Charmed doesn't, either. The condition just stops you from attacking and gives the charmer advantage on social interactions. The Charm Person spell adds that you consider the caster to be a friendly acquaintance, but that's all. Nothing says they must do anything.
That's correct for Charmed, but Charm Person has an additional effect of 'The charmed creature regards you as a friendly acquaintance'. Also, Suggestion was mentioned, and that really does compel actions.
As written I don't consider Charm Person problematic in 5th edition, but I've heard enough horror stories about its use and abuse in prior editions that I can respect a player being just 'nope, no way' about it.
Charmed doesn't, either. The condition just stops you from attacking and gives the charmer advantage on social interactions. The Charm Person spell adds that you consider the caster to be a friendly acquaintance, but that's all. Nothing says they must do anything.
That's correct for Charmed, but Charm Person has an additional effect of 'The charmed creature regards you as a friendly acquaintance'. Also, Suggestion was mentioned, and that really does compel actions.
As written I don't consider Charm Person problematic in 5th edition, but I've heard enough horror stories about its use and abuse in prior editions that I can respect a player being just 'nope, no way' about it.
Even Suggestion allows a player an out, because it says it must be worded in a way that seems reasonable to the character. There are some cut and dry examples of what is unreasonable, but they're not exhaustive. The DM is within their rights to ignore a player's Suggestion they deem unreasonable, and the player should have the same right.
I'd just avoid using these on players, because they are fraught with peril. Yes, it's unfair that players can use them on your NPCs. So what?
Command is probably okay, because both the kind of actions it allows and the scope are limited. But if a player complained I'd stop using it.
I don't see it as losing player agency, you are just stating the facts of the world and asking them how they react.
You believe that the spellcaster is a friendly acquaintance, how do you react?
You trip into a river, how do you react?
You see a shadow pass by the window, how do you react?
Some of the situations they might not what to react in a consistent character manner e.g. yea so they are a friendly acquaintance but I, the player, know they are actually the bad spellcaster so I attack them. For this, I don't think they are really embracing the whole being the character. Which is probably fine depending on the table, but sulking and demanding it doesn't happen again is just childish. But I won't rehash all the examples of how far things could go if you let someone sulk their way to "victory".
My answer would be, it might happen again and you can choose to play as your character or you can choose to play as you - but you can't sulk and demand things. There is only so much of a trade-off between players having fun and me giving extra effort that I would allow/afford with my spare time.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
All posts come with the caveat that I don't know what I'm talking about.
But I won't rehash all the examples of how far things could go if you let someone sulk their way to "victory".
You don't need to invoke slippery slope arguments until the slope gets slippery. If a player is repeatedly making demands, then you can ask them to stop or leave the table. But it's just as extreme to refuse any accommodations as it is to concede to every demand. It's possible this is something that really matters to the player, and they're not just being a toddler who throws their food if they don't get exactly what they want.
But I won't rehash all the examples of how far things could go if you let someone sulk their way to "victory".
You don't need to invoke slippery slope arguments until the slope gets slippery. If a player is repeatedly making demands, then you can ask them to stop or leave the table. But it's just as extreme to refuse any accommodations as it is to concede to every demand. It's possible this is something that really matters to the player, and they're not just being a toddler who throws their food if they don't get exactly what they want.
Agreed with this. Same way that if, say, you have a claustrophobic player, you might not put in any "uh oh you got stuck in a coffin!" traps, this is just making a small accommodation to allow a player to not be uncomfortable at the table. (I think that's the big disconnect -- if the player was actually made viscerally uncomfortable by mind control/brainwashing, then I think it is reasonable to remove those effects to accommodate the player. But if the player just always wants their PC to be able to do exactly what they want, then further discussion is needed.)
But I won't rehash all the examples of how far things could go if you let someone sulk their way to "victory".
You don't need to invoke slippery slope arguments until the slope gets slippery. If a player is repeatedly making demands, then you can ask them to stop or leave the table. But it's just as extreme to refuse any accommodations as it is to concede to every demand. It's possible this is something that really matters to the player, and they're not just being a toddler who throws their food if they don't get exactly what they want.
I think the player needs to be talked to, so you can determine WHY that was so impacting. Once you know (as stated above, it might be a very personal thing) then you could alter the effect of a spell (ie, the NPC was going to Charm, but instead, "Froze" the person, akin to paralysis) or another spell effect that kind of achieves the goal, taking that player out of the encounter-ish, for a brief period, but in a manner that won't trigger a response like that. Realistically, that's all the effect does is bump that player aside for a moment and there are numerous options to attain that result, to balance the encounter of what not, that there should be a common ground somewhere that this person will allow. I think everyone is kind of frowning on it because of the WAY the player objected. It is very much a stamp my little foot kind of statement to make in an RPG setting.
Accepting and respecting that such a dramatic reaction may be due to a RL trauma that the situation triggered, there still needs to be a discussion, to both avoid a recurrence of something like this, and a way to work around it. Every debilitating effect has numerous ways to accomplish it. At times, players are going to need to be "debuffed" and you and the player need to find debuffs that achieve the required effect, but in a fashion that doesn't rub raw nerves.
Again I thank the RP Gods that my group is so laid back. Zero drama aside from being frustrated with ourselves because we spent half the session laughing at one of our misfortunes in game.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Talk to your Players.Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
Don’t ask people to discuss their traumas, though. Just work out an accommodation that is acceptable to everyone. Everyone should get at least one free.
Don’t ask people to discuss their traumas, though. Just work out an accommodation that is acceptable to everyone. Everyone should get at least one free.
Yeah, agreed. If I came off as trying to prying, that's my bad. Mostly just think a discussion needs to be had to determine whether this is an actual discomfort thing or if it is a "my character shouldn't be that weak" thing. Former can be done without forcing the person to rehash their trauma.
I asked during session zero what my players' pet peeves were and if there were any no-go topics. Although everyone had peeves, most of them did not involve things the DM does (most of them were things other players do) and nobody had any no-go topics.
If someone had, during session zero, said that they have a problem with having consent taken away, and that this means they really would have an issue with charm spells, I would recommend playing a character immune or resistant to charm, so that it is not/less of an issue.
I don't mind accommodating someone who has an actual issue. But you don't just sulk at the table.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
If someone has a real aversion to compulsion-type effects (e.g. they have trauma, personal experiences, or a phobia) then working around that is fair.
