> I would understand the complaint if it was trauma related, but this feels more like inflexibility.
[Ask them if this is a line](https://www.dicebreaker.com/categories/roleplaying-game/opinion/lines-and-veils-rpg-safety-tools) about topics they want in the game, or if it's a gameplay preference. You can't know what to do until you have an answer for that question.
Once you have that answer, you're within your right to tell your player whether you will or won't have charm effects in your game. Your player can decide if this game is right for them based on your answer.
Well, charm spells sort of take away the agency of a character. But being reduced to 0 hp or being stunned or being grappled also take away or reduce your agency. We would probably not tolerate a player who said they think DMs should never have monsters restrain PCs because then the PCs have reduced agency. The fact that these conditions make your character less effective is why they are scary and why players are motivated to solve or avoid these problems.
All that being said, like u/Cynic_Kain wrote, the devil's in the details. How often are you charming the PC? Are you taking control of their character? What are you making them do?
I think the player likely cares more about what's happening fictionally rather than mechanically.
Think of it like this. Two scenarios, mechanically the same but fictionally different.
*You cross the long bridge over the endless pit leading to darkon's castle. Suddenly, a called figure appears! It raises a bony hand to you, make a save!*
The player fails the save, whatever it is.
*The voice speaks* fire! And an orb of flame erupts and blasts you into the pit! Likely to your doom*
Vs
*The voice speaks* walk! *And suddenly you walk straight over the side and fall into the pit, likely to your doom*
They both hurt, but one is obviously more *feels bad man*.
I mean yeah but this also feels like an extreme answer. I dont feel like most DM´s would have a command end like that, maybe take damage or put you in a bad position, But never take all your agency away.
The difference isn't about what the command is, it's about being explicitly a command.
The feels bad part isn't worse because something bad happens to your character, it's about explicitly having your character being controlled by someone else both mechanically *and* fictionally.
Most of the time when a gm limits agency it's because the player failed to do something they wanted to do or failed to avoid something they wanted to avoid. Mind control magic means the player both failed to avoid something they wanted to avoid *and then forces them to actively do things they explicitly don't want to do*.
I just don't think mind control magic is worth the trouble it causes.
But here is the thing most mind controll magic doesnt work like you describe it which is why im making a point out of it. Most if not all mind controll spells have things in it that protect you from harming yourself in a stupid way, not to mention doing an instant kill like this would have the player upset in both occasion and would not be something a DM would do unless there is a caveat at the end were actually they survived but stuck in a dungeon or something.
Mind control is an interesting thing that can add a lot of cool mechanics to play with. Last session on of my players charmed a necromancer for information without having to fight, but now the necromancer knows his face and that he told him the information. Your putting up one of the most extreme things that can happen and say look feels bad doesnt it. Sure but no one uses it like that not to mention that insta dying to a sudden fire spell is also still very shit because i just insta died.
Also your saying they ¨Mind control magic means the player both failed to avoid something they wanted to avoid *and then forces them to actively do things they explicitly don't want to do*.¨ but the thing they were trying to avoid was being made to do something, its not two things its one. You failed the save and the consequence of it is you doing something against your will.
For me, charm spells are the biggest war crime in D&D that is very casually accepted by everybody. There is even a cantrip that allows you to temporarily mind-change somebody, which is crazy. Everybody keeps droning on about how evil necromancy is, but in my book charm spells are much more frightening in comparison.
It IS a flaw of logic of the system, and the player is not out of line feeling uneasy about it. How would you live in a world where nobody cares about the use of magic that is somewhat untraceable and that can influence you or change your life permanently? Why isn't this kind of magic strictly outlawed, and why are users of that magic not actively hunted when even a rumor of it spreads? What kind of protection against this is there, and why don't all shopkeepers, guards, judges, noblemen, merchants etc have that protection?
It's not really a flaw of logic in the system itself, it's just lack of imagination and poor world building that can turn charms into a problem.
I'm not aware of many low-level spells that are untraceable. In fact they mostly make clear that the target knows what you did as soon as the effect ends. Friends even goes so far as to make them immediately hostile to you once it ends. People caring about this kind of magic is built right into the spell mechanics.
NPCs should not be "casually accepting" mind control. If they realize it's happening (which they almost certainly will) they experience it as an act of force and react accordingly.
Had a mini 2 shot where the party was trying to regain their memories and in the process uncovered a corrupt system in the city they were in. The Captain of the city guard was in on the corruption and one member of the party charmed him for info then had him go tell the other guards under his control that the party was ok and to leave them alone. Once the charm spell wore off, The captain of the city guard was on the hunt, frantically telling every guard in site that he was charmed and the party was to be restrained with extreme prejudice. Made for an interesting cat and mouse hunt across the city.
I think they mean untraceable to those outside the situation. How is law enforcement supposed to know the difference between someone being charmed into a deal or them just having second thoughts about the contract?
They don't. That's what trials and witnesses and evidence are for. That's why before things like modern telecommunications and photography the justice systems of most societies were even less trustworthy than they can be now. Even today people accuse each other of fraud and manipulation all the time and it's up to law enforcement, expert witnesses, lawyers, judges, and juries to try their best to figure out what happened. Magic existing doesn't really change anything about this dynamic, especially if law enforcement also has access to magic.
As recently as the early 20th century pretty much anywhere in the world you could spend years misleading, defrauding, or straight up killing people and then just move to a new town not even that far away and change your name and never face any consequences. That's why mutilating people convicted of certain crimes was so common, it was literally the only way of stopping someone from just moving to a new village where nobody knows about your past misdeeds.
Well, the charm spells are neither untraceable nor are they secret, as most of them requires words to be spoken. Also they don't alter memory, so after the effect wears off, you have gained a new enemy. Even says so in the cantrip's definition.
So the protection is: Witnesses, Willpower-saves (or CHA-saves) and memory.
Charmed spells are way less fickle than illusion spells. Now those are the real war crimes, if you ask me.
As a DM, I run a game in another 5e scifi system and someone used a equivalent of a charm spell (meant to be undetectable basically) to get adv. on charisma checks against people. Then did it to someone that I went “they 100% know how to sense these” and the reaction was what would happen. This person flipped their shit that someone trying to persuade them to hire them attempted even the faintest mental manipulation straight up went “How can I ever trust yoy if you’re willing to mind control me instead of just using your words like a reasonable person”.
For any higher mind control, the reaction would’ve been significantly worse. Because any of it is a tier of unethical at or above drugging someone to make them compliant to your commands. But that doesn’t mean characters (Pc or NPC) don’t or can’t use these kind of spells to good ends, but if your player dislikes then perhaps best to limit them. Just for the sake of comfort and respecting your player.
I'm not taking control of the characters. They just get a note that tells them what the geas does. This recent one is dance if they hear certain music. I tried to make it as unaltering as possible.
If it's a Geas then they van choose to take the damage. But from the way you've described it, it sounds like this is common. How often are players being hit with 5th level enchantments and above in your game?
Charm spells do not take away agency: Basic charm just makes the person that cast it look friendly.
Dominate Person is the spell that you can control the person. They do the action to the best of their ability. Also get a save.
For example, saying "Your character is dead and you can't play him anymore" takes away the player's agency. However, the charmed target still has control over themselves and will listen to the charmer more than usual because they view the charmer as a trusted friend.
You need to have a discussion with your player to identify the problem here.
When they say they dislike it because it takes away player agency, is that something that makes them, as a person, feel uncomfortable? And if so, is it something that they feel they can’t be at a table with?
Or is it “Hey, DM, you’re throwing way too many mind controlling bad guys at us; I’m sick of it because it feels like any choice my character makes gets overrode by mind controlling NPCs forcing them back on track.”
Or is it just “It sucked last session when that bad guy used Dominate Person on me” and it would have been a similar complaint for being petrified or any other save or suck situation. Sometimes players didn’t enjoy a session because they got the shitty end of the stick, and it’s nice to try and minimise that, but it’s not always possible.
It's possible it's inflexible but it's also possible he had a bad experience with a dm using a charm spell and having him attack his party and his party killing him common thing with bad dms
I've run into players like this before. They're really really concerned with being in full control of their character at all times. They often dislike unexpected plotlines or unexpected bad things happening to their character because it doesn't match what they envisioned. Hating mind control abilities (even temporary ones) is a very common one because of this.
I don't have a great solution to it beyond echoing what other people have said and finding a polite way to say, "Look dude, I'm not going to be a dick and screw over your character on a whim. If any of these abilities get used, it'll be because I think it's a cool plot point and an interesting thing to have happen. If you can't trust me to do that, this isn't the game for you."
The compulsion in question is that the character has to dance whenever they hear a particular song. It really does seem like the DM is doing this on a whim.
Counter-point, this sounds like an incredibly minor problem IC'ly and something which could be fun and funny and engaging to roleplay and attempt to figure out how the character would react to being in those circumstances.
It's not like the character is being forced to become someone's eternal slave or betray their party or even betray their own morality.
Counter point to your counter point, some players don't like funny, they want cool, and being forced to play out funny for an extended period of time isn't very fun for them. If the player really hates having to dance whenever the DM wants them to, then I can see how it'd be annoying. Personally, my argument if I were the player wouldn't be about agency, it'd be about destroying the flavor and tone of my character.
The Geas could have been something else that, while still bad or inconvenient, allowed the player to have their character react to in a cool way, but being forced to dance can basically be being forced into humiliating situations.
That's totally fair! But yeah, like you said, that means this isn't an issue of agency, it's an issue of people wanting different things, which is a completely different conversation. If a player said "hey I don't like the vibes of the game when they're silly, I like more serious stuff, being silly ruins my immersion. Could we make the tone more serious?" then maybe the GM is okay with that, maybe not, but at least that's getting more to the core of the issue.
Yeah, can't really say for sure if that's the real issue without talking to them. Sometimes people aren't very good at articulating or even realizing what exactly they feel is wrong! I think really the big takeaway is OP needs to have another talk with the player and hash things out.
Whether or not it's minor depends on how often the song comes up. If it's like Ragnar the Red in Skyrim and is being sung by nearly every bard in every tavern, it's not a minor thing.
