Okay, based on what the reaction in IRC was, I think this is going to arouse some controversy. It would be good to get some debate going on, regardless, so let's hear your opinions on this.

Currently, the spell lasts for a duration of 1 round / level and dazes the target, if it's a PC. If it's a NPC, they turn from Hostile to Neutral (I think) and will stay that way unless you attack them or a NPC near them. Correct me if I'm wrong and the spell dazes NPCs too, I'm not sure if I've ever used it or seen it used on a NPC.

In any event, the effect that the spell should have on the target is very different, as anyone familiar with the PnP version surely is aware. For good measure, here's what the PHB states:

Player's Handbook This charm makes a humanoid of Medium-size or smaller regard you as his trusted friend and ally. If the creature is currently being threatened or attacked by you or your allies, however, he receives a +5 bonus on his saving throw.

The spell does not enable you to control the charmed person as if he were an automaton, but he perceives your words and actions in the most favorable way. You can try to give the subject orders, but you must win an opposed Charisma check to convince him to do anything he wouldn't ordinarily do. (Retries not allowed.) A charmed person never obeys suicidal or obviously harmful orders, but he might believe you if you assured him that the only chance to save your life is for him to hold back an onrushing red dragon "just a few seconds". Any act by you or your apparent allies that threatens the charmed person breaks the spell. Note also that you must speak the person's language to communicate your commands, or else be good at pantomiming.

So here's my suggestion: Remove all game mechanical effects from Charm Person when it's used on a PC, save for the Will save. If it's impossible to differentiate between PC and NPC targets via scripting, it could be considered to either remove all such effects from the spell entirely, considering that it hardly ever sees use against NPCs anyways -- well, in my experience... -- or apply my suggested change to the spell and keep the daze, too. The addition would be a system message (that yellow text) explaining briefly the effects of the spell for the targeted character's player, if the save is failed. Make it painfully clear that it's only a reminder or a recommendation, not an enforced rule that has to be followed. The player would be free to ignore the recommendation altogether. It would be there only to

1) explain the (voluntary) effects for those not aware of the PnP description, and 2) encourage the use of the spell for RP purposes, reminding players that this is an opportunity for some fun roleplay.

If the change would be implemented so that the daze effect was removed, the duration of the spell could be adjusted to be closer to PnP, too. (Another system message telling the player when the effects end.)

I'm aware of some of the perceived problems involved. For one thing, the system message might seem like an order no matter how you phrase it, making the player feel uncomfortable if they don't play along. (Although I'll admit that that's part of the actual purpose, to a certain extent.) I also anticipate some people pointing out that it's kind of blurry just how far you'd be supposed to play along, considering that there are ways to harm yourself or others indirectly. To this, though, I'd answer that the player is free to play along only as far as they feel comfortable with. Besides, the same problem exists in PnP, doesn't it?

That leads to the third objection I anticipate, which is that if the target character's player refuses to play along, this could create some unnecessary bad blood and OOC strife between the players. However, the spell was never intended to give a leverage in PvP, save for a single surprise attack, so anyone using the spell on another PC with actual charming in mind would regardless contact the other player via a Tell and ask them if they would play along, so the problem would persist regardless if the target refused to comply.

Finally, I encountered in IRC the objection that no one should tell other players how to roleplay their characters. In my mind, this is a rather weak objection, since it's a fact that the spell Charm Person has a profound effect on how a character should be roleplayed. Therefore, given the leeway that I've emphasized of not having to comply, I don't think the suggestion would be a harmful one.

There, I'm done writing my essay. Opinions, please.

(I'm sorry for having not much to contribute but I tried it on a NPC and they turned from "red" to "blue" for the duration of the spell. Also I had had the spell cast on myself and it did only show the "Charmed" effect but did not really affect me in the way as daze does. I think you just randomly draw another weapon if you have one and cannot move.)

well, i like anthee's idea, what dms think?

btw, its easy to diffrenciate between NPC and PC there is a script for that:), and as i said in another post, some pole and opinions could be nice, though dms opinion is the most importent, they are those to decide anyway :)

I give you praise my friend. Sounds like a great idea, and to support your last potential objection people may have, people send me tells telling me how to rp my character all the time, so nothing would change there. I get tells like 'Oh thats metagaming' etc. And after roleplaying online for four and a half years, I think I can differentiate what is and isn't. I'm all for it, I'm thinking it'd make for some grrrrrreaat roleplays. :)

I always.. thought that was the way to RP charm person.. how else would I get my low will save min/max orcs to help me :lol:

Unfortunately, I'm a little to lazy to take the time to lay down my reasons with supporting opinions and evidence, but I was one of the people who opted against this on IRC, and I'm doing it again here.