In real life, I have a phobia of wasps. I have nearly run over the edge of a cliff before due to being chased by a wasp, and nearly crashed my car once when a wasp got in. Luckily I am able to control my reaction to it to some extent now, but as soon as I see a wasp or hear a buzzing, I go on high alert and cannot relax until I know it is gone. If I was at a game where the party were attacked by a swarm of wasps, I would hope for some accommodation to be made to my phobia. In my case, I think just asking that nobody describe it in too much detail would probably suffice, as I wouldn't mind too much being set on edge a bit (as even writing this does), but wouldn't want that pushed into all-out panic. The dividing line will depend very much on the person: Go back to my late teens and I would have started freaking out over just a general description of the situation, and would have wanted that to be avoided altogether.
I am aware that this is mild compared to many, but thought it a nice parallel. Many of us suffer from phobias (and I suspect most know someone with a phobia), while fewer have suffered a serious traumatic event.
However, in the OPs case, I would want to have a discussion with the player to determine if this was the case. I wouldn't expect the player to tell me everything, but I would need to try to find out if this was a tantrum because they don't like it, or a reaction because it truly makes them uncomfortable. If it was a tantrum, IMHO the player just needs to be told "no", simple as, but if there's something more behind it, a reasonable accommodation can be found.
Some ideas:
Create a feat which makes the character immune to compulsion. It may be OP, but I think it's reasonable. Allow it to be either swapped in for a feat/ASI already taken, or allow it to be applied immediately on the understanding it is using their next ASI.
Swap one of their racial, class or subclass abilities for immunity to compulsion (DM to make the call on which are suitable, for balance).
Give them a magic item which shields them from such effects.
Remove all compulsion effects/spells from the game, and all monsters which cause or are immune to such effects. Any PC with a racial/class/etc ability which involves this (Elves Fey Ancestry, Berserker Barbarian's Mindless Rage etc), work with those characters to swap them for something else. If you wish to use monsters which have such ability/resistance/immunity, either swap that ability in a similar manner to PCs or just try to keep it in mind when considering balance.
The difference between fear of wasps (or any particular creature) and some sort of unspecified phobia toward "loss of personal agency" is that it's trivially easy for a DM to eliminate one class of monster from the game. Even something more major like trolls, say -- if the DM knows ahead of time, there are hundreds of other monsters to choose from. It's simple enough not to use trolls. Or say the person has a phobia regarding drowning, and prefers not to have underwater adventures. Once again, this is not that hard to accommodate as a DM, assuming you know before the campaign begins.
But saying you don't want effects laid on your character that "take away agency" -- such effects are an enormous part of the game. It's not just Charm spells, as I have said above. There are dozens of mechanisms in any RPG that will constrict the player's RP options based on in-game effects. What about the Fear spell, for instance. According to the rules, "While frightened by this spell, a creature must take the Dash action and move away from you by the safest available route on each of its turns" -- this compels the player to not only RP being afraid, but to have the character act in a specific way - burning the entire move and action of its turn running 2x its base movement away from the caster. How is that not, also, taking away player agency? Is the player going to demand not having Fear cast on his character either, so that the character is now immune to all Charm and Fear effects?
And it's not just D&D in which these effects occur. Playing Champions, is such a player going to demand that "Mental Illusions" which would cause his character to act in certain ways not be used against his character? That the Mind Control power not be used? To be immune to such effects even without the appropriate and sufficient levels of defense (in this case, large amounts of EGO defense)?
On the Wildcards ETU show on YouTube, there was an episode in which all the players were handed cards by the GM. The audience did not see the cards -- I did not even notice he did it, for it was done subtly. But the cards said to the players, no matter what you might want to do, until the GM tells you otherwise, your character must tell the truth, even about things you would normally want to lie about. The cards also said you can't just not answer... you are compelled to tell the truth and the whole truth. This led to some crazy RP in which the players all had their characters say things to each other that normal people would not say -- that their characters, RPed to this point as friends, probably wouldn't say to each other. The players did such an amazing job with this that I did not realize what was happening. A couple of times, the GM stepped in, though, and said, "Is this what your character REALLY thinks? Please say what she really thinks."
The reason he handed them the cards? Someone had cast a ritual in the dorm where the students were hanging out, and it was a "Zone of Truth." Not only the PCs but everyone in the dorms was telling uncomfortable truths, and at one point a fight even broke out. During the fight, the GM was RPing the NPCs saying things like, "I'm going to fight you, even though you're bigger and stronger than I am and you'll probably beat me up." Or, in response to the tough guy saying "stand your ground," an NPC said, "I know you want me to stand my ground, but I'm actually a coward so I'm out of here!"
By this point it was clear to me as a viewer what was happening... but the point is, both the GM and the players had to RP that no one could lie and people would reveal painful truths. Was agency being taken away? Well -- no. It was a RP situation. The players had full agency with how to implement the truth-telling. For instance, one of the players, who RPs a cultist who believes in a Cthulhu-like monster, blurted out, "I'm not sure it's real." Everyone's jaw dropped. All the other characters at this point started RPing that they realized something was wrong, because "he would never say that." But the GM didn't tell him, "Tell everyone you think this thing is not real." He just told him, "RP that you can't tell a lie." The player, with his own agency, came up with the RP.
RPGs are fundamentally games in which the GM and players collaboratively work together to generate a situation, and then the RP takes place in the players figuring out how to respond to that situation in-character. Mind-control, charm, and fear spells are part of all RPGs -- not just D&D, and they constitute a broad class of "RP situations" to which players respond. Demanding to be immune from a whole class of RP situations is simply not the same thing as asking not to have to face one type of monster, or not have to explore one type of environment.
And if there is someone who cannot deal with a broad class of RP situations, the player has a responsibility to let the DM know this up front, at or before session 0 -- not wait till it happens and demand special treatment.
Now, I agree that this game is all about everyone having fun. Mind control powers do tend to ruin fun for a lot of people. And there is the distinct possibility that there's some real life baggage there, and it is very much a violation of a (fictional) person. Its a very touchy subject, and its possible that the player does have something heavy from IRL that's making this a bad experience.
That said, my first reaction....
