Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 11, 2021 16:12:40 GMT -6
I think I'm starting to lean back towards the "total mind control" camp after seeing some of these arguments. It kind of makes sense. Magic was unbalanced in an awesome way in 3lbb. Maybe it's better to not invent limitations or justify later ones in this context.
|
|
|
|
Post by Desparil on Jun 11, 2021 18:05:27 GMT -6
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). Honestly, I forgot nixies were even in Monsters & Treasure, I went to the Monster Manual because I thought that was their first appearance. |
|
|
|
Post by delta on Jun 11, 2021 21:51:18 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. Great find, thanks for that! |
|
|
|
Post by dicebro on Jun 13, 2021 6:56:37 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. Great find, thanks for that! Heh, I played od&d with a friend of mine a couple years ago. His fighter became enslaved by nixies and he had to roll up a new pc. He completely forgot about how powerful a school of nixies can be! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2021 7:09:30 GMT -6
Doesn't the description for Nixies in Monsters & Treasure pretty much say that a Charmed player is basically removed from the game? I don't have my books next to me right this moment but that's what I remember it saying. I highlighted it when I read it because it was a head-explosion moment lol
|
|
|
|
Post by SebastianDM on Jun 13, 2021 13:59:11 GMT -6
The interpretation of this effect seems to be one of the earliest issues of D&D. I was just reading some of the old issues of Alarums & Excursions and found that the very first discussion of the very first issue is related to this very issue. I read that the content of this issue was mainly reprinted from APA-L since it was the first issue, so I guess the discussion is from 1975 at the latest.
|
|
yesmar
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Fool, my spell book is written in Erlang!
Posts: 217
|
Post by yesmar on Jun 13, 2021 14:16:30 GMT -6
The interpretation of this effect seems to be one of the earliest issues of D&D. I was just reading some of the old issues of Alarums & Excursions and found that the very first discussion of the very first issue is related to this very issue. I read that the content of this issue was mainly reprinted from APA-L since it was the first issue, so I guess the discussion is from 1975 at the latest.
I'm with Ted! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2021 14:23:39 GMT -6
Ted took a firm stance. Ted's passionate about his level 1 spells. I mean, you gotta give the little guy something at level 1!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2021 15:01:42 GMT -6
Doesn't the description for Nixies in Monsters & Treasure pretty much say that a Charmed player is basically removed from the game? I don't have my books next to me right this moment but that's what I remember it saying. I highlighted it when I read it because it was a head-explosion moment lol Ok I was turned around. Dryads take you completely out of the game. Nixies take you underwater for one year. Both are unique charming abilities. Not necessarily the spell as a magic-user knows it. |
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Jun 13, 2021 18:42:55 GMT -6
The interpretation of this effect seems to be one of the earliest issues of D&D. I was just reading some of the old issues of Alarums & Excursions and found that the very first discussion of the very first issue is related to this very issue. I read that the content of this issue was mainly reprinted from APA-L since it was the first issue, so I guess the discussion is from 1975 at the latest.
Funny how Ted (and others) bring up the "completely under the influence" text and focus on the word "completely", but never talk about that other word, "influence". Although it has a range of meanings, "influence" usually seems to mean "persuasion" or "indirect control". I'm trying to think of examples where it means "mind control", but can't. Of course, it's pretty common to interpret "persuasion" to mean "mind control", too, especially in systems that use social skills. So that argument might not ... persuade anyone. I take "completely under the influence" to mean that the influence extends to all areas, not just for example gaining a henchman. But I don't interpret it as "automatic obedience of orders". Note that Men & Magic also includes a 6th level spell, Geas, which "forces the recipient to perform some task". If Charm Person is mind control available at 1st level, why would anyone need a 6th level Geas? Could you force a charmed person to perform a task? Why is there a Hold Person spell at 3rd level? Couldn't you order a charmed person to remain rooted in place? |
|
|
|
Post by delta on Jun 13, 2021 19:09:35 GMT -6
The interpretation of this effect seems to be one of the earliest issues of D&D. I was just reading some of the old issues of Alarums & Excursions and found that the very first discussion of the very first issue is related to this very issue. I read that the content of this issue was mainly reprinted from APA-L since it was the first issue, so I guess the discussion is from 1975 at the latest.
WOW! Spectacular find. I love that! :-D |
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Jun 13, 2021 19:47:13 GMT -6
Looks like I'm a Swansonite when it comes to this spell.
|
|
flightcommander
Level 6 Magician
"I become drunk as circumstances dictate."
