So, my position on this would not be unkind but would be firm:
Agreed. This is the my approach as well.
"D&D is a game where body and mind control exists. This means that sometimes (not all of the time, just some of the time) you will lose some or all agency. Your character might be charmed, dominated, mind controlled, grappled, paralysed, blinded, and so on. If you don't like this then you need to reconsider whether or not you want to play this game."
I would ask, is it OK if your character is knocked unconscious? If so, why is that not "taking your agency away" but Charming is? After all, when the DM imposes the "Unconscious" condition on you, it takes away your ability to make any moves or do anything in the game until the condition is removed. What if you really wanted to run across the room and pull a lever? Isn't your being made unconscious "taking away agency?" And if not (I suspect the player would say no) then how is Charmed any different?
What about the Frightened condition? The Command spell?
OMG what about Wish???
There are 100 of these in the game if not more... and the player cannot reasonably claim that somehow Charm is different from all these others. Conditions exist in the game, and can be imposed in a variety of circumstances. To say that you want the right not to be subjected to conditions is to say you don't want to play D&D.
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.
Tell the player "There's the door. You have a choice. Roleplay your char, or use the door.".
I once played a char, sort of as a one-off guest player in another DM's game. He waited and waited until one char was alone (we were searching a large home). As it happened, it was my char. He took me aside, and told me "You are possessed. You now bide your time, and I want you to isolate and kill one of the other chars." I did just that, and one of the DM's regular players died in an epic battle.
Being charmed is a GREAT opportunity for role-play.
The player gets to play their character differently, and interact with the other party members with a different attitude to what they had just ONE MOMENT ago.
While this is how I would approach it as well, keep in mind that some players may have anxiety when put in the spotlight like that. We don't know what the table dynamics are or how well the players know each other. Maybe the player is a bad sport, but I don't think it's really fair to just assume it.
As for whether we as DMs should change the abilities we use on our players to match their preferences, I agree with that stance, at least to a point. My goal is to maximize the fun of everyone at the table, including me. Me personally, I have the same amount of fun using Charm Person as I might with Tasha's Hideous Laughter or Grease or any number of other spells. It's no skin off my back to avoid certain monsters or situations if I know my players wouldn't enjoy them.
If I know one guy will ham it up if I charm him and someone else will just kind of withdraw until they regain control of their character, well yeah I'm gonna try to target the guy who will have fun with it and go after the sulky one with something else. Now I'm not going to do this against all rational behavior of the attacker, but it definitely influences my choices. And why shouldn't it? We are here for fun, not to flex our authority over others or to make the most accurate combat simulation we can.
But if a player says, "It is not fun for me if my character takes any damage in combat" -- how does one have a normal, which is to say typical, D&D experience under those conditions? If the player says, "It is not fun for me if my character ever misses an attack roll in combat" -- again, same problem.
Certainly this is not acceptable, but I've never run into this situation and would never expect to. I'm not dealing with bad-faith players here. None my adjustments were by request and I'm not sure my players even realize I'm doing it. Perhaps I'm just very lucky to have a good set of players, but I don't really have to worry about players trying to "get away" with things or take advantage of me.
I once had a player who was hit by a mass damage spell due to a trap someone triggered. They quit the game on the spot because they took damage. Your situation isn't quite as extreme, but I agree with others. Be delicate about it. Explain that this isn't a "homebrew" rule and it's a solid foundation of the game mechanics. Charm doesn't happen *too* often, but when it does, it does. Let them know for future characters they can take proactive choices to help avoid being charmed if they don't enjoy that condition. Elves have advantage. Can take ability score improvements or feats to buff save chances. Etc. But, rules are rules are rules. Are rules. Lol
If someone truly doesn't want to be Charmed, there are ways to protect themselves: buff the stats that provide the relevant saving throws, take the Resilient feet, play an elf or half-elf (or a centaur or satyr to gain immunity to Charm Person specifically), or be an Oath of Devotion Paladin of at least 7th level.
Simply trying to dictate that you're immune to the condition because you don't like it doesn't work.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
If someone truly doesn't want to be Charmed, there are ways to protect themselves: buff the stats that provide the relevant saving throws, take the Resilient feet, play an elf or half-elf (or a centaur or satyr to gain immunity to Charm Person specifically), or be an Oath of Devotion Paladin of at least 7th level.