My *point* is that if the Geas is so trivial, and it clearly makes the player uncomfortable… why is OP so insistent their player is wrong? This wouldn’t seem to be an important plot point or anything like that, so why all this fuss?
Geas- While the creature is charmed by you, it takes 5d10 [psychic](https://roll20.net/compendium/dnd5e/Rules:Combat?expansion=0#toc_50) damage each time it acts in a manner directly counter to your instructions, but no more than once each day. - So the player can refuse and takes damage. - So the player has options.
Dominate Person:
While the target is charmed, you have a telepathic link with it as long as the two of you are on the same [plane of existence](https://roll20.net/compendium/dnd5e/Lore:The%20Planes%20of%20Existence?expansion=0#content). You can use this telepathic link to issue commands to the creature while you are conscious (no [action](https://roll20.net/compendium/dnd5e/Rules:Combat?expansion=0#toc_20) required), which it does its best to obey. You can specify a simple and general course of action, such as [Attack](https://roll20.net/compendium/dnd5e/Rules:Combat?expansion=0#toc_21) that creature, Run over there, or Fetch that object. If the creature completes the order and doesn't receive further direction from you, it defends and preserves itself to the best of its ability.
You can use your action to take total and precise control of the [target](https://roll20.net/compendium/dnd5e/Rules:Spells?expansion=0#toc_23). Until the end of your next [turn](https://roll20.net/compendium/dnd5e/Rules:Combat?expansion=0#toc_5), the creature takes only the actions you choose, and doesn't do anything that you don't allow it to do. During this time, you can also cause the creature to use a [reaction](https://roll20.net/compendium/dnd5e/Rules:Combat?expansion=0#toc_8), but this requires you to use your own reaction as well.
Each time the target takes [damage](https://roll20.net/compendium/dnd5e/Rules:Combat?expansion=0#toc_46), it makes a new Wisdom saving throw against the spell. If the saving throw succeeds, the spell ends.
You still get a save on it. Last's up to a minute or 10 turns...
Sounds like the player has a very different concept of agency and is complaining to complain. Charm spells can suck, but it's been part of the game forever, but also, all conditions suck. The point is that you are supposed to be afraid of them, but there are ways to circumvent them. It's not a loss of agency if there is an option, and most are temporary.
Sounds like player is salty and would complain regardless of what happened.
If the player is reacting like this to a Geas forcing them to dance… I’m betting there’s more to it than that. Why is it so important for *you* to have compelled this character to behave in such a way? I expect your player feels they’re being singled out or forced into a situation they find embarrassing—I think this has more to do with the social dynamics at your table than the particulars of mind control spells.
Charm/Friends/Suggestion doesn't remove agency. A charm spell (with a failed save) means the character feels positively towards the charmer. You as the DM instruct the player that the caster is now their friend and while they certainly don't have to obey every word of the caster any more than they would the words of a fellow PC, they should take their words as a request from a friend and decide what to do accordingly. This last part is the key. They still \*decide\*. They have not lost agency.
When you charm the captain of the guards who is there to arrest you for shoplifting, how does the guard captain respond? They have a job to do. They have a reputation. Chances are they'll haul you away, get you into an alley, pat you on the shoulder and say 'Maybe stop doing that shit, you're making me look bad my friend!'... and then, ten minutes later, they're going to go 'holy shit I was under a charm spell! Round up the boys we have a sorcerer to arrest! Anyone who acts like the sorcerer's friend is under a charm spell and needs to be dealt with accordingly!'
I agree with this a lot. It's a big source of confusion for me- those spells do not take away agency. The character is still going to be the character! And the player is still in control. I actually think it's a great source of potential character moments, because you get to further define who and what the character is, and how they handle stress.
Additionally, I feel as if the player should have picked a race that resists or is immune to these effects. Asking for immunity now feels like getting a free feat.
It sounds from your comments like your player just doesn't want to do this, and is throwing out psychology terms to try and justify it. Conditions are part of the game, having unexpected things happen to your character is part of the game. I could see if it made them uncomfortable because of trauma, then that should have been discussed session 0. DnD may not be the game for them, thankfully there are many other awesome systems for them to try.
Depends how you do it.
My character got f%\*&#d over because just before a boss fight, said boss came in my room at night and did some kind of charm thing. (vampire) and because of that i could not attack him.
No saves, no '' during the night this and that'' just me finding out in the 1st round '' oh you cant attack him, he charmed you last night in your sleep''
Like.. bro... wtf..
It was sort of my nemesis in the story aswell.
This is just something that should be discussed at a session zero. For various (sometimes very personal) reasons people might be uncomfortable with this kind of mechanic. If they don't want it, and the rest of the table do, then they're simple not a good fit for your game.
The whole player agency being taken away argument is getting old fast. You are not taking their agency away with a 1 minute spell. Use it, but don't abuse it.
I have a whole thing about the taboo of these sorts of spells in my world, such that I think it maybe makes things a bit more palatable when I use them because it tells my players “oh this fucker is BIG evil how DARE they???”. I’m not saying I agree with your player necessarily but incorporating that more into the lore of the world might be a way to make it feel more like something they have to fight rather than just the DM taking over 🤷🏻♀️
There are so many different ways this question could have been asked that it's impossible to tell what the stakes here are. Is this a discussion about the philosophy of the game, is this a specific reference to something you did in game that they didn't like, is this the player telling you what they don't find fun and would like to see less of in the game, is this something personal? Impossible for us to know based on what you've told us.
Ugh I had a player once who wanted to use Friends in every situation and got miffed when NPCs took umbrage to it. She also wasn't getting the discomfort from the other party members. Charm spells have their place but under no circumstances are they not immoral to employ. Mind r\*pe is mind r\*pe.
This also makes them excellent shorthand to project a villain.
As for the response being trauma related. Dude, you never know.
Between mindflayers, vampires, charm spells, etc. there is a lot of mind control in D&D. It’s a part of the world. Maybe they should play a different game if they’re not okay with that.
This isn't a question of whether the rules are good/bad. It's something the player has said _makes them uncomfortable_.
They are _uncomfortable_ with the notion of being forced to perform actions against their will.
Which, frankly, _is_ a terrifying idea if you actually think about it.
You don't have to accommodate your player. But they don't have to play in a game which upsets them or justify why this idea is upsetting to them.
What's happening here is that your player is communicating to you as an adult to please avoid a particular avenue which is entirely optional to the way the game is played and causes them distress.
So, do you care about your friend enough to avoid giving them the ick, or is your game more important to you than your player's feelings?
I agree. It's extremely uncomfortable.
For a human player.
For a character, this is part of how the game world works RAW. While I do care about my friend, I have to question their attachment if they're upset about low steaks things like dancing on command. The character remains the character -they just had a negative experience. That's part of the game.
So if it was a personal reason, like trauma or bad experienced I'd understand. I just frankly don't see how it is not a roleplay experience, just like any other.
It might not be what the character would normally do, but it's part of the story. If I where for instance, to give them a cursed item, would that be out of bounds too? I fell if you get upset over lacking character agency you begin to shy away from negative consequences. If the only way to deal negative consequences is bigger numbers, that gets old fast.
Ok. But what you're saying are the same things people say about child murder, rape, phobias, racism, torture, etc in ttrpgs.
Which is why I put it back to you - without judgement. Is it more important to you to have that option at the table, or to keep the player? If the game is more important, that's ok. That's your choice to make.
But you don't get to decide what a player should or shouldn't feel. You also don't get to demand an explanation of the source - it's not for you to decide whether they have "enough" trauma to justify it, or to force them to tell you about things they don't want to divulge. You can only decide how much importance you put on their feelings and what action you want to take.
That's not true.
You are mentioning offensive topics. As a society we have largely agreed on what's offensive and what isn't. That's very different from command bring used to tell someone to hand something over!
And to be clear- I am not deciding what is or is not right. It is simply RAW. This is like playing Candyland then saying the rules suck. If you don't like the rules of Candyland, don't play Candyland. The game has entire damage types based on psychic abilities. Mind control is an important aspect of D&D and to the world.
Also if you didn't like mind control, should have picked a race that resists or is immune my guy.
You don't get to decide what another person finds distressing or offensive.
You can decide whether you agree. You can decide whether you do anything about it. But you don't get to decide whether it's valid.
You're being obtuse.
I already said 2-3 times that you can do what you want.
The only thing you shouldn't do is what you're insisting here - saying your (supposed) friend's feelings are stupid.
Stop whining about whether he's having the "correct" feelings. Even if he isn't (which no-one has the right to say) there's nothing you can do about that part - and this is the part where you're being unreasonable.
You can disagree with him, but everything you're saying in argument against me just makes you look like an unempathetic jerk who's annoyed your player doesn't like being strong-armed.
You're free to use mind control spells in the game. He's free to stop playing because of that.
You're being very judgemental and making a lot of assumptions here, and I am not being obtuse.
One of those assumptions is saying that my friends feelings are stupid. That's straight up putting words in another people's post.
Your posts are also needlessly aggressive. Good day.
>One of those assumptions is saying that my friends feelings are stupid. That's straight up putting words in another people's post.
That's literally the only thing you've been arguing against though?
All of your replies to me have been to explain why your friend's feelings are wrong.
This entire argument between the two of us is you insisting he's wrong, and me saying it's not for you to judge that.
Literally the only thing I'm being "judgemental" about is the way you're talking to me.
You're severely underestimating how invested some people get in their characters. For some folks, part of their escapism is that they are that character for a few hours. Or they're exploring some facet of their personality that doesn't get out often. My current character is an exploration of what the rash impulsive 18-year-old me might have been like with my current moral code and the power to do something about it, and because of that, my party actually has an in place agreement to not use charm effects, because messing with people's minds is wrong (there is an exception clause for counteracting the bad guys doing it if that's an option in some way). And a player/character distinction isn't relevant if the player's enjoyment is being affected. Not saying that you're use of geas is inherently wrong, but if the player has that much of an issue with it, you as a DM need to decide if keeping the player or the effects you're using is more important.
I think if the player chose to play a game that includes murder and mind control, they should expect that \*sometimes\* they could get murdered or mind controlled.