Posts: 387
|
Post by flightcommander on Jun 13, 2021 19:59:11 GMT -6
And thus did the feud between the Swansonites and the uh Johnstoners Teddies begin.
|
|
|
|
Post by dicebro on Jun 13, 2021 20:55:50 GMT -6
Two words: Dispel Magic
|
|
flightcommander
Level 6 Magician
"I become drunk as circumstances dictate."
Posts: 387
|
Post by flightcommander on Jun 13, 2021 23:06:56 GMT -6
I don't disagree with you — the rules seem evidently clear that Dispell Magic will terminate the effect of a Charm Person spell. But the funny thing is that (a) it's a 3rd-level spell (vs a 1st-level spell) and (b) its description is probably even more open to interpretation than Charm Person. It even includes the parenthetical "referee's option", plus it has a duration! Not to mention the phrase "unless countered" — what is that supposed to imply?! An immediate and opposing Dispell Magic? Were early 70's neck-beard Magic-Users engaged in epic spell warfare against their opposing numbers, casting anti-spells at each other with abandon?! I guess that's another way of saying, there's a reason why we're talking about this more than 40 years later.  |
|
|
|
Post by dicebro on Jun 14, 2021 7:40:59 GMT -6
I don't disagree with you — the rules seem evidently clear that Dispell Magic will terminate the effect of a Charm Person spell. But the funny thing is that (a) it's a 3rd-level spell (vs a 1st-level spell) and (b) its description is probably even more open to interpretation than Charm Person. It even includes the parenthetical "referee's option", plus it has a duration! Not to mention the phrase "unless countered" — what is that supposed to imply?! An immediate and opposing Dispell Magic? Were early 70's neck-beard Magic-Users engaged in epic spell warfare against their opposing numbers, casting anti-spells at each other with abandon?! I guess that's another way of saying, there's a reason why we're talking about this more than 40 years later. Implied: Magic doesn’t always go by the book. It’s more like Biology than Math. 🧙♂️ |
|
|
|
Post by SebastianDM on Jun 14, 2021 12:34:03 GMT -6
Funny how Ted (and others) bring up the "completely under the influence" text and focus on the word "completely", but never talk about that other word, "influence". Although it has a range of meanings, "influence" usually seems to mean "persuasion" or "indirect control". I'm trying to think of examples where it means "mind control", but can't. Of course, it's pretty common to interpret "persuasion" to mean "mind control", too, especially in systems that use social skills. So that argument might not ... persuade anyone. I take "completely under the influence" to mean that the influence extends to all areas, not just for example gaining a henchman. But I don't interpret it as "automatic obedience of orders". Note that Men & Magic also includes a 6th level spell, Geas, which "forces the recipient to perform some task". If Charm Person is mind control available at 1st level, why would anyone need a 6th level Geas? Could you force a charmed person to perform a task? Why is there a Hold Person spell at 3rd level? Couldn't you order a charmed person to remain rooted in place?
This makes a lot of sense. Especially considering the higher level spells. I never thought much about the word "influence" in this context either. I think this is how I will try to run the spell.
It made me wonder whether there was any spells that would be more directly "mind control" so I tried to search for the words in my pdfs. I realized that "control" is used in the context of the "x control" potions ,which are described to have the same effect as the charm person/monster spells. Which would suggest that charm = control. The "Mammal Control" ring even goes as far as to say "Control is complete, even to having the controlled mammals attack the others with it which are not controlled" (emphasis mine). Right when I thought it all actually made sense ....  |
|
|
|
Post by delta on Jun 14, 2021 16:33:15 GMT -6
It made me wonder whether there was any spells that would be more directly "mind control" so I tried to search for the words in my pdfs. I realized that "control" is used in the context of the "x control" potions ,which are described to have the same effect as the charm person/monster spells. Which would suggest that charm = control. The "Mammal Control" ring even goes as far as to say "Control is complete, even to having the controlled mammals attack the others with it which are not controlled" (emphasis mine). Right when I thought it all actually made sense .... That's actually a really interesting distinction, in that the ring of mammal control is the only one there doesn't explicitly reference charm person or the similar control potions, but uniquely has that "Control is complete, even to having the controlled mammals attack the others with it which are not controlled" clause. So arguably that's a special boost for that ring, like maybe non-sentient animals are more easily/completely dominated, and the normal charming magic doesn't provide attack-former-allies control (as most of us here are currently voting). Or something. |
|
|
|
Post by cometaryorbit on Jun 14, 2021 17:50:04 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. The "confused" aspect shows up in AD&D DMG too with charmed spell casters having a chance to miscast/reverse spells.