Simply trying to dictate that you're immune to the condition because you don't like it doesn't work.
And furthermore doing so negates the special abilities of those named classes and races. Elves have advantage against charm, not immunity to it, for example... so if you allow a player to have a non-elf just be immune to charm because the player doesn't like it, this negates one of the racial abilities of the elf. It further negates a class ability of the Paladin.
Players are not allowed to just "have" for free abilities that are attributed to classes, races, or feats. If you want the ability, you have to take the race, class, or feat when you create or level up the character. Otherwise, why have races, classes, or feats at all? Just let the players write down on their character sheet whatever they want.
Extreme? Yes... but this is fundamentally what the player is asking for. "Give me an extreme version of the elf ability even though I am not playing an elf." Why? "Because I want it."
No, not acceptable.
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.
"she was a dear friend to the player and it would not be acceptable to see your party attack her while the condition is active" is not saying "you must do this" nor even "you may not do this." It is a description of how the spell would affect the character. How the player interprets this is up to them -- interposing in between party and target. Persuading verbally. Etc.
Also, the problem with "If it's not fun, don't do it" -- yes, the game is meant to be fun. That is the point. But if a player says, "It is not fun for me if my character takes any damage in combat" -- how does one have a normal, which is to say typical, D&D experience under those conditions? If the player says, "It is not fun for me if my character ever misses an attack roll in combat" -- again, same problem.
"I don't ever want to have a charm spell cast upon me" is not something I would consider acceptable as a DM. I would have to respectfully ask if someone else is willing to take over as DM under these conditions, and I would probably bow out as a player as well, because I would not be willing to play in a game that has one PC immune to spells the other PCs are vulnerable to just because the player is being, let's face it, a prima donna... and I would also not be willing to play a game of D&D that does not have charm spells, because that is not D&D.
Charm Person is one spell. Refusing to play against monsters that do damage would break the game. Maybe there are other RPGs you could play, but not D&D.
It's up to you. Maybe you have a ton of friends waiting in line to play at your table and can afford to lose a player. I think it's an accommodation that can be made without ruining the experience for everyone.
FYI, this is outside of the discussion at hand but there's a decent amount of subtle sexism at play in this thread. Multiple people have referred to the player as a "she" despite OP using male pronouns to refer to them initially, in a way that I feel shows off some uncomfortable assumptions one might make about a problem player at the table.
I think everyone's overall points are valid, just wanted to point out that the way we use language can be a bit uninviting to certain demographics. Please be conscious about it, for everyone's benefit.
The OP used they / them for the player, and once used she. On re-reading it was referring to the NPC, but it's easy to get confused on a quick skim.
I would ask, is it OK if your character is knocked unconscious? If so, why is that not "taking your agency away" but Charming is? After all, when the DM imposes the "Unconscious" condition on you, it takes away your ability to make any moves or do anything in the game until the condition is removed. What if you really wanted to run across the room and pull a lever? Isn't your being made unconscious "taking away agency?" And if not (I suspect the player would say no) then how is Charmed any different?
What about the Frightened condition? The Command spell?
OMG what about Wish???
There are 100 of these in the game if not more... and the player cannot reasonably claim that somehow Charm is different from all these others. Conditions exist in the game, and can be imposed in a variety of circumstances. To say that you want the right not to be subjected to conditions is to say you don't want to play D&D.
What about Wish? Suppose one player wishes for another player's character to have sex with them? Some things are within RAW but are unacceptable in the metagame. It's a less extreme example, but for this player, being charmed is unacceptable. You can either deal with it or part ways.
Being unconscious tells the player what they cannot do. It doesn't tell the player what they must do. Likewise frightened. It doesn't say you must run away, it says you cannot move toward the frightening creature. Most players play it very mechanically and circle around maintaining the exact distance. Command would likely also be a problem for this player.
Being unconscious is something we're all familiar with because we do it daily. Having our mind controlled is not, and some people may be uncomfortable with the idea.
And yes, apparently the OP believed Charm Person forced the character to do something, because they found it unacceptable when the character did nothing. They might not have had a specific action in mind, but they clearly wanted the PC to intervene in some way: speak up, maybe, or attack the party. IMO, the DM went beyond the RAW of Charm Person by saying the PC would not find it acceptable to see the party attack the NPC. The spell doesn't say that. That's the DM's interpretation. It's up to the player's interpretation how they treat their friendly acquaintances.