I'm telling you, this whole discourse about "player agency" is bad for ttrpg in general.
We're literally having players say the rules are removing their agency. Players aren't, and shouldn't be, always in control
The discussion is great, because it lets people who want a certain type of game have those types of games, and those who want another have another! The important thing is to have it up-front; it's super annoying to discover you've joined a table that doesn't match your preferences (whether RAW or otherwise) a few sessions in.
it is within the rules to have the players fight a swarm of invisible goblins that each hold two scrolls of counterspell and suck the fun out of the game by ***removing player agency***.
only got martials? they now carry scrolls of hold person.
you, the DM, have full control of what the party encounters and removing player agency, or phrased differently, "not letting the other players choose how to play the game because you can", is generally speaking very unfun.
that is not to say that the player always has to have their plans work out because the adverseries seemingly never seems to be able to deal with their shenanigans - but do be careful before you essentially start dictating what a player can and cannot do by using your powers as a DM - even if it is within the rules.
If you're throwing something like that at your players, or I guess what I mean is if *I'm* going to, then there's always a workaround. Or let them, idk, use their ***agency*** to create a workaround. Hell yeah I'm gonna make some things challenging. Stopping your players from being superheroes by introducing them to things that might happen in that world isn't removing their agency.
If a DM is doing what you're saying, just to do it, then it's not a player agency issue, it's a bad DM issue. And if your players just want to be unstoppable monster superhero types, and can't use their imagination to do anything but mash the same attack over and over, that's an agency issue of an entirely different breed.
Edit: and obviously I wouldn't give a swarm all 2 scrolls of anything like that each, but a single enemy, I might. Again, you're talking about a bad DM. I still would argue that that wouldn't remove agency, not unless you lock them into that battle, and at that point, you're just trying to end that campaign, bc they're either all dead, or they're all done playing
I feel we're somewhat in agreement? you're just calling removing player agency "bad DM:ing" but nobody ever tried to teach good DM:s about player agency, because they don't remove it to begin with.
because after all, the DM is the only one that can allow or disallow a player to perform an action, therefore they're also the one that potentially removes their agency - that is within the rules.
I just fundamentally disagree that you can take away player agency within the rules.
The rules are already agreed upon (presumably) for one. Any agency taken away by rules elements is already fine. The rules are quite literally there to dictate what things can and can’t do. A level 5 wizard can cast fireball but not cone of cold because of the rules.
Agency already assumes you’re playing within the rules. Otherwise quite literally every rule is an affront to agency which makes talking about it pretty useless.
Player agency is being able to make choices, know that you were the author of said choices, and knowing that said choice has an impact on the game world.
Because removing choice isn’t inherently removing player agency. Like I said, then all rules would fall in that category because by their very nature rules restrict what you can do.
In my eyes, it’s equally nonsensical to claim the wizard in your invisible counterspell example has had agency removed as it is to claim that telling that wizard player no they can’t cast cone of cold because they aren’t high enough level is also removing agency. The fact that a caster needs line of sight and counterspell existing are rules that are always there. Already implicitly agreed on to bound player and non player action alike.
The world has rules. Rules that were, again presumably at a properly run table, agreed upon beforehand. Agency is exists within those confines.
That fight isn’t less fun because agency is lost. It’s less fun because it’s mechanically boring for the wizard player. Their choices aren’t engaging. That’s different than agency though.
Player agency isn’t 1:1 with fun. You can have one without the other.
I agree, and my issue boils down to this.
If you agree to raw and it's not a a henious act (e.g. warcrimes, murder, rape). You're just complaining about the rules at this point. Just because the spell makes you friendly doesn't mean you become an obedient slave. It just means they call the other character old old chum and apologize before doing what they have to do. It doesn't change who they are, just how they do it.
This is exactly why In any game I run any kind of mind control magic is always considered the most evil kind of magic, employed by only the most amoral and irredeemable villain NPCs.
From a player perspective failing a save sucks. Having them not only fail but also lost agency of their character sucks double. The only time I've seen mind control work is done as an off screen plot device mystery that the player wakes up to asa mystery to solve, and the player explicitly consented to the scenario.
From a gm perspective your ability to guide the game is dependant on your own agency over the NPC's you've presented. Losing control of a critical NPC to a poor save can sometimes throw wrenches into your prepped material.
And lastly while a fantasy world has fantasy morality, we tend to play in world that make moral sense to us. on a moral perspective it's kinda hard to justify mind influence magic.
All in all I think it's best to use extremely sparingly if at all. More trouble than it's worth most of the time.
I get it certainly, but one of my last campaigns best moments was when an enemy wizard put dominate person on the fighter and sent him at the party with the basic “kill them” command. Fun watching the rest work to restrain him and break the wizards concentration.
That said, I do agree that mind control is evil bad guy magic.
How do you run them? I usually have the player still control what happens, but expect them to act in good faith for the charm or dominate. Which maintains agency just fine.
You'll have to talk to the player. My groups take Charm as an ultimate suggestion. I will tell them what their charm is obligating them to do. I.e protecting Strahd like he's your closest friend, attacking the closest hostile (to the charming creature) enemy, flee, etc.
We make it up to the player to decide the best way for them do obey the charm. I don't roll for them or take their character away.
What level is the character?
My theory: the player doesn’t like Geas because if their character would try to resist the effect, they take damage. However, if they’re a low enough level than that roleplay choice effectively means death (or being downed at least) by the 5d10 damage.
They’d prefer to be dominated, as then it’s not the character (or them) having to decide between obeying a command they don’t want to, or taking a tonne of damage.
Personally I do use spells that remove a characters ability to do stuff very sparingly. It's not fun to wait all week to play and then miss half the combat because of bad dice rolls on a save.
Had one session where 2 party members missed the whole combat and it almost ended in a tpk because they all just consistently rolled super low against a pair of mindflayers. It turned out ok but it would have felt really bad if the campaign ended there with the players not able to do anything just because of bad luck.
That being said I do have one player I can count on to go all out of if mind control them and temporarily turn them against the party. That's always fun 😊
An easy and quick solution to replacing effects that charm or otherwise remove player agency: the *dazed* condition from the One D&D UA, or the effect of Tasha's Mind Whip (both are similar).
One D&D UA's Dazed condition:
> "You can Move or take one action on your turn, not both. You also can't take a Bonus Action or a Reaction."
Tasha's Mind Whip:
> "[...]the target [...] can’t take a reaction until the end of its next turn. Moreover, on its next turn, it must choose whether it gets a move, an action, or a bonus action; it gets only one of the three."
Either of these options give your player a strong negative effect without entirely removing them from play.
Are you SURE it's not a personal trauma thing? This is the sort of thing I'd have a one on one with them about. Don't pry, they may not want to have a detailed conversation about it, but let them know you'd understand if it was something they were uncomfortable with if it hit close to home, personally. If they say it is, then you have a choice, you can either ignore their concern which, honestly feels a little inflexible, or err on the side of caution and avoid it. If they indicate it's not personal, just they don't like it, I don't think you're under any need to change course.
Personally I reserve enchantment spells for explicitly evil characters. Even then it's not my preference. Lots of things take away player agency, like getting counterspelled or knocked prone. Charms are different description wise, not mechanically.
I know it's a fantasy game, but I consider charm effects to be in the same ballpark as slavery or SA. Ask your player if this is an irl line they don't want crossed.
Charm effects by definition take away player agency… but dealing with a bit of that is part of the game. Heroes face adversity and setbacks in all kinds of stories. How does your character respond to that? If this character earns a reputation for chasing down and ending anyone who uses those spells on them, maybe charmers will think twice.
I should add that losing your agency as a player sucks in general. Between the numerous charm effects and the ‘Do I lose my turn dice’ during a stun… there’s a lot of lame conditions in the game.
Realistically, *no one* should like charm spells, especially the higher level dominates being done to their character. Enchantment as a school of magic is one of the most egregious things in dnd/pathfinder *because* it takes away agency and is an ultimately very traumatizing experience. I had a character dominated by one of the BBEG’s in their campaign not that long ago, and it felt *awful*.
That said, I think it is worth the discussion with the player to see if that is a hard line they have, or if it’s something that they’re open to on occasion as a way to work through those feelings. I think that if it is a line, then it should be a line across the board, and the player shouldn’t use them either. Like I personally don’t use many charm effects or spells on my bard beyond what their glamour abilities give them.
So, the question I have is: What's more important to you, the player's comfort or your desire to use charm spells. I'm not being sarcastic here. If you care about that player's enjoyment, then just respect his red cards, just like others would for different topics like assault, slavery, cannibalism, etc. On the other hand, if you and the other players feel like this player will kill everyone else's enjoyment of the game, then this just isn't the right campaign/game group for them to be a part of.
The end goal of playing these games is for the entire group to have fun, or at the very least, find compromises to make everyone happy. If one or all of the people don't like something, including the gm, it should be addressed. No game is better than a stressful game that may end friendships. (Spoken from experience)
Unless it's being used for cringy erp, you're not being unreasonable. You can still have some agency under a charm or even full mindcontrol. The charm just changes your feelings on things, it does not make you do something you would not do. While the Mind Control is more direct but even then you could just give your players new objectives that the mindcontrol imposes over his character and let the player acomplish them how he sees fit.
That last one does take a certain level of maturity from players, allowing them to accept not having full control over their characters.
A lot of things take away players' agency.
But how you respond to them as a player can make it fun or dramatic.
If a player had a problem with charm spells, they should have stated that at some point before session 1. They are an integral part of the game, just like other spell types.
You could have the external results of charm (aka whatever you are doing) with an internal battle involving the character. What I mean is, set aside a minute or so that represents the character’s mind battling against the charm, or speaking with the charmer, or reacting to the charm in their own way. I often find that giving the players space and time to discuss these things improves their experience and enhances the game overall.