I've mentioned before that I've played Vampire: the Masquerade. In that game, mind control is an extremely common power set, to the point nearly everyone has the ability to use some form of it. And, likewise, its fairly common for players who've been in that game to have bad reactions to having their characters mind controlled, even as they use mind control powers themselves. Its a bit of a double standard, really. Wanting the powers, but not being the target of them. Silly gimmicks, taking things way out of context, crying about "agency," etc. Anything they can do to get out of something, while being unhappy if opponents do the same.
I don't know why your player reacted this way. But my personal experiences leads me to feel that people crying about player agency are really just opposed to their PC being controlled, even when they have no problem with controlling NPCs.
-----
On a side note, I've encountered this behavior far more often from male players than female ones, so I personally assumed the player in question is male. Just an FYI.
This player's issue seems to go beyond just being charmed. As has been pointed out, there is no shortage of conditions that impact player agency. They could be blinded, frightened, grappled, paralyzed, or restrained; the net effect would be the same. How they interact with the game world would be altered. They might only be able to take certain actions, if at all, or attempt rolls with disadvantage. Hell, someone could cast levitate on them and forcibly remove them from melee range.
The game doesn't strip agency completely, but it can put temporary limitations on it. Have a talk with them and their concerns, but they need to get over this.
I will say incase it is relevant that within charm person it states that "It must make a Wisdom saving throw, and does so with advantage if you or your companions are fighting it. If it fails the saving throw, it is charmed by you until the spell ends or until you or your companions do anything harmful to it." If they were a known enemy that the party was about to engage in combat with I would say that would give advantage on the save. Additionally anything harmful is really vague. Attacking your friends, potentially killing someone that you love (in any sense of the word) could be argued to be harmful thus breaking the charm.
I understand the concerns about player agency and a discomfort with psychological manipulation magical (I'm not going to call it mind control) magical or otherwise, however to make a fuss about it during the game in a reductive way that brings down the game for the other players and demand something of the DM is unacceptable, completely ignoring the fact that acting on said request removes player agency from other players in no uncertain terms.
Years ago, when I first ran Lost Mines of Phandelver, I played Iarno "Glasstaff" Albrek a bit like Jedi Master Pong Krell during his interrogation in Phandalin's jail. And he was able to use charm person on two of the characters; who then treated him quite nicely. They wouldn't let him out, but it was a beautiful conversation. And after the spell wore off, they were pissed. But it was all in character. That's tied with my time as Strahd as some of the most fun I've had roleplaying, as a DM, this edition.
This player's issue seems to go beyond just being charmed. As has been pointed out, there is no shortage of conditions that impact player agency. They could be blinded, frightened, grappled, paralyzed, or restrained; the net effect would be the same. How they interact with the game world would be altered. They might only be able to take certain actions, if at all, or attempt rolls with disadvantage. Hell, someone could cast levitate on them and forcibly remove them from melee range.
The game doesn't strip agency completely, but it can put temporary limitations on it. Have a talk with them and their concerns, but they need to get over this.
Of these, player agency is only limited by frightened. Player agency does not mean your character can do whatever they want, it means what your character does is only what you want. If you are restrained by manacles, you can try to escape. And no one can force you to do anything, although they can do things to you.
It's not that players should never lose any degree of agency. That's fine if players at your table agree it's okay. And it's also fine to that if they disagree for you to say it's an essential part of your campaign and if they're not comfortable they'll have to withdraw. But is it really that essential? Is it really the slippery slope where the player demands immunity from a wide variety of conditions? Ask them before assuming. They might not even object to all forms of Charmed, which is kind of a catch-all condition with a lot of different effects with details specific to the ability that caused it.
Player agency does not mean your character can do whatever they want, it means what your character does is only what you want.
I'm not sure that's an accurate definition in the context of a roleplaying game. After all, if in combat, what YOU want to do (as a player) is, presumably, to hit enemies and not to be hit by them. And you cannot as a player control that.
I think there is a lot of line-blurring going on here between character agency and player agency. Character agency, has to do with restrictions placed on the character. That is to say, if the character is paralyzed, the character has lost some in-world agency. The character cannot do certain things, legally, in game play at the time. This is the same thing as what happens to your game-piece in Monopoly when you "go to jail." The game piece is restricted in how it can move, because of the rules.
Player agency is about the freedom to RP your character the way you think it should be RPed. Your agency is not undermined when your character loses agency -- your character is in a situation and you are free, within the bounds of that situation, to RP what you want. Just as, when you roll a miss on d20 in combat, you are free to RP the miss however you want (I fumble the weapon, my weapon slides off his armor, my character is distracted by the pretty gnome in the background, etc.), but you are not free to RP that your miss was a hit, and that it knocked a still-conscious enemy out cold. Or in Monopoly, when you land on Boardwalk owned by another player, and don't have enough money to pay the rent, you are free to mortgage any property you want to pay the bill -- but you are not free to just ignore the fact that you landed on Boardwalk.
Finally, I would argue that RP only happens when you are having the character do what it wants, not what you, the player, want. Again bringing up the Wildcards ETU show (because the players on it are such amazing RPers), just last night I watched a scene (from 3 seasons ago) in which the more savvy character, Calvin, was trying to schmooze with someone to get information. Calvin was lying (which he is good at) and told the other PCs to 'hang back.' Meghan Caves, who plays a character named Addie, kept trying to interject and Calvin kept telling her to shut up. Now... Meghan, the player, probably wanted Addie to shut up too, because Addie was going to blow it as she is not a good liar. However, Addie has the "Big Mouth" hindrance, which means that she will tend to not be able to shut up, even if her player wants her to. This was outstanding RP, because Meghan was very enthusiastically having her character do something that as a player, tactically, Meghan would not have done. But Addie would do it, and in a roleplaying game, your goal is supposed to be having the character do what it would do, not what you, the player with the good tactical mind and the years of experience playing the game, want.
So no, RPGs are not about "having the character do whatever the player wants." They are about having the character do what it would want even if the player wouldn't... otherwise, you're not playing a role. You're playing yourself.
And I think this may be the crux of the problem. Too many people view the character as themselves, rather than a playing piece to be used in a game, and when you do something to the character, they feel like you are doing it to THEM, and they have a problem with it. Nobody (should) have a problem with their playing piece "losing agency" in a game of Monopoly and being forced to move to a particular square (and not pass go, and not collect $200)... why have a problem with your playing piece being forced to "ally" with the enemy playing pieces for a couple of terms when you fail your save?