Suppose one player wishes for another player's character to have sex with them? Some things are within RAW but are unacceptable in the metagame
I think that's a very extreme example, and would be down to DMs discretion. It would be very similar to a character saying they pinned down a villager (or PC) and forced themselves on them: It would not be likely to be acceptable behaviour at many tables.
Being unconscious tells the player what they cannot do. It doesn't tell the player what they must do. Likewise frightened.
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.
Suppose one player wishes for another player's character to have sex with them? Some things are within RAW but are unacceptable in the metagame
I think that's a very extreme example, and would be down to DMs discretion. It would be very similar to a character saying they pinned down a villager (or PC) and forced themselves on them: It would not be likely to be acceptable behaviour at many tables.
Being unconscious tells the player what they cannot do. It doesn't tell the player what they must do. Likewise frightened.
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.
In that case the player from the OP did nothing wrong.
I agree, insisting that a Charmed player role play against their character's and the player's true motivations is akin to making Persuasion or Intimidation rolls against PCs. If players think it's fun and want to play along, that's fine, but it has the potential to feel like losing your agency. Whether you as the DM believe it's technically taking their agency or not really doesn't matter. If a player feels like they're losing their agency, it's not fun.
Suppose one player wishes for another player's character to have sex with them? Some things are within RAW but are unacceptable in the metagame
I think that's a very extreme example, and would be down to DMs discretion. It would be very similar to a character saying they pinned down a villager (or PC) and forced themselves on them: It would not be likely to be acceptable behaviour at many tables.
Being unconscious tells the player what they cannot do. It doesn't tell the player what they must do. Likewise frightened.
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.
In that case the player from the OP did nothing wrong.
I agree, insisting that a Charmed player role play against their character's and the player's true motivations is akin to making Persuasion or Intimidation rolls against PCs. If players think it's fun and want to play along, that's fine, but it has the potential to feel like losing your agency. Whether you as the DM believe it's technically taking their agency or not really doesn't matter. If a player feels like they're losing their agency, it's not fun.
Who cares if the "player feels they are losing their agency'"??? It is part of the game that they signed up to play. It has always been part of the game. If the player is not having fun, there is the door.
Suppose one player wishes for another player's character to have sex with them? Some things are within RAW but are unacceptable in the metagame
I think that's a very extreme example, and would be down to DMs discretion. It would be very similar to a character saying they pinned down a villager (or PC) and forced themselves on them: It would not be likely to be acceptable behaviour at many tables.
Being unconscious tells the player what they cannot do. It doesn't tell the player what they must do. Likewise frightened.
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.
In that case the player from the OP did nothing wrong.
I agree, insisting that a Charmed player role play against their character's and the player's true motivations is akin to making Persuasion or Intimidation rolls against PCs. If players think it's fun and want to play along, that's fine, but it has the potential to feel like losing your agency. Whether you as the DM believe it's technically taking their agency or not really doesn't matter. If a player feels like they're losing their agency, it's not fun.
Who cares if the "player feels they are losing their agency'"??? It is part of the game that they signed up to play. It has always been part of the game. If the player is not having fun, there is the door.
Suppose one player wishes for another player's character to have sex with them? Some things are within RAW but are unacceptable in the metagame
I think that's a very extreme example, and would be down to DMs discretion. It would be very similar to a character saying they pinned down a villager (or PC) and forced themselves on them: It would not be likely to be acceptable behaviour at many tables.
Being unconscious tells the player what they cannot do. It doesn't tell the player what they must do. Likewise frightened.
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.
In that case the player from the OP did nothing wrong.
I agree, insisting that a Charmed player role play against their character's and the player's true motivations is akin to making Persuasion or Intimidation rolls against PCs. If players think it's fun and want to play along, that's fine, but it has the potential to feel like losing your agency. Whether you as the DM believe it's technically taking their agency or not really doesn't matter. If a player feels like they're losing their agency, it's not fun.
Who cares if the "player feels they are losing their agency'"??? It is part of the game that they signed up to play. It has always been part of the game. If the player is not having fun, there is the door.
Me. I care if players are having fun.
I see...so if something bad happens in-game, and the ultimate removal of "player agency" happens, and a char dies, and your player is unhappy, you just handwave that away...good to know.