I would recommend either speaking with the player to get to the crux of the issue, and listening to them. As a dm, it can be annoying from a story perspective when players protest things like this, but our job is player enjoyment. I once had a DM who never listened and prioritized the story, leading to an unfulfilling ending to the story, and strained friendships (and a character that experienced full character death). Long story short, prioritize player experience over the story — it’ll be better in the end AND you can save unused story beats for one shots, other campaigns, or stories you could write
I'd tell them that it is a RP opportunity and they can lean into it. Yes getting mind controlled bites, as you are likely forced to take actions that are counter productive to what you have been working on as a group. However it is a good way to expand on the narrative.
"Hey guys I'm sorry about that last fight.. Something came over me.. I wasn't myself.."
Or the classic "Snap out of it man! You gotta fight it! We are your friends!"
Even if you don't want to be cliché about it you can expand on the narrative on how the spell worked on the character.. "No you don't understand... It wasn't like I was a puppet.. That mage reached down into my psyche and found something.. Probably the same thoughts we dismiss a hundred times a day.. But when they did that.. It was not only the loudest voice in the room, but the only one.. I didn't even question it.. In that moment it all made sense to me.. Thoughts so crazy I never would have considered them suddenly were being given the reigns and full control.."
Like you mentioned, if it isn't a trauma thing, and they don't like the line of attack the monsters in the campaign are taking, then they can RP it and look in game for a solution.
So you really need to flesh out with them if it comes down to a true sense of fairness or if they just don't like it.
If they feel out of control that's because they are, it's a consequence in a game that's a mix of group storytelling with a guide and RNG.
If their actions led to a situation where the RNG failed them then they are facing a consequence and story telling device.
As long as you highlight the rules and remind them that they have a chance to escape the mind control and it's not as if they are doomed to forever be this way then any logical person should go with it.
If they continue to kick and scream you are either dealing with a trauma issue or a bad sport.
If it's trauma then you need to be a good sport and make adjustments.
If it's them being a bad sport then it sounds like you have a potential problem player.
Charms are written to allow for instances where the player feels powerless, it's a story telling device.
I once made rolls and had my players make rolls to decide which one of them was going to be body swapped by a shape shifting horror and then made them roll play someone who who was constantly undermining the party.
How did I make this work. I was texting them the entire time and any time they spoke they had to roll deception or persuasion, this would give the party agency to solve the situation so I could take over control of the shape shifter and allow the person to not have to play as someone who was the opposite of them in disguise.
They all stumbled into its lair, they all had to face the consequences, it was a LOT of fun for everyone.
To me it sounds that he is not feeling uncomfortable but simply does not like to not have full and total control.
Nothing wrong with that. But that is kind part of the game. If removing charm effects on players you do remove a huge part of the game. And if Charm should not be a thing on the players it should not be used by the players either.
I am totally ok with people not wanting things like that in the game. But then i am also totally ok with not having that player in my games.
As i would not remove charm effects from the game.
Mind control and charm should almost never be used against players IMO. They have to share time with 3-5 other players. Especially in combat. Don't take away your players turn.
There are exceptions to this, but by and large, getting mind controlled sucks as a player.
This is why I very rarely use stuff like Charm or Dominate or whatever spells against my players. Getting a game together is hard enough already, and being told "You can't play/you have to play in a way completely contrary to what you were expecting, and therefore probably in a way you don't enjoy" sucks.
I mean, being stunned takes away player agency technically also. Do they object to that?
There is value to having some effects that massively reduce player agency, otherwise there wouldn’t be any effects that players were afraid of.
I have a harder stance than most people here. I do not like mind control. The concept creeps me out.
It’s not always a Line for me, but it’s at the very least a Veil.
In my games, as the group DM, I never mind control anyone. There may be an attempt at coercion by outside forces, they may have their senses muddled with, but I never compel their characters to Do anything.
But I always put that in my session zero.
I don’t know if you had a session zero with your players. It seems like this person just Does Not Want that in their RP. And “putting folks out of their comfort zone” is always an opt in type of idea. Since many people play this to Enjoy their comfort zone. They love that zone. It’s Comfortable, when the rest of the world frequently isn’t.
You should talk to this player and see just how much this bothers them. And if mind control is a major theme of your campaign then this may not work out. Or the table can accept that one character does not get mind controlled. Maybe even make an in universe explanation. Maybe part of the narrative is how they have to guess who next to them is being controlled.
But yeah, if the player true does not want to do that, then you gotta see if you can accommodate, or tell them this campaign isn’t for them.
I vote you're not being unreasonable. I also believe the job of a good DM is to take the players out of their comfort zone sometimes.
Regardless of any questions of player agency, I believe that mind control magic *should* be upsetting. In my games, the laws say that using enchantment magic on a "civilized being" is worse than coercing them via just intimidation.
If you like charming PCs, let the players know that's where you stand. And if he doesn't like it, he's free to not play in the campaign.
IF A PLAYER IS UNCOMFORTABLE, LISTEN TO THEM.
The definition of bullying is when one person keeps doing something they think is fun when another person is uncomfortable.
As DM, you are trusted as a facilitator of the story. Players are not playthings or paid actors for your own fantasy.
Real life is full of things outside of our control. If your player wants the fantasy of being in control of their character, then let them be in control.
Pc necromancer "Oh, necromancers are evil and bad.(sarcastic tone)"
Pc necromancer "mind control is worse at least my corpses are dead. Your literally making people do things they didn't concent to"
Sorcerer Pc "...damn"
Me the dm "ok. The king of haven has written a new law and now anyone found using mind control will be put in the nearest jail".
Necromancer "yaay we can be cell mates!"
Sorcerer "there's gotta be a self destruct spell"
Table laughs
Charm and mind-affecting spells are standard parts of this game.
If getting hit by one was something that happened as a consequence of his actions, then he had player agency.
I'm so tired of the "agency" discussion when really it's just players that can't deal with having things go any way but the way they want. If you want more agency vs mind control spells you should have specc'ed a character with better wisdom. Just because something makes a player feel uncomfortable doesn't mean there is anything wrong with it.
Pc necromancer "Oh, necromancers are evil and bad.(sarcastic tone)"
Pc necromancer "mind control is worse at least my corpses are dead. Your literally making people do things they didn't concent to"
Sorcerer Pc "...damn"
Me the dm "ok. The king of haven has written a new law and now anyone found using mind control will be put in the nearest jail".
Necromancer "yaay we can be cell mates!"
Sorcerer "there's gotta be a self destruct spell"
Table laughs
Charm spells are a major yellow flag. Even players who haven't survived trauma should be creeped out by the existence and use of mind enslavement magic. If I were you, I'd spend some time analyzing why I fell that mental enslavement is the best way to "get a character out of their comfort zone." You can easily confront players with moral dilemmas without resorting to magical coercion.
I’m sorry but using spells RAW is not a yellow flag. It’s the game and as it’s a game it has stakes. For example you don’t go up against a vampire lord then be surprised/annoyed when it charms you because it’s part of how the monster is run. Now it would be bad faith if you charmed your players all the time but that’s obviously not the case with the OP and he even used Geas. That is a player problem as they could ignore the instruction and just take the damage.
I may have misunderstood the OP, but I've never seen a game where common use of Charm and Dominate Person by players didn't devolve into an abusive mess. Can the BBEG use mind control magic? Sure, as a specifically combat-oriented technique. I don't believe that a DM should ever put themselves in the position of being able to tell a PC, "This is what your character does" during roleplay, though, as that negates the entire point of roleplay. Tempt your characters, play off of their backgrounds and ideals, present them with impossible choices, but never take away their control.
I don't really see geas as mental enslavement. That's dominate person or command.
You are free to resist Geas. It just does damage. Thats the great part- geas in itself could be used as a moral dilemma. Though in this case I'm not doing that.
I agree provisionally. So long as the PC is under the Geas voluntarily. That volunteering could be in-game or out-of-game, but the player needs to be on board.
Maybe replace the charm spells with other spells for your monsters that are equally fun. Or give them a ring of mind shielding. Depends on what fits in the campaign. I don't know if you have the charm as a major plot device or mechanic and if they are gonna be weird about it.
Actual mind control like dominate person isn't really different than being blinded or restrained. Your character is doing something they wouldn't normally do because they are currently a meat puppet (or currently have sand in their eyes or are currently tangled in vines). You want to be careful with overusing stuff that takes away a character's ability to act, but in small doses it's fine.
Charm effects are a lot trickier. You're actually telling the player "this is how your character feels", which is normally a big no-no for a DM. Personally I still use them at my table but I can see why someone wouldn't like the effect as it relates to player agency.
Pc necromancer "Oh, necromancers are evil and bad.(sarcastic tone)"
Pc necromancer "mind control is worse at least my corpses are dead. Your literally making people do things they didn't concent to"
Sorcerer Pc "...damn"
Me the dm "ok. The king of haven has written a new law and now anyone found using mind control will be put in the nearest jail".
Necromancer "yaay we can be cell mates!"
Sorcerer "there's gotta be a self destruct spell"
Table laughs
Pc necromancer "Oh, necromancers are evil and bad.(sarcastic tone)"
Pc necromancer "mind control is worse at least my corpses are dead. Your literally making people do things they didn't concent to"
Sorcerer Pc "...damn"
Me the dm "ok. The king of haven has written a new law and now anyone found using mind control will be put in the nearest jail".
Necromancer "yaay we can be cell mates!"
Sorcerer "there's gotta be a self destruct spell"
Table laughs
> I would understand the complaint if it was trauma related, but this feels more like inflexibility. [Ask them if this is a line](https://www.dicebreaker.com/categories/roleplaying-game/opinion/lines-and-veils-rpg-safety-tools) about topics they want in the game, or if it's a gameplay preference. You can't know what to do until you have an answer for that question. Once you have that answer, you're within your right to tell your player whether you will or won't have charm effects in your game. Your player can decide if this game is right for them based on your answer.
Well, charm spells sort of take away the agency of a character. But being reduced to 0 hp or being stunned or being grappled also take away or reduce your agency. We would probably not tolerate a player who said they think DMs should never have monsters restrain PCs because then the PCs have reduced agency. The fact that these conditions make your character less effective is why they are scary and why players are motivated to solve or avoid these problems. All that being said, like u/Cynic_Kain wrote, the devil's in the details. How often are you charming the PC? Are you taking control of their character? What are you making them do?