The difference between fear of wasps (or any particular creature) and some sort of unspecified phobia toward "loss of personal agency" is that it's trivially easy for a DM to eliminate one class of monster from the game. Even something more major like trolls, say -- if the DM knows ahead of time, there are hundreds of other monsters to choose from. It's simple enough not to use trolls. Or say the person has a phobia regarding drowning, and prefers not to have underwater adventures. Once again, this is not that hard to accommodate as a DM, assuming you know before the campaign begins.
But saying you don't want effects laid on your character that "take away agency" -- such effects are an enormous part of the game. It's not just Charm spells, as I have said above. There are dozens of mechanisms in any RPG that will constrict the player's RP options based on in-game effects. What about the Fear spell, for instance. According to the rules, "While frightened by this spell, a creature must take the Dash action and move away from you by the safest available route on each of its turns" -- this compels the player to not only RP being afraid, but to have the character act in a specific way - burning the entire move and action of its turn running 2x its base movement away from the caster. How is that not, also, taking away player agency? Is the player going to demand not having Fear cast on his character either, so that the character is now immune to all Charm and Fear effects?
And it's not just D&D in which these effects occur. Playing Champions, is such a player going to demand that "Mental Illusions" which would cause his character to act in certain ways not be used against his character? That the Mind Control power not be used? To be immune to such effects even without the appropriate and sufficient levels of defense (in this case, large amounts of EGO defense)?
On the Wildcards ETU show on YouTube, there was an episode in which all the players were handed cards by the GM. The audience did not see the cards -- I did not even notice he did it, for it was done subtly. But the cards said to the players, no matter what you might want to do, until the GM tells you otherwise, your character must tell the truth, even about things you would normally want to lie about. The cards also said you can't just not answer... you are compelled to tell the truth and the whole truth. This led to some crazy RP in which the players all had their characters say things to each other that normal people would not say -- that their characters, RPed to this point as friends, probably wouldn't say to each other. The players did such an amazing job with this that I did not realize what was happening. A couple of times, the GM stepped in, though, and said, "Is this what your character REALLY thinks? Please say what she really thinks."
The reason he handed them the cards? Someone had cast a ritual in the dorm where the students were hanging out, and it was a "Zone of Truth." Not only the PCs but everyone in the dorms was telling uncomfortable truths, and at one point a fight even broke out. During the fight, the GM was RPing the NPCs saying things like, "I'm going to fight you, even though you're bigger and stronger than I am and you'll probably beat me up." Or, in response to the tough guy saying "stand your ground," an NPC said, "I know you want me to stand my ground, but I'm actually a coward so I'm out of here!"
By this point it was clear to me as a viewer what was happening... but the point is, both the GM and the players had to RP that no one could lie and people would reveal painful truths. Was agency being taken away? Well -- no. It was a RP situation. The players had full agency with how to implement the truth-telling. For instance, one of the players, who RPs a cultist who believes in a Cthulhu-like monster, blurted out, "I'm not sure it's real." Everyone's jaw dropped. All the other characters at this point started RPing that they realized something was wrong, because "he would never say that." But the GM didn't tell him, "Tell everyone you think this thing is not real." He just told him, "RP that you can't tell a lie." The player, with his own agency, came up with the RP.
RPGs are fundamentally games in which the GM and players collaboratively work together to generate a situation, and then the RP takes place in the players figuring out how to respond to that situation in-character. Mind-control, charm, and fear spells are part of all RPGs -- not just D&D, and they constitute a broad class of "RP situations" to which players respond. Demanding to be immune from a whole class of RP situations is simply not the same thing as asking not to have to face one type of monster, or not have to explore one type of environment.
And if there is someone who cannot deal with a broad class of RP situations, the player has a responsibility to let the DM know this up front, at or before session 0 -- not wait till it happens and demand special treatment.
Yes. Absolutely, agency was taken away. The card, as stated, specifically prevented them from not answering, or being evasive, which are both ways to counteract the effects of Zone of Truth, in addition to needing to succeed on that saving throw.
And a player who does not know such things can happen, should be able to ask that these things not happen the moment they learn about it. Which may be a very small niche of people, but still, many new players are completely unfamiliar with spells and conditions. So unless you tell them at session 0, you will have to take the loss once you spring this on them later in the campaign. It's as simple as going: "So, this campaign may contain X, Y, and Z, anyone who's uncomfortable with these, please speak up now, or leave if these are deal breakers for you."
Player agency does not mean your character can do whatever they want, it means what your character does is only what you want.
I'm not sure that's an accurate definition in the context of a roleplaying game. After all, if in combat, what YOU want to do (as a player) is, presumably, to hit enemies and not to be hit by them. And you cannot as a player control that.
I think there is a lot of line-blurring going on here between character agency and player agency. Character agency, has to do with restrictions placed on the character. That is to say, if the character is paralyzed, the character has lost some in-world agency. The character cannot do certain things, legally, in game play at the time. This is the same thing as what happens to your game-piece in Monopoly when you "go to jail." The game piece is restricted in how it can move, because of the rules.
Player agency is about the freedom to RP your character the way you think it should be RPed. Your agency is not undermined when your character loses agency -- your character is in a situation and you are free, within the bounds of that situation, to RP what you want. Just as, when you roll a miss on d20 in combat, you are free to RP the miss however you want (I fumble the weapon, my weapon slides off his armor, my character is distracted by the pretty gnome in the background, etc.), but you are not free to RP that your miss was a hit, and that it knocked a still-conscious enemy out cold. Or in Monopoly, when you land on Boardwalk owned by another player, and don't have enough money to pay the rent, you are free to mortgage any property you want to pay the bill -- but you are not free to just ignore the fact that you landed on Boardwalk.
Finally, I would argue that RP only happens when you are having the character do what it wants, not what you, the player, want. Again bringing up the Wildcards ETU show (because the players on it are such amazing RPers), just last night I watched a scene (from 3 seasons ago) in which the more savvy character, Calvin, was trying to schmooze with someone to get information. Calvin was lying (which he is good at) and told the other PCs to 'hang back.' Meghan Caves, who plays a character named Addie, kept trying to interject and Calvin kept telling her to shut up. Now... Meghan, the player, probably wanted Addie to shut up too, because Addie was going to blow it as she is not a good liar. However, Addie has the "Big Mouth" hindrance, which means that she will tend to not be able to shut up, even if her player wants her to. This was outstanding RP, because Meghan was very enthusiastically having her character do something that as a player, tactically, Meghan would not have done. But Addie would do it, and in a roleplaying game, your goal is supposed to be having the character do what it would do, not what you, the player with the good tactical mind and the years of experience playing the game, want.