A DM should be present if you plan to use this spell on someone. There's a few reasons, but saving time, I'll mention my big two. First off, it's a hostile spell, and what you are doing has a huge chance to lead to pvp (maybe) and that should be overseen anyway. The second issue is that I see this leading to a large number of problems pertaining to "this is how you should play your character in this situation" and "hey you are not following rules/recommendations" and "hey I think you should be playing like this, but you choose to play like that" etc. It's great when players can come to terms on their own, but even THEN, there may have been little miscommunications or simple mishaps that can lead to unexpected and unwanted aftermath which is only a problem in the end, and probably only solveable by the ruling of a DM who wasn't there.

Aside from this, there's also the technicality issue relating to "50% disposition increase" and what exactly breaks the spell. I also see this rolling over to Dominate Person, which will be a whole other can of beans if it's not left as a DM overseen situation.

I hope that's enough for a convincing point that doesn't need to be backed up, becuase I'll probably be without internet for a few days, and I won't have a chance to make timely counter-arguements. :P

Thats a strong argument Strifey. I'm with you on it.

Seems like either way you'd have to use tells to get permission from the player and set up an understanding, so I'm unsure as to why there's a need to change it in the first place.

Anthee, you little fascist. I liked your suggestion. Alot. But such is the power with fascism as well, the arguments have their strength if only a single spokesman relates to it. If at any time another party starts contradicting things, the charm is broken. Strife broke it. I agree with fishingpenguin, it should be decided between two players.

But don't worry, I'll vote for you any time Anthee. 8)

fishingpenguin Seems like either way you'd have to use tells to get permission from the player and set up an understanding, so I'm unsure as to why there's a need to change it in the first place.

That said, I begin my counterstrike on Strife!

ExileStrife I'll mention my big two. First off, it's a hostile spell, and what you are doing has a huge chance to lead to pvp (maybe) and that should be overseen anyway.

None of these actions would be likely to lead to PvP if the spell was successful. If the spell was not successful, the likelihood of PvP basically remains the same, except that with the daze effect removed Charm Person could be used in a public area (with the proper metamagic feat) -- thus making a verbal argument or possibly an arrest a more likely outcome than outright PvP.

ExileStrife The second issue is that I see this leading to a large number of problems pertaining to "this is how you should play your character in this situation" and "hey you are not following rules/recommendations" and "hey I think you should be playing like this, but you choose to play like that" etc. It's great when players can come to terms on their own, but even THEN, there may have been little miscommunications or simple mishaps that can lead to unexpected and unwanted aftermath which is only a problem in the end, and probably only solveable by the ruling of a DM who wasn't there.

ExileStrife Aside from this, there's also the technicality issue relating to "50% disposition increase"

ExileStrife and what exactly breaks the spell.

ExileStrife I also see this rolling over to Dominate Person, which will be a whole other can of beans if it's not left as a DM overseen situation.

* * *

The bottom line is that the removal of the daze effect is an equally important part of this suggestion as the addition of the system message(s), one which you completely ignored in your arguments. You also seemed to ignore a very essential idea that I emphasized, which is that it would be made clear the charmed PC's player is the one making all the final decisions on how to RP their character.

Coldburn seemed to forget these things too! 8)

Damn you, and your ways to manipulate the masses!

With his Riposte Attack, Anthee's suggestion regained my favour, and I can hardly imagine any problems coming up with this now, other than PCs who wouldn't like to play along. Which is their own problem, seeing as they'd miss out on potentially great stories. But that said, doesn't that count for roleplay in general?

Heres a method that may help, when you prepered the spell and use it on a PC, instead of actully catsing it, discard the prepred spell and ask the player to make a will save (best ask the player first) then if they fail, there you go, rp like that person is charmed. Just a thought though.

There'd be no way for the target to know if the caster even had a Charm Person memorized, and people nearby wouldn't get the chance to spot the casting. Including the target.

I prefer the system message option also because it would eventually mean that there would have to be no unnecessary OOC communication between the players breaking the immersion.

It won't work.

For the reason's Strife laid out.

Also PvP becomes MORE likely not less. Since 1) if you beat the DC, you're going to fight. This creates more reasons to fight, not less because the casting of the spell Charm Person currently happens 0 times against PCs, this situation will make it happen more than say 5 times ever. Which means 1 of those times at least someone is sure to beat the DC. This equates out, to all logic, as MORE PvP. Thanks for playing.

The spell isn't a love charm. So that won't happen. If you cast it on many of your superiors in many factions, expect them to react hostily. I know it'll happen in every faction I've ever been in on here.