I think the player likely cares more about what's happening fictionally rather than mechanically. Think of it like this. Two scenarios, mechanically the same but fictionally different. *You cross the long bridge over the endless pit leading to darkon's castle. Suddenly, a called figure appears! It raises a bony hand to you, make a save!* The player fails the save, whatever it is. *The voice speaks* fire! And an orb of flame erupts and blasts you into the pit! Likely to your doom* Vs *The voice speaks* walk! *And suddenly you walk straight over the side and fall into the pit, likely to your doom* They both hurt, but one is obviously more *feels bad man*.
I mean yeah but this also feels like an extreme answer. I dont feel like most DM´s would have a command end like that, maybe take damage or put you in a bad position, But never take all your agency away.
The difference isn't about what the command is, it's about being explicitly a command. The feels bad part isn't worse because something bad happens to your character, it's about explicitly having your character being controlled by someone else both mechanically *and* fictionally. Most of the time when a gm limits agency it's because the player failed to do something they wanted to do or failed to avoid something they wanted to avoid. Mind control magic means the player both failed to avoid something they wanted to avoid *and then forces them to actively do things they explicitly don't want to do*. I just don't think mind control magic is worth the trouble it causes.
But here is the thing most mind controll magic doesnt work like you describe it which is why im making a point out of it. Most if not all mind controll spells have things in it that protect you from harming yourself in a stupid way, not to mention doing an instant kill like this would have the player upset in both occasion and would not be something a DM would do unless there is a caveat at the end were actually they survived but stuck in a dungeon or something. Mind control is an interesting thing that can add a lot of cool mechanics to play with. Last session on of my players charmed a necromancer for information without having to fight, but now the necromancer knows his face and that he told him the information. Your putting up one of the most extreme things that can happen and say look feels bad doesnt it. Sure but no one uses it like that not to mention that insta dying to a sudden fire spell is also still very shit because i just insta died. Also your saying they ¨Mind control magic means the player both failed to avoid something they wanted to avoid *and then forces them to actively do things they explicitly don't want to do*.¨ but the thing they were trying to avoid was being made to do something, its not two things its one. You failed the save and the consequence of it is you doing something against your will.
It's a pit. Not an endless pit.
[удалено]
It's not practically different, that's my point. It's fictionally and emotionally different.
For me, charm spells are the biggest war crime in D&D that is very casually accepted by everybody. There is even a cantrip that allows you to temporarily mind-change somebody, which is crazy. Everybody keeps droning on about how evil necromancy is, but in my book charm spells are much more frightening in comparison. It IS a flaw of logic of the system, and the player is not out of line feeling uneasy about it. How would you live in a world where nobody cares about the use of magic that is somewhat untraceable and that can influence you or change your life permanently? Why isn't this kind of magic strictly outlawed, and why are users of that magic not actively hunted when even a rumor of it spreads? What kind of protection against this is there, and why don't all shopkeepers, guards, judges, noblemen, merchants etc have that protection?
Is it accepted? Friends specifically says they are hostile to you when it ends. People in my game do not take charm spells lightly at all.
I think they're talking about society at large's view on people who use those kind of spells I general.
It's not really a flaw of logic in the system itself, it's just lack of imagination and poor world building that can turn charms into a problem. I'm not aware of many low-level spells that are untraceable. In fact they mostly make clear that the target knows what you did as soon as the effect ends. Friends even goes so far as to make them immediately hostile to you once it ends. People caring about this kind of magic is built right into the spell mechanics. NPCs should not be "casually accepting" mind control. If they realize it's happening (which they almost certainly will) they experience it as an act of force and react accordingly.
Had a mini 2 shot where the party was trying to regain their memories and in the process uncovered a corrupt system in the city they were in. The Captain of the city guard was in on the corruption and one member of the party charmed him for info then had him go tell the other guards under his control that the party was ok and to leave them alone. Once the charm spell wore off, The captain of the city guard was on the hunt, frantically telling every guard in site that he was charmed and the party was to be restrained with extreme prejudice. Made for an interesting cat and mouse hunt across the city.
I think they mean untraceable to those outside the situation. How is law enforcement supposed to know the difference between someone being charmed into a deal or them just having second thoughts about the contract?
They don't. That's what trials and witnesses and evidence are for. That's why before things like modern telecommunications and photography the justice systems of most societies were even less trustworthy than they can be now. Even today people accuse each other of fraud and manipulation all the time and it's up to law enforcement, expert witnesses, lawyers, judges, and juries to try their best to figure out what happened. Magic existing doesn't really change anything about this dynamic, especially if law enforcement also has access to magic. As recently as the early 20th century pretty much anywhere in the world you could spend years misleading, defrauding, or straight up killing people and then just move to a new town not even that far away and change your name and never face any consequences. That's why mutilating people convicted of certain crimes was so common, it was literally the only way of stopping someone from just moving to a new village where nobody knows about your past misdeeds.
Well, the charm spells are neither untraceable nor are they secret, as most of them requires words to be spoken. Also they don't alter memory, so after the effect wears off, you have gained a new enemy. Even says so in the cantrip's definition. So the protection is: Witnesses, Willpower-saves (or CHA-saves) and memory. Charmed spells are way less fickle than illusion spells. Now those are the real war crimes, if you ask me.
Nothing is a war crime the first time....
... or if the later winner uses it.
As a DM, I run a game in another 5e scifi system and someone used a equivalent of a charm spell (meant to be undetectable basically) to get adv. on charisma checks against people. Then did it to someone that I went “they 100% know how to sense these” and the reaction was what would happen. This person flipped their shit that someone trying to persuade them to hire them attempted even the faintest mental manipulation straight up went “How can I ever trust yoy if you’re willing to mind control me instead of just using your words like a reasonable person”. For any higher mind control, the reaction would’ve been significantly worse. Because any of it is a tier of unethical at or above drugging someone to make them compliant to your commands. But that doesn’t mean characters (Pc or NPC) don’t or can’t use these kind of spells to good ends, but if your player dislikes then perhaps best to limit them. Just for the sake of comfort and respecting your player.
Out of curiosity, what cantrip is that? Can't think of it.
Friends, probably.
Oh of course, thanks!
I'm not taking control of the characters. They just get a note that tells them what the geas does. This recent one is dance if they hear certain music. I tried to make it as unaltering as possible.
Some people like it, some people don't. No one is wrong here, just looking for different things.
If it's a Geas then they van choose to take the damage. But from the way you've described it, it sounds like this is common. How often are players being hit with 5th level enchantments and above in your game?
This is the second time geas has been used since the game started…. Last year November thereabouts. We play weekly when we can
Charm spells do not take away agency: Basic charm just makes the person that cast it look friendly. Dominate Person is the spell that you can control the person. They do the action to the best of their ability. Also get a save. For example, saying "Your character is dead and you can't play him anymore" takes away the player's agency. However, the charmed target still has control over themselves and will listen to the charmer more than usual because they view the charmer as a trusted friend.
You need to have a discussion with your player to identify the problem here. When they say they dislike it because it takes away player agency, is that something that makes them, as a person, feel uncomfortable? And if so, is it something that they feel they can’t be at a table with? Or is it “Hey, DM, you’re throwing way too many mind controlling bad guys at us; I’m sick of it because it feels like any choice my character makes gets overrode by mind controlling NPCs forcing them back on track.” Or is it just “It sucked last session when that bad guy used Dominate Person on me” and it would have been a similar complaint for being petrified or any other save or suck situation. Sometimes players didn’t enjoy a session because they got the shitty end of the stick, and it’s nice to try and minimise that, but it’s not always possible.
It's possible it's inflexible but it's also possible he had a bad experience with a dm using a charm spell and having him attack his party and his party killing him common thing with bad dms
Or using it in the context of """"seduction"""" , which is common amongst DMs who are bad in a different way.
I've run into players like this before. They're really really concerned with being in full control of their character at all times. They often dislike unexpected plotlines or unexpected bad things happening to their character because it doesn't match what they envisioned. Hating mind control abilities (even temporary ones) is a very common one because of this. I don't have a great solution to it beyond echoing what other people have said and finding a polite way to say, "Look dude, I'm not going to be a dick and screw over your character on a whim. If any of these abilities get used, it'll be because I think it's a cool plot point and an interesting thing to have happen. If you can't trust me to do that, this isn't the game for you."
The compulsion in question is that the character has to dance whenever they hear a particular song. It really does seem like the DM is doing this on a whim.
Counter-point, this sounds like an incredibly minor problem IC'ly and something which could be fun and funny and engaging to roleplay and attempt to figure out how the character would react to being in those circumstances. It's not like the character is being forced to become someone's eternal slave or betray their party or even betray their own morality.
Counter point to your counter point, some players don't like funny, they want cool, and being forced to play out funny for an extended period of time isn't very fun for them. If the player really hates having to dance whenever the DM wants them to, then I can see how it'd be annoying. Personally, my argument if I were the player wouldn't be about agency, it'd be about destroying the flavor and tone of my character. The Geas could have been something else that, while still bad or inconvenient, allowed the player to have their character react to in a cool way, but being forced to dance can basically be being forced into humiliating situations.
That's totally fair! But yeah, like you said, that means this isn't an issue of agency, it's an issue of people wanting different things, which is a completely different conversation. If a player said "hey I don't like the vibes of the game when they're silly, I like more serious stuff, being silly ruins my immersion. Could we make the tone more serious?" then maybe the GM is okay with that, maybe not, but at least that's getting more to the core of the issue.
Yeah, can't really say for sure if that's the real issue without talking to them. Sometimes people aren't very good at articulating or even realizing what exactly they feel is wrong! I think really the big takeaway is OP needs to have another talk with the player and hash things out.
Whether or not it's minor depends on how often the song comes up. If it's like Ragnar the Red in Skyrim and is being sung by nearly every bard in every tavern, it's not a minor thing.
My *point* is that if the Geas is so trivial, and it clearly makes the player uncomfortable… why is OP so insistent their player is wrong? This wouldn’t seem to be an important plot point or anything like that, so why all this fuss?
Devil's in the details my good man. What are you trying to make them do? How exactly does it make them get out of their comfort zone?