So no, RPGs are not about "having the character do whatever the player wants." They are about having the character do what it would want even if the player wouldn't... otherwise, you're not playing a role. You're playing yourself.
And I think this may be the crux of the problem. Too many people view the character as themselves, rather than a playing piece to be used in a game, and when you do something to the character, they feel like you are doing it to THEM, and they have a problem with it. Nobody (should) have a problem with their playing piece "losing agency" in a game of Monopoly and being forced to move to a particular square (and not pass go, and not collect $200)... why have a problem with your playing piece being forced to "ally" with the enemy playing pieces for a couple of terms when you fail your save?
And thus lies the primary problem of 'Charmed' you are restricting what the player can do with their roleplay. And in addition to rider effects that comes with the rider effect, they loose more and more of their abilities to act in ways that they view their characters as acting. Dominate Person, for example, forces them to obey any commands given to them, and they 'have to do them' no matter what.
It's effect like those that make a simple spell such as Charm Person a slippery slope. Higher level spells of this nature grant more and more control to the caster, to the point where one spell can literally wipe another's memory of the events. At that point, that player's agency is COMPLETELY taken away, they have no say in what happened, what their character did, it just happened, and they don't remember any of it. If these were just combat effects, like Paralyzed or Restrained, things that limit what you can do 'in combat' then it may not be such a big issue, but these kinds of spells can affect the roleplay aspect.
And let's not forget that Charmed also states that the caster has 'advantage on social checks' in which, if there are no roleplay involved and you basically just do the usual 'roll dice to see if you listen' you are taking away that agency, a player's ability to say no. The way you talk, you sound like you'd belong on one of those DnD Horror Stories reddit posts.
I understand it, however... if the players have an issue with having it done TO them, those same players need to be told that they can't use it on NPCs. It's not fair that the PCs are able to charm and mind control NPCs, but not the reverse.
This, to me, is probably the best answer. I personally hate the idea of 'Mind Control' for what its worth, and as such, I avoid all of those spells myself.
And spells that alter the way a player plays their characters can have rather negative results, in some situations. While the low level spells are, maybe 'respectable' in how they only make someone more 'friendly' I can still see why such issues exist on the matter:
You are effectively telling a player to change how they play their character. Or at least, change their behaviors. And not everyone is capable of switching so quickly. At the time of writing, 'respect' seems to be a very big word being thrown around, and I feel like GM's should respect their players when they say they're uncomfortable with certain things. If the thing can be avoided, it should, otherwise, you should tell that player that they might want to find a different game, and explain why the things that make them uncomfortable can't be avoided.
That said, I strongly believe that Charmed shouldn't be a condition that should affect players, especially in a PvP type setting. (On the note of PvP: Any spell or effects that are harmful to a player, or can be used in a harmful way, should be considered PvP. Your 'Calm Emotion' may feel like you're trying to help a player through their grief, but that player might also feel robbed of their emotional moment because you 'wanted to speed this up' or whatever their reasons may be.)
Charmed doesn't, either. The condition just stops you from attacking and gives the charmer advantage on social interactions. The Charm Person spell adds that you consider the caster to be a friendly acquaintance, but that's all. Nothing says they must do anything.
Now, I guess some will depend on how the game is being played. If NPCs are allowed to make persuasion checks etc. against the PCs, then charm would have a stronger effect and could be viewed as taking away player agency. However, I would argue it is allowing the check and enforcing the result which does that: If a shop owner NPC is allowed to make and succeeds at a persuasion roll against a PC to convince him to pay 1000gp for an item worth 10, that removes player agency, not the charmed condition.
To me, its the 'Advantage on Social Interactions' that makes this condition so inherently bad for players/roleplay. Because at that point, you practically have no say in the matter, unless the GM/Player using it on you is willing to respect what makes you uncomfortable. So many horror stories have included things like a DM/Player 'succeeding' their checks, persuasion and then forcing the affected into doing whatever the player/GM wanted. -That- is the point where I feel that player agency is truly lost. If a PC would never, in any circumstance, do a certain thing, then no amount of convincing should force them to do it. (And also why these kinds of checks should be roleplayed, instead of just 'roll to see if you're forced to do it')
I asked during session zero what my players' pet peeves were and if there were any no-go topics. Although everyone had peeves, most of them did not involve things the DM does (most of them were things other players do) and nobody had any no-go topics.
If someone had, during session zero, said that they have a problem with having consent taken away, and that this means they really would have an issue with charm spells, I would recommend playing a character immune or resistant to charm, so that it is not/less of an issue.
I don't mind accommodating someone who has an actual issue. But you don't just sulk at the table.
While I admire the idea of your recommending they play a charm immune/resistant race, maybe they might wat to play a specific race that does not have this kind of ability. If they simply weren't aware, then they can make the decision, otherwise, you should still try to find a way to accommodate them if they are truly sick of playing the same 2-4 races over and over again. (Or you just so happened to have decided that one or more of those races did not fit your setting.)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
That's correct for Charmed, but Charm Person has an additional effect of 'The charmed creature regards you as a friendly acquaintance'. Also, Suggestion was mentioned, and that really does compel actions.
As written I don't consider Charm Person problematic in 5th edition, but I've heard enough horror stories about its use and abuse in prior editions that I can respect a player being just 'nope, no way' about it.
Even Suggestion allows a player an out, because it says it must be worded in a way that seems reasonable to the character. There are some cut and dry examples of what is unreasonable, but they're not exhaustive. The DM is within their rights to ignore a player's Suggestion they deem unreasonable, and the player should have the same right.
I'd just avoid using these on players, because they are fraught with peril. Yes, it's unfair that players can use them on your NPCs. So what?
Command is probably okay, because both the kind of actions it allows and the scope are limited. But if a player complained I'd stop using it.
I don't see it as losing player agency, you are just stating the facts of the world and asking them how they react.
You believe that the spellcaster is a friendly acquaintance, how do you react?
You trip into a river, how do you react?
