28 GMT -6
Looking at this from the DM's side, if my succubus "charms" a player character and that character CANNOT then be made to attack his former allies, that would be a wasted, boring, sad charm. So if I want to be "fair" I also have to allow a player character to "charm" my "chaos champion" and have that dude attack his EHP master. Who hopefully has a Dispel Magic memorized for just such a situation. I just found Gygax "explaining" this very thing in the DMG. Whether that's a "backtrack" or just an "explaining what I really meant in OD&D" I cannot judge, but for completeness: "The magical charming power of creatures such as nixies and vampires is much more powerful than that of a simple charm person spell. ... victim almost totally subject to its will, including giving up personal possessions, betraying associates, and so forth." (AD&D DMG, page 65) I guess he may have a point, but I also cannot help what he wrote in OD&D so... Shrug? For my money, this seems very clearly to be a backtrack/retcon/errata. If that had been the original intent, then it's incredibly hard to imagine why he used that same label in the LBBs for such remarkably different abilities. As an analog, there's clearly a distinction between the LBBs and Sup-I in terms of the duration of Charm Person. Clearly the errata for recurrent saving throws was part of a process of downgrading the spell. This continued in the rather sizable new language appearing in both the AD&D PHB, and then the DMG, about the spell. |
|
|
|
Post by delta on Jun 10, 2021 21:00:24 GMT -6
[quote timestamp="1623334143" source="/post/242682/thread" author=" premmy" ... As for humanoids receiving instructions directly from gods, the obstacles are different depending on what edition you're talking about, but obstacles nonetheless. In OD&D, there's no indication that humanoids can even have clerics. Out of all the types listed in Volume 2, only orcs have a leadership structure as well-developed as human bandits, and even then clerics are conspicuously absent; a high-level leader is always either a fighter or a magic-user. This is also in keeping with the statement from Volume 1 that clerics are men only. Even elves, dwarfs, and halflings, close as they are to humans, do not have clerics. If you're talking AD&D, though, then restrictions on clerics were eased up and non-human deities were introduced, but you'd still be hard-pressed to find humanoids acting on the direct orders of their gods because of their low level limits. The best of them (goblins, hobgoblins, lizard men, giants) can cast Divination, and the rest of the humanoid races can't even manage that. A real Commune or Contact Other Plane spell to get some actual, detailed instructions is totally out of the question. What a great analysis (incl. medieval religion analogy). In particular this bit about the humanoids, for me, spotlights the status of LBB clerics really looking like crusading Catholic priests venturing against ancient (mostly Grecian) forces of darkness. Only later did that seque into there being variegated sects in a polytheistic society. |
|
|
|
Post by delta on Jun 10, 2021 21:03:29 GMT -6
Looking at this from the DM's side, if my succubus "charms" a player character and that character CANNOT then be made to attack his former allies, that would be a wasted, boring, sad charm. So if I want to be "fair" I also have to allow a player character to "charm" my "chaos champion" and have that dude attack his EHP master. Who hopefully has a Dispel Magic memorized for just such a situation. Also note that M&M says "Monsters can be lured into service if they are of the same basic alignment as the player-character, or they can be Charmed and thus ordered to serve." Emphasis on "ordered to serve". That monster is now my henchman and attacks on my behalf. A morale/loyalty check may be called for in some situations. The character may attack his former allies, but would probably first try to reason with them. It is not “control person.” Note that “hold person” is advertised in the 3llb as a spell of “greater effect.” And yet the description of charm person, e.g. for Nixies, also includes the phrase "enslave them", and says a victim will "immediately proceed underwater and remain there until the year is up", which I'm pretty sure I wouldn't do for my current best friend. Which is just to say that it's complicated. I personally feel like the "it's not control person" argument is a piece of rhetoric invented some time later to cover the downgrade of the spell. But it might be a very useful interpretation in that regard. |
|
|
|
Post by Desparil on Jun 10, 2021 22:57:36 GMT -6
The character may attack his former allies, but would probably first try to reason with them. It is not “control person.” Note that “hold person” is advertised in the 3llb as a spell of “greater effect.” And yet the description of charm person, e.g. for Nixies, also includes the phrase "enslave them", and says a victim will "immediately proceed underwater and remain there until the year is up", which I'm pretty sure I wouldn't do for my current best friend. Which is just to say that it's complicated. I personally feel like the "it's not control person" argument is a piece of rhetoric invented some time later to cover the downgrade of the spell. But it might be a very useful interpretation in that regard. In terms of the Monster Manual, nixies I can give some leeway one way or the other, on account of their ability being described as "a powerful charm spell" in generic terms, without directly referencing the c harm person spell. Similarly, a dryad "will use her powerful charm person spell which may be cast up to three times per day, once per melee round, with a minus 3 on the victim's saving throw. If a person is taken away by a dryad, there is a 50% chance they will never return, and if they do return it will be from 1-4 years later." While this does directly reference charm person, it also lists some concrete ways (saving throw penalty, duration) that it is more powerful than the regular spell, so the "powerful" descriptor doesn't necessarily indicate that the level of influence over the victim is any greater than the baseline wizard spell. The really interesting one, though, is the