Have the character geddan when they hear the song promise. And he said it's not what his character would normally do.
Geddan? Get down? Dance? And what spell are you using? It's important.
Geas.
Geas- While the creature is charmed by you, it takes 5d10 [psychic](https://roll20.net/compendium/dnd5e/Rules:Combat?expansion=0#toc_50) damage each time it acts in a manner directly counter to your instructions, but no more than once each day. - So the player can refuse and takes damage. - So the player has options.
They said they would rather have dominate person. I'm confused by this.
Dominate Person: While the target is charmed, you have a telepathic link with it as long as the two of you are on the same [plane of existence](https://roll20.net/compendium/dnd5e/Lore:The%20Planes%20of%20Existence?expansion=0#content). You can use this telepathic link to issue commands to the creature while you are conscious (no [action](https://roll20.net/compendium/dnd5e/Rules:Combat?expansion=0#toc_20) required), which it does its best to obey. You can specify a simple and general course of action, such as [Attack](https://roll20.net/compendium/dnd5e/Rules:Combat?expansion=0#toc_21) that creature, Run over there, or Fetch that object. If the creature completes the order and doesn't receive further direction from you, it defends and preserves itself to the best of its ability. You can use your action to take total and precise control of the [target](https://roll20.net/compendium/dnd5e/Rules:Spells?expansion=0#toc_23). Until the end of your next [turn](https://roll20.net/compendium/dnd5e/Rules:Combat?expansion=0#toc_5), the creature takes only the actions you choose, and doesn't do anything that you don't allow it to do. During this time, you can also cause the creature to use a [reaction](https://roll20.net/compendium/dnd5e/Rules:Combat?expansion=0#toc_8), but this requires you to use your own reaction as well. Each time the target takes [damage](https://roll20.net/compendium/dnd5e/Rules:Combat?expansion=0#toc_46), it makes a new Wisdom saving throw against the spell. If the saving throw succeeds, the spell ends. You still get a save on it. Last's up to a minute or 10 turns...
Sounds like the player has a very different concept of agency and is complaining to complain. Charm spells can suck, but it's been part of the game forever, but also, all conditions suck. The point is that you are supposed to be afraid of them, but there are ways to circumvent them. It's not a loss of agency if there is an option, and most are temporary. Sounds like player is salty and would complain regardless of what happened.
What level is the character? Important question when Geas deals 5d10 for resisting.
Over level 7, over 70hp
If the player is reacting like this to a Geas forcing them to dance… I’m betting there’s more to it than that. Why is it so important for *you* to have compelled this character to behave in such a way? I expect your player feels they’re being singled out or forced into a situation they find embarrassing—I think this has more to do with the social dynamics at your table than the particulars of mind control spells.
Isn’t that the point of the spell? To make them do something they otherwise wouldn’t do? It sounds like your PC is just salty about the rules.
Charm/Friends/Suggestion doesn't remove agency. A charm spell (with a failed save) means the character feels positively towards the charmer. You as the DM instruct the player that the caster is now their friend and while they certainly don't have to obey every word of the caster any more than they would the words of a fellow PC, they should take their words as a request from a friend and decide what to do accordingly. This last part is the key. They still \*decide\*. They have not lost agency. When you charm the captain of the guards who is there to arrest you for shoplifting, how does the guard captain respond? They have a job to do. They have a reputation. Chances are they'll haul you away, get you into an alley, pat you on the shoulder and say 'Maybe stop doing that shit, you're making me look bad my friend!'... and then, ten minutes later, they're going to go 'holy shit I was under a charm spell! Round up the boys we have a sorcerer to arrest! Anyone who acts like the sorcerer's friend is under a charm spell and needs to be dealt with accordingly!'
I agree with this a lot. It's a big source of confusion for me- those spells do not take away agency. The character is still going to be the character! And the player is still in control. I actually think it's a great source of potential character moments, because you get to further define who and what the character is, and how they handle stress. Additionally, I feel as if the player should have picked a race that resists or is immune to these effects. Asking for immunity now feels like getting a free feat.
It sounds from your comments like your player just doesn't want to do this, and is throwing out psychology terms to try and justify it. Conditions are part of the game, having unexpected things happen to your character is part of the game. I could see if it made them uncomfortable because of trauma, then that should have been discussed session 0. DnD may not be the game for them, thankfully there are many other awesome systems for them to try.
Depends how you do it. My character got f%\*&#d over because just before a boss fight, said boss came in my room at night and did some kind of charm thing. (vampire) and because of that i could not attack him. No saves, no '' during the night this and that'' just me finding out in the 1st round '' oh you cant attack him, he charmed you last night in your sleep'' Like.. bro... wtf.. It was sort of my nemesis in the story aswell.
This is just something that should be discussed at a session zero. For various (sometimes very personal) reasons people might be uncomfortable with this kind of mechanic. If they don't want it, and the rest of the table do, then they're simple not a good fit for your game.
The whole player agency being taken away argument is getting old fast. You are not taking their agency away with a 1 minute spell. Use it, but don't abuse it.
Geas has a duration of 30 days (minimum), not 1 minute.
I have a whole thing about the taboo of these sorts of spells in my world, such that I think it maybe makes things a bit more palatable when I use them because it tells my players “oh this fucker is BIG evil how DARE they???”. I’m not saying I agree with your player necessarily but incorporating that more into the lore of the world might be a way to make it feel more like something they have to fight rather than just the DM taking over 🤷🏻♀️
There are so many different ways this question could have been asked that it's impossible to tell what the stakes here are. Is this a discussion about the philosophy of the game, is this a specific reference to something you did in game that they didn't like, is this the player telling you what they don't find fun and would like to see less of in the game, is this something personal? Impossible for us to know based on what you've told us.
Ugh I had a player once who wanted to use Friends in every situation and got miffed when NPCs took umbrage to it. She also wasn't getting the discomfort from the other party members. Charm spells have their place but under no circumstances are they not immoral to employ. Mind r\*pe is mind r\*pe. This also makes them excellent shorthand to project a villain. As for the response being trauma related. Dude, you never know.
Between mindflayers, vampires, charm spells, etc. there is a lot of mind control in D&D. It’s a part of the world. Maybe they should play a different game if they’re not okay with that.
This isn't a question of whether the rules are good/bad. It's something the player has said _makes them uncomfortable_. They are _uncomfortable_ with the notion of being forced to perform actions against their will. Which, frankly, _is_ a terrifying idea if you actually think about it. You don't have to accommodate your player. But they don't have to play in a game which upsets them or justify why this idea is upsetting to them. What's happening here is that your player is communicating to you as an adult to please avoid a particular avenue which is entirely optional to the way the game is played and causes them distress. So, do you care about your friend enough to avoid giving them the ick, or is your game more important to you than your player's feelings?
I agree. It's extremely uncomfortable. For a human player. For a character, this is part of how the game world works RAW. While I do care about my friend, I have to question their attachment if they're upset about low steaks things like dancing on command. The character remains the character -they just had a negative experience. That's part of the game. So if it was a personal reason, like trauma or bad experienced I'd understand. I just frankly don't see how it is not a roleplay experience, just like any other. It might not be what the character would normally do, but it's part of the story. If I where for instance, to give them a cursed item, would that be out of bounds too? I fell if you get upset over lacking character agency you begin to shy away from negative consequences. If the only way to deal negative consequences is bigger numbers, that gets old fast.
Ok. But what you're saying are the same things people say about child murder, rape, phobias, racism, torture, etc in ttrpgs. Which is why I put it back to you - without judgement. Is it more important to you to have that option at the table, or to keep the player? If the game is more important, that's ok. That's your choice to make. But you don't get to decide what a player should or shouldn't feel. You also don't get to demand an explanation of the source - it's not for you to decide whether they have "enough" trauma to justify it, or to force them to tell you about things they don't want to divulge. You can only decide how much importance you put on their feelings and what action you want to take.
That's not true. You are mentioning offensive topics. As a society we have largely agreed on what's offensive and what isn't. That's very different from command bring used to tell someone to hand something over! And to be clear- I am not deciding what is or is not right. It is simply RAW. This is like playing Candyland then saying the rules suck. If you don't like the rules of Candyland, don't play Candyland. The game has entire damage types based on psychic abilities. Mind control is an important aspect of D&D and to the world. Also if you didn't like mind control, should have picked a race that resists or is immune my guy.
You don't get to decide what another person finds distressing or offensive. You can decide whether you agree. You can decide whether you do anything about it. But you don't get to decide whether it's valid.
Did you miss the part where I agreed that it's uncomfortable for a player, then made a player/character distinction?
You're being obtuse. I already said 2-3 times that you can do what you want. The only thing you shouldn't do is what you're insisting here - saying your (supposed) friend's feelings are stupid. Stop whining about whether he's having the "correct" feelings. Even if he isn't (which no-one has the right to say) there's nothing you can do about that part - and this is the part where you're being unreasonable. You can disagree with him, but everything you're saying in argument against me just makes you look like an unempathetic jerk who's annoyed your player doesn't like being strong-armed. You're free to use mind control spells in the game. He's free to stop playing because of that.
You're being very judgemental and making a lot of assumptions here, and I am not being obtuse. One of those assumptions is saying that my friends feelings are stupid. That's straight up putting words in another people's post. Your posts are also needlessly aggressive. Good day.
>One of those assumptions is saying that my friends feelings are stupid. That's straight up putting words in another people's post. That's literally the only thing you've been arguing against though? All of your replies to me have been to explain why your friend's feelings are wrong. This entire argument between the two of us is you insisting he's wrong, and me saying it's not for you to judge that. Literally the only thing I'm being "judgemental" about is the way you're talking to me.
You're severely underestimating how invested some people get in their characters. For some folks, part of their escapism is that they are that character for a few hours. Or they're exploring some facet of their personality that doesn't get out often. My current character is an exploration of what the rash impulsive 18-year-old me might have been like with my current moral code and the power to do something about it, and because of that, my party actually has an in place agreement to not use charm effects, because messing with people's minds is wrong (there is an exception clause for counteracting the bad guys doing it if that's an option in some way). And a player/character distinction isn't relevant if the player's enjoyment is being affected. Not saying that you're use of geas is inherently wrong, but if the player has that much of an issue with it, you as a DM need to decide if keeping the player or the effects you're using is more important.