You see a shadow pass by the window, how do you react?
Some of the situations they might not what to react in a consistent character manner e.g. yea so they are a friendly acquaintance but I, the player, know they are actually the bad spellcaster so I attack them. For this, I don't think they are really embracing the whole being the character. Which is probably fine depending on the table, but sulking and demanding it doesn't happen again is just childish. But I won't rehash all the examples of how far things could go if you let someone sulk their way to "victory".
My answer would be, it might happen again and you can choose to play as your character or you can choose to play as you - but you can't sulk and demand things. There is only so much of a trade-off between players having fun and me giving extra effort that I would allow/afford with my spare time.
All posts come with the caveat that I don't know what I'm talking about.
You don't need to invoke slippery slope arguments until the slope gets slippery. If a player is repeatedly making demands, then you can ask them to stop or leave the table. But it's just as extreme to refuse any accommodations as it is to concede to every demand. It's possible this is something that really matters to the player, and they're not just being a toddler who throws their food if they don't get exactly what they want.
Agreed with this. Same way that if, say, you have a claustrophobic player, you might not put in any "uh oh you got stuck in a coffin!" traps, this is just making a small accommodation to allow a player to not be uncomfortable at the table. (I think that's the big disconnect -- if the player was actually made viscerally uncomfortable by mind control/brainwashing, then I think it is reasonable to remove those effects to accommodate the player. But if the player just always wants their PC to be able to do exactly what they want, then further discussion is needed.)
I think the player needs to be talked to, so you can determine WHY that was so impacting. Once you know (as stated above, it might be a very personal thing) then you could alter the effect of a spell (ie, the NPC was going to Charm, but instead, "Froze" the person, akin to paralysis) or another spell effect that kind of achieves the goal, taking that player out of the encounter-ish, for a brief period, but in a manner that won't trigger a response like that. Realistically, that's all the effect does is bump that player aside for a moment and there are numerous options to attain that result, to balance the encounter of what not, that there should be a common ground somewhere that this person will allow. I think everyone is kind of frowning on it because of the WAY the player objected. It is very much a stamp my little foot kind of statement to make in an RPG setting.
Accepting and respecting that such a dramatic reaction may be due to a RL trauma that the situation triggered, there still needs to be a discussion, to both avoid a recurrence of something like this, and a way to work around it. Every debilitating effect has numerous ways to accomplish it. At times, players are going to need to be "debuffed" and you and the player need to find debuffs that achieve the required effect, but in a fashion that doesn't rub raw nerves.
Again I thank the RP Gods that my group is so laid back. Zero drama aside from being frustrated with ourselves because we spent half the session laughing at one of our misfortunes in game.
Talk to your Players. Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
Don’t ask people to discuss their traumas, though. Just work out an accommodation that is acceptable to everyone. Everyone should get at least one free.
Yeah, agreed. If I came off as trying to prying, that's my bad. Mostly just think a discussion needs to be had to determine whether this is an actual discomfort thing or if it is a "my character shouldn't be that weak" thing. Former can be done without forcing the person to rehash their trauma.
I asked during session zero what my players' pet peeves were and if there were any no-go topics. Although everyone had peeves, most of them did not involve things the DM does (most of them were things other players do) and nobody had any no-go topics.
If someone had, during session zero, said that they have a problem with having consent taken away, and that this means they really would have an issue with charm spells, I would recommend playing a character immune or resistant to charm, so that it is not/less of an issue.
I don't mind accommodating someone who has an actual issue. But you don't just sulk at the table.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
If someone has a real aversion to compulsion-type effects (e.g. they have trauma, personal experiences, or a phobia) then working around that is fair.
In real life, I have a phobia of wasps. I have nearly run over the edge of a cliff before due to being chased by a wasp, and nearly crashed my car once when a wasp got in. Luckily I am able to control my reaction to it to some extent now, but as soon as I see a wasp or hear a buzzing, I go on high alert and cannot relax until I know it is gone. If I was at a game where the party were attacked by a swarm of wasps, I would hope for some accommodation to be made to my phobia. In my case, I think just asking that nobody describe it in too much detail would probably suffice, as I wouldn't mind too much being set on edge a bit (as even writing this does), but wouldn't want that pushed into all-out panic. The dividing line will depend very much on the person: Go back to my late teens and I would have started freaking out over just a general description of the situation, and would have wanted that to be avoided altogether.
I am aware that this is mild compared to many, but thought it a nice parallel. Many of us suffer from phobias (and I suspect most know someone with a phobia), while fewer have suffered a serious traumatic event.
However, in the OPs case, I would want to have a discussion with the player to determine if this was the case. I wouldn't expect the player to tell me everything, but I would need to try to find out if this was a tantrum because they don't like it, or a reaction because it truly makes them uncomfortable. If it was a tantrum, IMHO the player just needs to be told "no", simple as, but if there's something more behind it, a reasonable accommodation can be found.
Some ideas:
The difference between fear of wasps (or any particular creature) and some sort of unspecified phobia toward "loss of personal agency" is that it's trivially easy for a DM to eliminate one class of monster from the game. Even something more major like trolls, say -- if the DM knows ahead of time, there are hundreds of other monsters to choose from. It's simple enough not to use trolls. Or say the person has a phobia regarding drowning, and prefers not to have underwater adventures. Once again, this is not that hard to accommodate as a DM, assuming you know before the campaign begins.
But saying you don't want effects laid on your character that "take away agency" -- such effects are an enormous part of the game. It's not just Charm spells, as I have said above. There are dozens of mechanisms in any RPG that will constrict the player's RP options based on in-game effects. What about the Fear spell, for instance. According to the rules, "While frightened by this spell, a creature must take the Dash action and move away from you by the safest available route on each of its turns" -- this compels the player to not only RP being afraid, but to have the character act in a specific way - burning the entire move and action of its turn running 2x its base movement away from the caster. How is that not, also, taking away player agency? Is the player going to demand not having Fear cast on his character either, so that the character is now immune to all Charm and Fear effects?
And it's not just D&D in which these effects occur. Playing Champions, is such a player going to demand that "Mental Illusions" which would cause his character to act in certain ways not be used against his character? That the Mind Control power not be used? To be immune to such effects even without the appropriate and sufficient levels of defense (in this case, large amounts of EGO defense)?
