My, it has been a while since I did one of these. I was reading a discussion on social media where it called out the original designers of D&D as essentially bad people for having included charm spells in D&D. That seemed . . . well wrong to me. As I believe charms were included as part of the long tradition of such magics in myths, tales and legends not for any other reason.
Thus this discussion which is focused on the GM’s use of charm magic:
To start with, Charm spells and their variants (love potions, suggestion, dominate, and so many more) are troubling, deeply so in fact because they take away one of the primary aspects that make playing roleplaying games fun:
Agency/Autonomy, when your character is under the effects of such a spell, you (the player) are not getting to play the character you signed up for. You are being forced to act against your will and it is just not enjoyable. This is an extremely important point, such effects basically steal the character from the player for the duration and is very likely a “you do not have fun” moment for the player. Do not do that, it is rude and will stress the social bonds of the group.
Now, some people will say, well just get rid of Charms all together. This is an option but using magic to subvert peoples’ control / emotions / will has a long tradition in myths and legends and is a good indication that anyone doing so is evil. Arguably, fear of such control is one of the reasons people have historically been so afraid of the idea of magic, if it can make you do things you do not want to do or want to do something so much that you violate laws and morality, it is something deeply terrifying. Again, depending on your group, these may not be subjects they people wish to explore but they can be interesting and terrifying to encounter in a game setting.
Now, there are still ways to use Charm effects successfully in a game, but you need to warn the players and get them onboard first. For example:
The Big Bad has enacted a powerful ritual that gives them control over the Royal army, the characters are part of the army so . . . If the players agree, they get caught up in the spell. Montage of autocratic control over the land and then the character end up somewhere that breaks them from the spell. Now, they have to try an free their home from the Big Bad, possibly while being concerned with the safety of their former comrades, possibly (if people want to) grappling with the terrible things they did while controlled.
Or:
The Evil Noble wants to get the Royal to marry them and slips them a love potion . . . it works! And the characters have to free the Royal from the induced false love before something terrible happens. Or, the comedy approach, thing go wrong and one of player characters now has a Royal in love with them or has fallen in love with the Evil Noble (or both!). The humor version requires a light touch on everyone’s behalf though.
Some players will still not be be willing to let their characters be charmed (or love potioned). Do not force them, it is impolite and not being a good friend. But others will enjoy the chance to try something different with their character.
As always, communication is king. Talk to your players to learn what they want to see and try in your game and what they definitely do not want.
Notes: Another in my occasional discussion of game theory.
Image A strange portrait from “Spring-heel’d Jack: the Terror of London. A romance of the nineteenth century. From the The British Library. Public Domain Mark.
Like this:
Like Loading...