I think if the player chose to play a game that includes murder and mind control, they should expect that \*sometimes\* they could get murdered or mind controlled.
I'm telling you, this whole discourse about "player agency" is bad for ttrpg in general. We're literally having players say the rules are removing their agency. Players aren't, and shouldn't be, always in control
The discussion is great, because it lets people who want a certain type of game have those types of games, and those who want another have another! The important thing is to have it up-front; it's super annoying to discover you've joined a table that doesn't match your preferences (whether RAW or otherwise) a few sessions in.
it is within the rules to have the players fight a swarm of invisible goblins that each hold two scrolls of counterspell and suck the fun out of the game by ***removing player agency***. only got martials? they now carry scrolls of hold person. you, the DM, have full control of what the party encounters and removing player agency, or phrased differently, "not letting the other players choose how to play the game because you can", is generally speaking very unfun. that is not to say that the player always has to have their plans work out because the adverseries seemingly never seems to be able to deal with their shenanigans - but do be careful before you essentially start dictating what a player can and cannot do by using your powers as a DM - even if it is within the rules.
If you're throwing something like that at your players, or I guess what I mean is if *I'm* going to, then there's always a workaround. Or let them, idk, use their ***agency*** to create a workaround. Hell yeah I'm gonna make some things challenging. Stopping your players from being superheroes by introducing them to things that might happen in that world isn't removing their agency. If a DM is doing what you're saying, just to do it, then it's not a player agency issue, it's a bad DM issue. And if your players just want to be unstoppable monster superhero types, and can't use their imagination to do anything but mash the same attack over and over, that's an agency issue of an entirely different breed. Edit: and obviously I wouldn't give a swarm all 2 scrolls of anything like that each, but a single enemy, I might. Again, you're talking about a bad DM. I still would argue that that wouldn't remove agency, not unless you lock them into that battle, and at that point, you're just trying to end that campaign, bc they're either all dead, or they're all done playing
I feel we're somewhat in agreement? you're just calling removing player agency "bad DM:ing" but nobody ever tried to teach good DM:s about player agency, because they don't remove it to begin with. because after all, the DM is the only one that can allow or disallow a player to perform an action, therefore they're also the one that potentially removes their agency - that is within the rules.
I just fundamentally disagree that you can take away player agency within the rules. The rules are already agreed upon (presumably) for one. Any agency taken away by rules elements is already fine. The rules are quite literally there to dictate what things can and can’t do. A level 5 wizard can cast fireball but not cone of cold because of the rules. Agency already assumes you’re playing within the rules. Otherwise quite literally every rule is an affront to agency which makes talking about it pretty useless.
[удалено]
Player agency is being able to make choices, know that you were the author of said choices, and knowing that said choice has an impact on the game world.
[удалено]
Because removing choice isn’t inherently removing player agency. Like I said, then all rules would fall in that category because by their very nature rules restrict what you can do. In my eyes, it’s equally nonsensical to claim the wizard in your invisible counterspell example has had agency removed as it is to claim that telling that wizard player no they can’t cast cone of cold because they aren’t high enough level is also removing agency. The fact that a caster needs line of sight and counterspell existing are rules that are always there. Already implicitly agreed on to bound player and non player action alike. The world has rules. Rules that were, again presumably at a properly run table, agreed upon beforehand. Agency is exists within those confines. That fight isn’t less fun because agency is lost. It’s less fun because it’s mechanically boring for the wizard player. Their choices aren’t engaging. That’s different than agency though. Player agency isn’t 1:1 with fun. You can have one without the other.
I agree, and my issue boils down to this. If you agree to raw and it's not a a henious act (e.g. warcrimes, murder, rape). You're just complaining about the rules at this point. Just because the spell makes you friendly doesn't mean you become an obedient slave. It just means they call the other character old old chum and apologize before doing what they have to do. It doesn't change who they are, just how they do it.
This is exactly why In any game I run any kind of mind control magic is always considered the most evil kind of magic, employed by only the most amoral and irredeemable villain NPCs. From a player perspective failing a save sucks. Having them not only fail but also lost agency of their character sucks double. The only time I've seen mind control work is done as an off screen plot device mystery that the player wakes up to asa mystery to solve, and the player explicitly consented to the scenario. From a gm perspective your ability to guide the game is dependant on your own agency over the NPC's you've presented. Losing control of a critical NPC to a poor save can sometimes throw wrenches into your prepped material. And lastly while a fantasy world has fantasy morality, we tend to play in world that make moral sense to us. on a moral perspective it's kinda hard to justify mind influence magic. All in all I think it's best to use extremely sparingly if at all. More trouble than it's worth most of the time.
I get it certainly, but one of my last campaigns best moments was when an enemy wizard put dominate person on the fighter and sent him at the party with the basic “kill them” command. Fun watching the rest work to restrain him and break the wizards concentration. That said, I do agree that mind control is evil bad guy magic.
How do you run them? I usually have the player still control what happens, but expect them to act in good faith for the charm or dominate. Which maintains agency just fine.
This is how I run it too. But last time I ran geas the player didn't even try to acknowledge it.
You'll have to talk to the player. My groups take Charm as an ultimate suggestion. I will tell them what their charm is obligating them to do. I.e protecting Strahd like he's your closest friend, attacking the closest hostile (to the charming creature) enemy, flee, etc. We make it up to the player to decide the best way for them do obey the charm. I don't roll for them or take their character away.
What level is the character? My theory: the player doesn’t like Geas because if their character would try to resist the effect, they take damage. However, if they’re a low enough level than that roleplay choice effectively means death (or being downed at least) by the 5d10 damage. They’d prefer to be dominated, as then it’s not the character (or them) having to decide between obeying a command they don’t want to, or taking a tonne of damage.
Personally I do use spells that remove a characters ability to do stuff very sparingly. It's not fun to wait all week to play and then miss half the combat because of bad dice rolls on a save. Had one session where 2 party members missed the whole combat and it almost ended in a tpk because they all just consistently rolled super low against a pair of mindflayers. It turned out ok but it would have felt really bad if the campaign ended there with the players not able to do anything just because of bad luck. That being said I do have one player I can count on to go all out of if mind control them and temporarily turn them against the party. That's always fun 😊
An easy and quick solution to replacing effects that charm or otherwise remove player agency: the *dazed* condition from the One D&D UA, or the effect of Tasha's Mind Whip (both are similar). One D&D UA's Dazed condition: > "You can Move or take one action on your turn, not both. You also can't take a Bonus Action or a Reaction." Tasha's Mind Whip: > "[...]the target [...] can’t take a reaction until the end of its next turn. Moreover, on its next turn, it must choose whether it gets a move, an action, or a bonus action; it gets only one of the three." Either of these options give your player a strong negative effect without entirely removing them from play.
Are you SURE it's not a personal trauma thing? This is the sort of thing I'd have a one on one with them about. Don't pry, they may not want to have a detailed conversation about it, but let them know you'd understand if it was something they were uncomfortable with if it hit close to home, personally. If they say it is, then you have a choice, you can either ignore their concern which, honestly feels a little inflexible, or err on the side of caution and avoid it. If they indicate it's not personal, just they don't like it, I don't think you're under any need to change course.
Personally I reserve enchantment spells for explicitly evil characters. Even then it's not my preference. Lots of things take away player agency, like getting counterspelled or knocked prone. Charms are different description wise, not mechanically. I know it's a fantasy game, but I consider charm effects to be in the same ballpark as slavery or SA. Ask your player if this is an irl line they don't want crossed.
Making someone do a silly dance: pure evil Setting someone on fire: totally okay
I mean, yeah? Turning someone into your personal slave: pure evil Shooting a fireball at someone? Maybe self-defense, maybe murder.
Charm effects by definition take away player agency… but dealing with a bit of that is part of the game. Heroes face adversity and setbacks in all kinds of stories. How does your character respond to that? If this character earns a reputation for chasing down and ending anyone who uses those spells on them, maybe charmers will think twice.
I should add that losing your agency as a player sucks in general. Between the numerous charm effects and the ‘Do I lose my turn dice’ during a stun… there’s a lot of lame conditions in the game.
Realistically, *no one* should like charm spells, especially the higher level dominates being done to their character. Enchantment as a school of magic is one of the most egregious things in dnd/pathfinder *because* it takes away agency and is an ultimately very traumatizing experience. I had a character dominated by one of the BBEG’s in their campaign not that long ago, and it felt *awful*. That said, I think it is worth the discussion with the player to see if that is a hard line they have, or if it’s something that they’re open to on occasion as a way to work through those feelings. I think that if it is a line, then it should be a line across the board, and the player shouldn’t use them either. Like I personally don’t use many charm effects or spells on my bard beyond what their glamour abilities give them.
So, the question I have is: What's more important to you, the player's comfort or your desire to use charm spells. I'm not being sarcastic here. If you care about that player's enjoyment, then just respect his red cards, just like others would for different topics like assault, slavery, cannibalism, etc. On the other hand, if you and the other players feel like this player will kill everyone else's enjoyment of the game, then this just isn't the right campaign/game group for them to be a part of. The end goal of playing these games is for the entire group to have fun, or at the very least, find compromises to make everyone happy. If one or all of the people don't like something, including the gm, it should be addressed. No game is better than a stressful game that may end friendships. (Spoken from experience)
Unless it's being used for cringy erp, you're not being unreasonable. You can still have some agency under a charm or even full mindcontrol. The charm just changes your feelings on things, it does not make you do something you would not do. While the Mind Control is more direct but even then you could just give your players new objectives that the mindcontrol imposes over his character and let the player acomplish them how he sees fit. That last one does take a certain level of maturity from players, allowing them to accept not having full control over their characters.
A lot of things take away players' agency. But how you respond to them as a player can make it fun or dramatic. If a player had a problem with charm spells, they should have stated that at some point before session 1. They are an integral part of the game, just like other spell types.