On the Wildcards ETU show on YouTube, there was an episode in which all the players were handed cards by the GM. The audience did not see the cards -- I did not even notice he did it, for it was done subtly. But the cards said to the players, no matter what you might want to do, until the GM tells you otherwise, your character must tell the truth, even about things you would normally want to lie about. The cards also said you can't just not answer... you are compelled to tell the truth and the whole truth. This led to some crazy RP in which the players all had their characters say things to each other that normal people would not say -- that their characters, RPed to this point as friends, probably wouldn't say to each other. The players did such an amazing job with this that I did not realize what was happening. A couple of times, the GM stepped in, though, and said, "Is this what your character REALLY thinks? Please say what she really thinks."
The reason he handed them the cards? Someone had cast a ritual in the dorm where the students were hanging out, and it was a "Zone of Truth." Not only the PCs but everyone in the dorms was telling uncomfortable truths, and at one point a fight even broke out. During the fight, the GM was RPing the NPCs saying things like, "I'm going to fight you, even though you're bigger and stronger than I am and you'll probably beat me up." Or, in response to the tough guy saying "stand your ground," an NPC said, "I know you want me to stand my ground, but I'm actually a coward so I'm out of here!"
By this point it was clear to me as a viewer what was happening... but the point is, both the GM and the players had to RP that no one could lie and people would reveal painful truths. Was agency being taken away? Well -- no. It was a RP situation. The players had full agency with how to implement the truth-telling. For instance, one of the players, who RPs a cultist who believes in a Cthulhu-like monster, blurted out, "I'm not sure it's real." Everyone's jaw dropped. All the other characters at this point started RPing that they realized something was wrong, because "he would never say that." But the GM didn't tell him, "Tell everyone you think this thing is not real." He just told him, "RP that you can't tell a lie." The player, with his own agency, came up with the RP.
RPGs are fundamentally games in which the GM and players collaboratively work together to generate a situation, and then the RP takes place in the players figuring out how to respond to that situation in-character. Mind-control, charm, and fear spells are part of all RPGs -- not just D&D, and they constitute a broad class of "RP situations" to which players respond. Demanding to be immune from a whole class of RP situations is simply not the same thing as asking not to have to face one type of monster, or not have to explore one type of environment.
And if there is someone who cannot deal with a broad class of RP situations, the player has a responsibility to let the DM know this up front, at or before session 0 -- not wait till it happens and demand special treatment.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Now, I agree that this game is all about everyone having fun. Mind control powers do tend to ruin fun for a lot of people. And there is the distinct possibility that there's some real life baggage there, and it is very much a violation of a (fictional) person. Its a very touchy subject, and its possible that the player does have something heavy from IRL that's making this a bad experience.
That said, my first reaction....
I've mentioned before that I've played Vampire: the Masquerade. In that game, mind control is an extremely common power set, to the point nearly everyone has the ability to use some form of it. And, likewise, its fairly common for players who've been in that game to have bad reactions to having their characters mind controlled, even as they use mind control powers themselves. Its a bit of a double standard, really. Wanting the powers, but not being the target of them. Silly gimmicks, taking things way out of context, crying about "agency," etc. Anything they can do to get out of something, while being unhappy if opponents do the same.
I don't know why your player reacted this way. But my personal experiences leads me to feel that people crying about player agency are really just opposed to their PC being controlled, even when they have no problem with controlling NPCs.
-----
On a side note, I've encountered this behavior far more often from male players than female ones, so I personally assumed the player in question is male. Just an FYI.
This player's issue seems to go beyond just being charmed. As has been pointed out, there is no shortage of conditions that impact player agency. They could be blinded, frightened, grappled, paralyzed, or restrained; the net effect would be the same. How they interact with the game world would be altered. They might only be able to take certain actions, if at all, or attempt rolls with disadvantage. Hell, someone could cast levitate on them and forcibly remove them from melee range.
The game doesn't strip agency completely, but it can put temporary limitations on it. Have a talk with them and their concerns, but they need to get over this.
I will say incase it is relevant that within charm person it states that "It must make a Wisdom saving throw, and does so with advantage if you or your companions are fighting it. If it fails the saving throw, it is charmed by you until the spell ends or until you or your companions do anything harmful to it." If they were a known enemy that the party was about to engage in combat with I would say that would give advantage on the save. Additionally anything harmful is really vague. Attacking your friends, potentially killing someone that you love (in any sense of the word) could be argued to be harmful thus breaking the charm.
I understand the concerns about player agency and a discomfort with psychological manipulation magical (I'm not going to call it mind control) magical or otherwise, however to make a fuss about it during the game in a reductive way that brings down the game for the other players and demand something of the DM is unacceptable, completely ignoring the fact that acting on said request removes player agency from other players in no uncertain terms.
Buyers Guide for D&D Beyond - Hardcover Books, D&D Beyond and You - How/What is Toggled Content?
Everything you need to know about Homebrew - Homebrew FAQ - Digital Book on D&D Beyond Vs Physical Books
Can't find the content you are supposed to have access to? Read this FAQ.
"Play the game however you want to play the game. After all, your fun doesn't threaten my fun."
Years ago, when I first ran Lost Mines of Phandelver, I played Iarno "Glasstaff" Albrek a bit like Jedi Master Pong Krell during his interrogation in Phandalin's jail. And he was able to use charm person on two of the characters; who then treated him quite nicely. They wouldn't let him out, but it was a beautiful conversation. And after the spell wore off, they were pissed. But it was all in character. That's tied with my time as Strahd as some of the most fun I've had roleplaying, as a DM, this edition.
Of these, player agency is only limited by frightened. Player agency does not mean your character can do whatever they want, it means what your character does is only what you want. If you are restrained by manacles, you can try to escape. And no one can force you to do anything, although they can do things to you.
It's not that players should never lose any degree of agency. That's fine if players at your table agree it's okay. And it's also fine to that if they disagree for you to say it's an essential part of your campaign and if they're not comfortable they'll have to withdraw. But is it really that essential? Is it really the slippery slope where the player demands immunity from a wide variety of conditions? Ask them before assuming. They might not even object to all forms of Charmed, which is kind of a catch-all condition with a lot of different effects with details specific to the ability that caused it.
I'm not sure that's an accurate definition in the context of a roleplaying game. After all, if in combat, what YOU want to do (as a player) is, presumably, to hit enemies and not to be hit by them. And you cannot as a player control that.