PCs will still think the spell "REQUIRES" some act if it SUGGESTS an act. This is how the majority of players think and react. The majority of players are not in IRC or on the forums-only your dedicated core is. Which means, you could always work with a PC to cooperate with your casting of Charm Person anyway--without adding this.

PnP actually has "disposition increase" Anthee wrote:

This charm makes a humanoid of Medium-size or smaller regard you as his trusted friend and ally. If the creature is currently being threatened or attacked by you or your allies, however, he receives a +5 bonus on his saving throw.

This is the equivalent of moving a Neutral toward the 50% increase to Friendly in the PnP version of DnD. If he is Hostile, and the increase would be 100% not 50% then he gets a +5 save.

Finally, Strife didn't mention this-but I know it from experience. Charm Person fucks up plots, stories, and lots of character interaction. One level one spell allows a wizard to get all the information an NPC has about a plot, can convince any PC to reveal information about his Faction's deepest secrets known to him, can convince a criminal in a jail cell to confess to all of his crimes-ever. In short, it derails entirely any level of intrigue and is vastly more powerful than it should be when used in the manner you suggest. This is the number one reason I'd object to any "suggestion" making the spell more powerful.

I'd not personally mind the spell working more like the PnP version against NPCs--who if targetted and capable of speech suddenly start saying "Hey! Come on guys, let's leave him alone. We don't need this fight, come on!" and similarly hippy like things for the duration.

I've said everything I have to say on why I think this would be a good idea and why Strife's objections aren't enough. But this

Oroborous Finally, Strife didn't mention this-but I know it from experience. Charm Person fucks up plots, stories, and lots of character interaction. One level one spell allows a wizard to get all the information an NPC has about a plot, can convince any PC to reveal information about his Faction's deepest secrets known to him, can convince a criminal in a jail cell to confess to all of his crimes-ever. In short, it derails entirely any level of intrigue and is vastly more powerful than it should be when used in the manner you suggest. This is the number one reason I'd object to any "suggestion" making the spell more powerful.

All the final decisions are made by the charmed PC's player.

If your campaigns have been fucked up by Charm Person, Oro, you've made some bad decisions as a DM. As a DM in a game of PnP -- or NWN, for that matter -- you get to decide just how much a charmed NPC reveals to the PC. This level one spell

Oroborous allows a wizard to get all the information an NPC has about a plot, can convince any PC to reveal information about his Faction's deepest secrets known to him, can convince a criminal in a jail cell to confess to all of his crimes-ever

A PC in EfU would not have to spoil a plot that's been worked on for a long time just because someone charmed them, since the PC's player gets to decide what they reveal. That doesn't make the spell useless, it just limits the spell's power to a reasonable level. "Reasonable" being just what the disadvantaged side thinks is reasonable.

I have used charm person on 7 different occasions on this server. I sent a PM to the person first telling them of my plan, telling them they did not need to play along, but asking if they would. No one turned me down yet. Your all arguing over problems which do not exist, or if they do, I haven't seen them...

SOunds like you already have it working. No need to spend time rescripting.

Anthee:

All the final decisions are made by the charmed PC's player.

A PC in EfU would not have to spoil a plot that's been worked on for a long time just because someone charmed them, since the PC's player gets to decide what they reveal. That doesn't make the spell useless, it just limits the spell's power to a reasonable level. "Reasonable" being just what the disadvantaged side thinks is reasonable.

Actually, I didn't make a mistake as DM. Players without DM knowledge went ahead and broke the server using the spell in this way in NWN and LARPs-every type of game where a DM isn't always watching. Which is why I know this is a bad idea.

You're making the naive assumption that players know enough about plots, stories, and game world background to know what information is "fine" to give out under a Charm and what information the DMs want strongly, strictly guarded to insure things work properly for what they have planned.

If the use of this spell must happen in this way, it should only happen under guidance of a DM who can interject a quick "You know answering that question is a bad idea!" to make sure its not disrupting. An NPC obviously won't reveal anything a DM won't want revealed.

Its still a level one spell, but not every player has the knowledge necessary to make sure its treated as one when it comes to plot breaking uses. A DM can easily prevent this, but when its left to players--it will wreck things.

And Anthee, watch your language please. I don't like curses directed at me or profanity used when you discuss things with me.

Oroborous You're making the naive assumption that players know enough about plots, stories, and game world background to know what information is "fine" to give out under a Charm and what information the DMs want strongly, strictly guarded to insure things work properly for what they have planned.

Oroborous Charm Person fucks up plots,

Anthee If your campaigns have been fucked up by Charm Person, Oro,

Oroborous And Anthee, watch your language please. I don't like curses directed at me or profanity used when you discuss things with me.

EDIT: To prevent a horrible misunderstanding, Hypocrisy is pretty good though!