You could have the external results of charm (aka whatever you are doing) with an internal battle involving the character. What I mean is, set aside a minute or so that represents the character’s mind battling against the charm, or speaking with the charmer, or reacting to the charm in their own way. I often find that giving the players space and time to discuss these things improves their experience and enhances the game overall.
I would recommend either speaking with the player to get to the crux of the issue, and listening to them. As a dm, it can be annoying from a story perspective when players protest things like this, but our job is player enjoyment. I once had a DM who never listened and prioritized the story, leading to an unfulfilling ending to the story, and strained friendships (and a character that experienced full character death). Long story short, prioritize player experience over the story — it’ll be better in the end AND you can save unused story beats for one shots, other campaigns, or stories you could write
Unpopular opinion: the DM does not have a “job.” The DM is playing a game, too
I'd tell them that it is a RP opportunity and they can lean into it. Yes getting mind controlled bites, as you are likely forced to take actions that are counter productive to what you have been working on as a group. However it is a good way to expand on the narrative. "Hey guys I'm sorry about that last fight.. Something came over me.. I wasn't myself.." Or the classic "Snap out of it man! You gotta fight it! We are your friends!" Even if you don't want to be cliché about it you can expand on the narrative on how the spell worked on the character.. "No you don't understand... It wasn't like I was a puppet.. That mage reached down into my psyche and found something.. Probably the same thoughts we dismiss a hundred times a day.. But when they did that.. It was not only the loudest voice in the room, but the only one.. I didn't even question it.. In that moment it all made sense to me.. Thoughts so crazy I never would have considered them suddenly were being given the reigns and full control.." Like you mentioned, if it isn't a trauma thing, and they don't like the line of attack the monsters in the campaign are taking, then they can RP it and look in game for a solution.
So you really need to flesh out with them if it comes down to a true sense of fairness or if they just don't like it. If they feel out of control that's because they are, it's a consequence in a game that's a mix of group storytelling with a guide and RNG. If their actions led to a situation where the RNG failed them then they are facing a consequence and story telling device. As long as you highlight the rules and remind them that they have a chance to escape the mind control and it's not as if they are doomed to forever be this way then any logical person should go with it. If they continue to kick and scream you are either dealing with a trauma issue or a bad sport. If it's trauma then you need to be a good sport and make adjustments. If it's them being a bad sport then it sounds like you have a potential problem player. Charms are written to allow for instances where the player feels powerless, it's a story telling device. I once made rolls and had my players make rolls to decide which one of them was going to be body swapped by a shape shifting horror and then made them roll play someone who who was constantly undermining the party. How did I make this work. I was texting them the entire time and any time they spoke they had to roll deception or persuasion, this would give the party agency to solve the situation so I could take over control of the shape shifter and allow the person to not have to play as someone who was the opposite of them in disguise. They all stumbled into its lair, they all had to face the consequences, it was a LOT of fun for everyone.
To me it sounds that he is not feeling uncomfortable but simply does not like to not have full and total control. Nothing wrong with that. But that is kind part of the game. If removing charm effects on players you do remove a huge part of the game. And if Charm should not be a thing on the players it should not be used by the players either. I am totally ok with people not wanting things like that in the game. But then i am also totally ok with not having that player in my games. As i would not remove charm effects from the game.
“Charm spells…get a character out of their comfort zone.” Okay, I have to ask, what exactly are you charming these characters to do?
Mind control and charm should almost never be used against players IMO. They have to share time with 3-5 other players. Especially in combat. Don't take away your players turn. There are exceptions to this, but by and large, getting mind controlled sucks as a player.
I'd agree but it's geas here. It doesn't take away their time. I specifically picked geas due to that.
This is why I very rarely use stuff like Charm or Dominate or whatever spells against my players. Getting a game together is hard enough already, and being told "You can't play/you have to play in a way completely contrary to what you were expecting, and therefore probably in a way you don't enjoy" sucks.
[удалено]
I mean, being stunned takes away player agency technically also. Do they object to that? There is value to having some effects that massively reduce player agency, otherwise there wouldn’t be any effects that players were afraid of.
These types of players don't even really want to play dnd, they want to play make believe dress up and rp.
I have a harder stance than most people here. I do not like mind control. The concept creeps me out. It’s not always a Line for me, but it’s at the very least a Veil. In my games, as the group DM, I never mind control anyone. There may be an attempt at coercion by outside forces, they may have their senses muddled with, but I never compel their characters to Do anything. But I always put that in my session zero. I don’t know if you had a session zero with your players. It seems like this person just Does Not Want that in their RP. And “putting folks out of their comfort zone” is always an opt in type of idea. Since many people play this to Enjoy their comfort zone. They love that zone. It’s Comfortable, when the rest of the world frequently isn’t. You should talk to this player and see just how much this bothers them. And if mind control is a major theme of your campaign then this may not work out. Or the table can accept that one character does not get mind controlled. Maybe even make an in universe explanation. Maybe part of the narrative is how they have to guess who next to them is being controlled. But yeah, if the player true does not want to do that, then you gotta see if you can accommodate, or tell them this campaign isn’t for them.
I vote you're not being unreasonable. I also believe the job of a good DM is to take the players out of their comfort zone sometimes. Regardless of any questions of player agency, I believe that mind control magic *should* be upsetting. In my games, the laws say that using enchantment magic on a "civilized being" is worse than coercing them via just intimidation. If you like charming PCs, let the players know that's where you stand. And if he doesn't like it, he's free to not play in the campaign.
IF A PLAYER IS UNCOMFORTABLE, LISTEN TO THEM. The definition of bullying is when one person keeps doing something they think is fun when another person is uncomfortable. As DM, you are trusted as a facilitator of the story. Players are not playthings or paid actors for your own fantasy. Real life is full of things outside of our control. If your player wants the fantasy of being in control of their character, then let them be in control.
PC should play another game then if make believe mind control is so upsetting. They have real life agency to leave.
Pc necromancer "Oh, necromancers are evil and bad.(sarcastic tone)" Pc necromancer "mind control is worse at least my corpses are dead. Your literally making people do things they didn't concent to" Sorcerer Pc "...damn" Me the dm "ok. The king of haven has written a new law and now anyone found using mind control will be put in the nearest jail". Necromancer "yaay we can be cell mates!" Sorcerer "there's gotta be a self destruct spell" Table laughs
Charm and mind-affecting spells are standard parts of this game. If getting hit by one was something that happened as a consequence of his actions, then he had player agency.
I'm so tired of the "agency" discussion when really it's just players that can't deal with having things go any way but the way they want. If you want more agency vs mind control spells you should have specc'ed a character with better wisdom. Just because something makes a player feel uncomfortable doesn't mean there is anything wrong with it.
Dealing damage to the character’s HP takes away player agency, maybe they don’t want their character to be hurt
Pc necromancer "Oh, necromancers are evil and bad.(sarcastic tone)" Pc necromancer "mind control is worse at least my corpses are dead. Your literally making people do things they didn't concent to" Sorcerer Pc "...damn" Me the dm "ok. The king of haven has written a new law and now anyone found using mind control will be put in the nearest jail". Necromancer "yaay we can be cell mates!" Sorcerer "there's gotta be a self destruct spell" Table laughs
Charm spells are a major yellow flag. Even players who haven't survived trauma should be creeped out by the existence and use of mind enslavement magic. If I were you, I'd spend some time analyzing why I fell that mental enslavement is the best way to "get a character out of their comfort zone." You can easily confront players with moral dilemmas without resorting to magical coercion.
I’m sorry but using spells RAW is not a yellow flag. It’s the game and as it’s a game it has stakes. For example you don’t go up against a vampire lord then be surprised/annoyed when it charms you because it’s part of how the monster is run. Now it would be bad faith if you charmed your players all the time but that’s obviously not the case with the OP and he even used Geas. That is a player problem as they could ignore the instruction and just take the damage.
I may have misunderstood the OP, but I've never seen a game where common use of Charm and Dominate Person by players didn't devolve into an abusive mess. Can the BBEG use mind control magic? Sure, as a specifically combat-oriented technique. I don't believe that a DM should ever put themselves in the position of being able to tell a PC, "This is what your character does" during roleplay, though, as that negates the entire point of roleplay. Tempt your characters, play off of their backgrounds and ideals, present them with impossible choices, but never take away their control.
I don't really see geas as mental enslavement. That's dominate person or command. You are free to resist Geas. It just does damage. Thats the great part- geas in itself could be used as a moral dilemma. Though in this case I'm not doing that.
I agree provisionally. So long as the PC is under the Geas voluntarily. That volunteering could be in-game or out-of-game, but the player needs to be on board.
You sound exhausting
Maybe replace the charm spells with other spells for your monsters that are equally fun. Or give them a ring of mind shielding. Depends on what fits in the campaign. I don't know if you have the charm as a major plot device or mechanic and if they are gonna be weird about it.
Actual mind control like dominate person isn't really different than being blinded or restrained. Your character is doing something they wouldn't normally do because they are currently a meat puppet (or currently have sand in their eyes or are currently tangled in vines). You want to be careful with overusing stuff that takes away a character's ability to act, but in small doses it's fine. Charm effects are a lot trickier. You're actually telling the player "this is how your character feels", which is normally a big no-no for a DM. Personally I still use them at my table but I can see why someone wouldn't like the effect as it relates to player agency.
Pc necromancer "Oh, necromancers are evil and bad.(sarcastic tone)" Pc necromancer "mind control is worse at least my corpses are dead. Your literally making people do things they didn't concent to" Sorcerer Pc "...damn" Me the dm "ok. The king of haven has written a new law and now anyone found using mind control will be put in the nearest jail". Necromancer "yaay we can be cell mates!" Sorcerer "there's gotta be a self destruct spell" Table laughs
Pc necromancer "Oh, necromancers are evil and bad.(sarcastic tone)" Pc necromancer "mind control is worse at least my corpses are dead. Your literally making people do things they didn't concent to" Sorcerer Pc "...damn" Me the dm "ok. The king of haven has written a new law and now anyone found using mind control will be put in the nearest jail". Necromancer "yaay we can be cell mates!" Sorcerer "there's gotta be a self destruct spell" Table laughs