I think there is a lot of line-blurring going on here between character agency and player agency. Character agency, has to do with restrictions placed on the character. That is to say, if the character is paralyzed, the character has lost some in-world agency. The character cannot do certain things, legally, in game play at the time. This is the same thing as what happens to your game-piece in Monopoly when you "go to jail." The game piece is restricted in how it can move, because of the rules.
Player agency is about the freedom to RP your character the way you think it should be RPed. Your agency is not undermined when your character loses agency -- your character is in a situation and you are free, within the bounds of that situation, to RP what you want. Just as, when you roll a miss on d20 in combat, you are free to RP the miss however you want (I fumble the weapon, my weapon slides off his armor, my character is distracted by the pretty gnome in the background, etc.), but you are not free to RP that your miss was a hit, and that it knocked a still-conscious enemy out cold. Or in Monopoly, when you land on Boardwalk owned by another player, and don't have enough money to pay the rent, you are free to mortgage any property you want to pay the bill -- but you are not free to just ignore the fact that you landed on Boardwalk.
Finally, I would argue that RP only happens when you are having the character do what it wants, not what you, the player, want. Again bringing up the Wildcards ETU show (because the players on it are such amazing RPers), just last night I watched a scene (from 3 seasons ago) in which the more savvy character, Calvin, was trying to schmooze with someone to get information. Calvin was lying (which he is good at) and told the other PCs to 'hang back.' Meghan Caves, who plays a character named Addie, kept trying to interject and Calvin kept telling her to shut up. Now... Meghan, the player, probably wanted Addie to shut up too, because Addie was going to blow it as she is not a good liar. However, Addie has the "Big Mouth" hindrance, which means that she will tend to not be able to shut up, even if her player wants her to. This was outstanding RP, because Meghan was very enthusiastically having her character do something that as a player, tactically, Meghan would not have done. But Addie would do it, and in a roleplaying game, your goal is supposed to be having the character do what it would do, not what you, the player with the good tactical mind and the years of experience playing the game, want.
So no, RPGs are not about "having the character do whatever the player wants." They are about having the character do what it would want even if the player wouldn't... otherwise, you're not playing a role. You're playing yourself.
And I think this may be the crux of the problem. Too many people view the character as themselves, rather than a playing piece to be used in a game, and when you do something to the character, they feel like you are doing it to THEM, and they have a problem with it. Nobody (should) have a problem with their playing piece "losing agency" in a game of Monopoly and being forced to move to a particular square (and not pass go, and not collect $200)... why have a problem with your playing piece being forced to "ally" with the enemy playing pieces for a couple of terms when you fail your save?
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Yes. Absolutely, agency was taken away. The card, as stated, specifically prevented them from not answering, or being evasive, which are both ways to counteract the effects of Zone of Truth, in addition to needing to succeed on that saving throw.
And a player who does not know such things can happen, should be able to ask that these things not happen the moment they learn about it. Which may be a very small niche of people, but still, many new players are completely unfamiliar with spells and conditions. So unless you tell them at session 0, you will have to take the loss once you spring this on them later in the campaign. It's as simple as going: "So, this campaign may contain X, Y, and Z, anyone who's uncomfortable with these, please speak up now, or leave if these are deal breakers for you."
And thus lies the primary problem of 'Charmed' you are restricting what the player can do with their roleplay. And in addition to rider effects that comes with the rider effect, they loose more and more of their abilities to act in ways that they view their characters as acting. Dominate Person, for example, forces them to obey any commands given to them, and they 'have to do them' no matter what.
It's effect like those that make a simple spell such as Charm Person a slippery slope. Higher level spells of this nature grant more and more control to the caster, to the point where one spell can literally wipe another's memory of the events. At that point, that player's agency is COMPLETELY taken away, they have no say in what happened, what their character did, it just happened, and they don't remember any of it. If these were just combat effects, like Paralyzed or Restrained, things that limit what you can do 'in combat' then it may not be such a big issue, but these kinds of spells can affect the roleplay aspect.
And let's not forget that Charmed also states that the caster has 'advantage on social checks' in which, if there are no roleplay involved and you basically just do the usual 'roll dice to see if you listen' you are taking away that agency, a player's ability to say no. The way you talk, you sound like you'd belong on one of those DnD Horror Stories reddit posts.
This, to me, is probably the best answer. I personally hate the idea of 'Mind Control' for what its worth, and as such, I avoid all of those spells myself.
And spells that alter the way a player plays their characters can have rather negative results, in some situations. While the low level spells are, maybe 'respectable' in how they only make someone more 'friendly' I can still see why such issues exist on the matter:
You are effectively telling a player to change how they play their character. Or at least, change their behaviors. And not everyone is capable of switching so quickly. At the time of writing, 'respect' seems to be a very big word being thrown around, and I feel like GM's should respect their players when they say they're uncomfortable with certain things. If the thing can be avoided, it should, otherwise, you should tell that player that they might want to find a different game, and explain why the things that make them uncomfortable can't be avoided.
That said, I strongly believe that Charmed shouldn't be a condition that should affect players, especially in a PvP type setting. (On the note of PvP: Any spell or effects that are harmful to a player, or can be used in a harmful way, should be considered PvP. Your 'Calm Emotion' may feel like you're trying to help a player through their grief, but that player might also feel robbed of their emotional moment because you 'wanted to speed this up' or whatever their reasons may be.)
To me, its the 'Advantage on Social Interactions' that makes this condition so inherently bad for players/roleplay. Because at that point, you practically have no say in the matter, unless the GM/Player using it on you is willing to respect what makes you uncomfortable. So many horror stories have included things like a DM/Player 'succeeding' their checks, persuasion and then forcing the affected into doing whatever the player/GM wanted. -That- is the point where I feel that player agency is truly lost. If a PC would never, in any circumstance, do a certain thing, then no amount of convincing should force them to do it. (And also why these kinds of checks should be roleplayed, instead of just 'roll to see if you're forced to do it')
While I admire the idea of your recommending they play a charm immune/resistant race, maybe they might wat to play a specific race that does not have this kind of ability. If they simply weren't aware, then they can make the decision, otherwise, you should still try to find a way to accommodate them if they are truly sick of playing the same 2-4 races over and over again. (Or you just so happened to have decided that one or more of those races did not fit your setting.)