vampire, the description of which explicitly says "Charmed persons behave as if they had been successfully struck with a charm person spell." Only two years later in the DMG does Gygax backtrack and declare a vampire's gaze to be more powerful than the magic-user charm spells. I think there's some support for an interpretation that: 1. Charm Person is equivalent to a vampire's gaze, and therefore confers the level of influence and control that Dracula exerted on Renfield, Lucy, et al. 2. A monster description such as for nixies or dryads might indicate a more powerful effect, in which case the monster description trumps the spell description wherever they disagree Personally, my formative idea of what a charm person spell should be is based heavily on watching Disney's Aladdin as a kid, specifically Jafar's control over the sultan. He can get the sultan to do practically anything, but if it's strongly out of character then the charm needs to be maintained for the whole duration of the desired action. Thus, when demanding that the sultan force Jasmine to marry him, Jafar needs to accompany the sultan to meet with Jasmine and make the decree. Conversely, forcing the sultan to give away his diamond ring only takes a momentary effort. Also important is the fact that in between direct applications of the snake staff's power, the sultan seems to be subject to some sort of long-term effect where he thinks nothing of all the unusual demands that he's acquiesced to, and continues to treat Jafar as a trusted friend and advisor. So personally, I think my ideal version of what the spell should do is this: at the time of casting, the victim will accept pretty much any request made by the caster short of actual suicide, but performance of the request will only continue as long as the caster is physically present. After the completion of the request, or if the victim and caster part company, then as an after-effect the victim continues to think of the caster as his or her best friend for the next 24 hours. Anything that the victim was commanded to do while charmed which was strongly out of character or otherwise unreasonable will be justified after the fact, excused, or simply shoved to the back of the victim's mind and not dwelt upon. While the victim is in this "after-effect" state, they can still be asked to perform other services, but will act according to the Encounter Reaction table - perhaps with a +1 or +2 bonus, in addition to the usual modifiers for charisma, alignment, bribes offered, etc. To force the victim into another unreasonable demand, however, would require another casting of the spell. As long as this is done while the victim is still in the throes of the secondary effect, though, I would say no saving throw is allowed, thus making it possible to keep a victim under your control for long periods of time if you're willing and able to recast charm person every single day. This then works with creatures like nixies and dryads since they would be spending a great deal of time physically in the company of their victims, as well as being able to reuse their charming powers every day. You may not be willing to walk into a river and spend a year there for your best friend, but once they compel you with the initial charm and then cast water breathing on you, maybe your best friend could repeatedly convince you to say "just one more day" while reinforcing the charm at opportune times so that the effects of the spell prevent you from realizing how long it's been since that first time they "just needed your help for a day or two." |
|
|
|
Post by linebeck on Jun 11, 2021 11:24:20 GMT -6
Personally, my formative idea of what a charm person spell should be is based heavily on watching Disney's Aladdin as a kid, specifically Jafar's control over the sultan. He can get the sultan to do practically anything, but if it's strongly out of character then the charm needs to be maintained for the whole duration of the desired action. Thus, when demanding that the sultan force Jasmine to marry him, Jafar needs to accompany the sultan to meet with Jasmine and make the decree. Conversely, forcing the sultan to give away his diamond ring only takes a momentary effort. Also important is the fact that in between direct applications of the snake staff's power, the sultan seems to be subject to some sort of long-term effect where he thinks nothing of all the unusual demands that he's acquiesced to, and continues to treat Jafar as a trusted friend and advisor. Another literary antecedent would be the Silver Chair (from wikipedia plot description): More recently we have the first Avengers movie (also wikipedia): |
|
|
|
Post by delta on Jun 11, 2021 15:14:57 GMT -6
And yet the description of charm person, e.g. for Nixies, also includes the phrase "enslave them", and says a victim will "immediately proceed underwater and remain there until the year is up", which I'm pretty sure I wouldn't do for my current best friend. Which is just to say that it's complicated. I personally feel like the "it's not control person" argument is a piece of rhetoric invented some time later to cover the downgrade of the spell. But it might be a very useful interpretation in that regard. In terms of the Monster Manual, nixies I can give some leeway one way or the other, on account of their ability being described as "a powerful charm spell" in generic terms, without directly referencing the c harm person spell... Good thoughts. FWIW I'm referencing the LBBs where they do reference the charm person spell explicitly and without any other modifier on it. (Vol-2, p. 15, Nixie: "... there will be one Charm Person spell being cast..."). All of those distinguishing-language modifiers were new in AD&D. Again, a pretty obvious and explicit downgrade to the original spell (starting esp. in Sup-I). |
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Jun 11, 2021 15:30:01 GMT -6
Holmes playing OD&D would have definitely voted for all options, including "Attack Former Allies". See his article in Dragon #52 where he reviews the new Basic Set and writes (emphasis added):
This is also reflected in the early Boinger & Zereth stories in Alarums & Excursions where charmed monsters come completely under the control of PCs.
|
|