This feels like a bit of a disconnect to me. If it's a magically-created friendship*, but otherwise "just like what you'd do for your best friend", with no ongoing 'control', then why the confusion?
IMO these are two different ways to weaken the spell which don't play well with one another.
*And the DMG is not super clear on this either. It specifically says that it "is not enslave person" but asking someone to hold back a red dragon for just a couple rounds is ok... That's borderline suicidal IMO (unless they are like a 12th level fighter, probably not the base assumption for a low level spell)...
|
|
|
|
Post by cometaryorbit on Jun 14, 2021 18:14:32 GMT -6
I would say any of the options in the poll are possible if conditions are right, but "defend the caster" would be the default effect of a Charm in combat. I'd personally see the OD&D intent as somewhere in between the "friendship" and "total control" ideas. It is complete influence, but still influence not puppet-like control. IE the new loyalty* is the strongest possible loyalty -- but it doesn't override the creature's natural tendencies, or eliminate prior loyalties/friendships. Attacking former allies might require a reaction roll or new saving throw if they were actually friends, vs allies of convenience. I don't think a failed one would necessarily break the Charm though, the being might just freeze up and not act at all.
And that also IMO keeps it from replicating Geas. If you are right there you can largely avoid the dangers of them "drifting" from the intent of your instructions, but not otherwise. If you tell a Charmed orc to guard a room, it may not chase off other orcs, since it doesn't see them as "enemies" to be guarded against. Etc.
*'Best friends' doesn't seem right to me because that suggests the charmed person would expect more of a relationship of equals than "completely under the influence" suggests. I'd see it as loyalty instead.
|
|
|
|
Post by SebastianDM on Jun 15, 2021 12:41:47 GMT -6
That's actually a really interesting distinction, in that the ring of mammal control is the only one there doesn't explicitly reference charm person or the similar control potions, but uniquely has that "Control is complete, even to having the controlled mammals attack the others with it which are not controlled" clause. So arguably that's a special boost for that ring, like maybe non-sentient animals are more easily/completely dominated, and the normal charming magic doesn't provide attack-former-allies control (as most of us here are currently voting). Or something.
Ah thanks for that. I realize now that my previous logic applied "completely" twice. I guess the logic should have been:
And I agree. The explicit rule for the ring would make no sense if this was the intention of the charm spell.
Another thing I noticed is that the wording of the control potions/ring are quite different.
Animal Control potion: "... the party ... can control ..."
Undead Control potion reference to Animal Control Plant Control potion "... allows the imbiber to control ..."
Human Control potion reference to Charm Person Giant Control potion reference to Charm Monster Dragon Control potion reference to Giant Control Mammal Control ring: "... allows the wearer to control ..."
At first I thought they might have just been written at different times or something, but I think I see a pattern to them. The three potions that do not reference the spells: Animals, Undead and plants are all creatures with witch communication is impossible or very limited. Instead of the reference to the charm spells, their effects are worded as "control".
To me, this strongly suggests that "control" is player control (as in controlling a game piece) while "completely under the influence", while vaguely defined, is a distinct milder version of control. If the author (Gygax I presume) saw them as synonymous, why not reference the spell for all of the potions?
Furthermore I think this implies that the charm/control are meant to vary according the the power of the subject.
- Plants can be fully controlled by the player.
- Animals and Undead can also be fully controlled but the control is delayed by one turn.
- Humanoids come "completely under the influence of the Magic user".
- Monsters also come "completely under the influence of the Magic user" but is a 7th level Magic-user spell
I think I lean more and more toward the Swansonites
|
|
|
|
Post by cometaryorbit on Jun 16, 2021 0:12:16 GMT -6
Ah thanks for that. I realize now that my previous logic applied "completely" twice. I guess the logic should have been:
And I agree. The explicit rule for the ring would make no sense if this was the intention of the charm spell.
Another thing I noticed is that the wording of the control potions/ring are quite different. That is a very good point!
I agree "mind control" makes sense for non-speaking creatures, vs influence for speaking creatures/people. And I agree that "completely under the influence" is weaker than "control" in the sense of 'game piece' control.
OTOH I still am not happy with "best friends" because "best friends" implies an expectation of a relationship of equals, whereas "completely under the influence" suggests the influence is more one-way.
I think loyalty is more appropriate than friendship (in game terms, often meaning 'instant retainer/hireling').
|
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Jun 17, 2021 13:12:45 GMT -6
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2021 17:47:03 GMT -6
My knee-jerk reaction is that all of the first four options are possible.
|
|
|
|
Post by dicebro on Jun 30, 2021 6:19:32 GMT -6
Nobody completely understands the magic they wield. It’s a strange and mythic power that doesn’t follow the letter of the law.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2021 2:53:01 GMT -6
I'd personally see the OD&D intent as somewhere in between the "friendship" and "total control" ideas. It is complete influence, but still influence not puppet-like control. IE the new loyalty* is the strongest possible loyalty -- but it doesn't override the creature's natural tendencies, or eliminate prior loyalties/friendships. Attacking former allies might require a reaction roll or new saving throw if they were actually friends, vs allies of convenience. I don't think a failed one would necessarily break the Charm though, the being might just freeze up and not act at all.
I would say the spell sets their initial loyalty at 18 (morale/reaction checks at +3). Loyalty of 19+ means they never check morale, and that seems to be a step too far. Charmed creatures don't demand a salary, but otherwise they function the same as retainers: the DM tracks their loyalty and makes morale/reaction rolls when called for. Treat your charmed orc poorly and their loyalty will go down just like a poorly treated retainer.
I think there's a difference between asking a charmed being to fight its former associates in the heat of combat vs outside of combat. Sure, they'll fight their former associates in defense of their boss. Afterward, they might have an attack of conscience about it (ie, reaction check with possible loyalty adjustment).
Outside of combat, though, being asked to betray their clan? The reaction check comes first, same as for a retainer being asked to commit treason against their town. 5 or less means they refuse the order and loyalty gets a 1 point reduction; 2 or less means the spell ends/they resign. Since they initially check at +3, it will take time to erode their loyalty to the point where the charm can be broken.
|
|
|
|
Post by scottenkainen on Jul 20, 2021 10:18:35 GMT -6
I missed the poll, but would have voted for all of the above, though the caster has to word his requests appropriately to make them convincing to the charmed victim.
|
|
|
|
Post by scottyg on Jul 30, 2021 17:15:17 GMT -6
OD&D Charm Person was much more powerful than later editions. Ted is correct. It's not "Completely" It's not "Influence" It's "completely under the influence". It's some Simone Biles level word gymnastics to interpret the text any other way. There are no caveats. There are no periodic or conditional checks. That's how it was written. That's how it was originally adjudicated.
It became obvious that t was overpowered and it was scaled back in future editions to fix it. You can play with the wisdom of hindsight and nerf it, or you can stubbornly let the overpowered spell in your game because that's how it was originally written.
|
|
|
|
Post by delta on Jan 2, 2022 12:26:33 GMT -6
Touching back on the results of this poll, ProBoards doesn't correctly show the approval percentages for multiple-check option polls like this, so for clarity I figured I'd summarize here. - Attack former allies -- 31% approval
- Defend the caster -- 78%
- Surrender and disarm -- 53%
- Flee the encounter -- 50%
- Nothing: charm fails in combat -- 6%
So there's large support for "defend the caster" and close to an even split for "surrender and disarm" and "flee the encounter". Other options did not get majority support. Pretty interesting results to me, as initially I thought that defending the caster would be a more severe result than disarming or fleeing. And most of my gaming life I allowed charm victims to attack former allies, but I've stopped doing that as a result of this poll. |
|
|
|
Post by dicebro on Jan 2, 2022 12:51:30 GMT -6
OD&D Charm Person was much more powerful than later editions. Ted is correct. It's not "Completely" It's not "Influence" It's "completely under the influence". It's some Simone Biles level word gymnastics to interpret the text any other way. There are no caveats. There are no periodic or conditional checks. That's how it was written. That's how it was originally adjudicated. It became obvious that t was overpowered and it was scaled back in future editions to fix it. You can play with the wisdom of hindsight and nerf it, or you can stubbornly let the overpowered spell in your game because that's how it was originally written. I say stubbornly let it in. Magic users have enough troubles at first level. Plus, any referee worth his or her salt can always bring in a higher level NPC magic user to cast dispel magic on a target. I usually have charmed 2 legged monsters from the underworld get sick and die after a day or two of captivity anyway. We once had a magic user try to charm all the local bar matrons, one at a time until he thought he had a harem. That didn’t last long due to the “angry villager” rule. There is always a way to reign in a spell. |
|