I intentionally tried to keep it gender neutral, but the assumption that it was a female caught me off guard too. I used she because it was an NPC that was female that cast the Charm Person. I can see why someone might have seen that and thought female player but that's not the intent
Suppose one player wishes for another player's character to have sex with them? Some things are within RAW but are unacceptable in the metagame
I think that's a very extreme example, and would be down to DMs discretion. It would be very similar to a character saying they pinned down a villager (or PC) and forced themselves on them: It would not be likely to be acceptable behaviour at many tables.
Being unconscious tells the player what they cannot do. It doesn't tell the player what they must do. Likewise frightened.
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.
In that case the player from the OP did nothing wrong.
I agree, insisting that a Charmed player role play against their character's and the player's true motivations is akin to making Persuasion or Intimidation rolls against PCs. If players think it's fun and want to play along, that's fine, but it has the potential to feel like losing your agency. Whether you as the DM believe it's technically taking their agency or not really doesn't matter. If a player feels like they're losing their agency, it's not fun.
Who cares if the "player feels they are losing their agency'"??? It is part of the game that they signed up to play. It has always been part of the game. If the player is not having fun, there is the door.
Me. I care if players are having fun.
I see...so if something bad happens in-game, and the ultimate removal of "player agency" happens, and a char dies, and your player is unhappy, you just handwave that away...good to know.
You're trying to reduce it to the most extreme example, which is a logical fallacy, but yes, if a player was literally so disappointed to lose their character that they didn't want to play the game anymore, I'd arrange a resurrection quest of some kind. And then have a discussion with the players about how deadly of a game they want. It's just a game, geez. Consequences are great as long as they enhance the fun.
Suppose one player wishes for another player's character to have sex with them? Some things are within RAW but are unacceptable in the metagame
I think that's a very extreme example, and would be down to DMs discretion. It would be very similar to a character saying they pinned down a villager (or PC) and forced themselves on them: It would not be likely to be acceptable behaviour at many tables.
Being unconscious tells the player what they cannot do. It doesn't tell the player what they must do. Likewise frightened.
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.
In that case the player from the OP did nothing wrong.
I agree, insisting that a Charmed player role play against their character's and the player's true motivations is akin to making Persuasion or Intimidation rolls against PCs. If players think it's fun and want to play along, that's fine, but it has the potential to feel like losing your agency. Whether you as the DM believe it's technically taking their agency or not really doesn't matter. If a player feels like they're losing their agency, it's not fun.
Who cares if the "player feels they are losing their agency'"??? It is part of the game that they signed up to play. It has always been part of the game. If the player is not having fun, there is the door.
Me. I care if players are having fun.
I see...so if something bad happens in-game, and the ultimate removal of "player agency" happens, and a char dies, and your player is unhappy, you just handwave that away...good to know.
You're trying to reduce it to the most extreme example, which is a logical fallacy, but yes, if a player was literally so disappointed to lose their character that they didn't want to play the game anymore, I'd arrange a resurrection quest of some kind. And then have a discussion with the players about how deadly of a game they want. It's just a game, geez. Consequences are great as long as they enhance the fun.
I see. And if the majority of the players want a deadly game? And maybe, just maybe, some players have more fun when there is risk and consequences in the game. That was how it was designed. In your view of the game, why even track HP? Or spell slots, if a player exhausts their allocation, and are no longer "having fun".
Suppose one player wishes for another player's character to have sex with them? Some things are within RAW but are unacceptable in the metagame
I think that's a very extreme example, and would be down to DMs discretion. It would be very similar to a character saying they pinned down a villager (or PC) and forced themselves on them: It would not be likely to be acceptable behaviour at many tables.
Being unconscious tells the player what they cannot do. It doesn't tell the player what they must do. Likewise frightened.
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.
In that case the player from the OP did nothing wrong.
I agree, insisting that a Charmed player role play against their character's and the player's true motivations is akin to making Persuasion or Intimidation rolls against PCs. If players think it's fun and want to play along, that's fine, but it has the potential to feel like losing your agency. Whether you as the DM believe it's technically taking their agency or not really doesn't matter. If a player feels like they're losing their agency, it's not fun.
Who cares if the "player feels they are losing their agency'"??? It is part of the game that they signed up to play. It has always been part of the game. If the player is not having fun, there is the door.
Me. I care if players are having fun.
I see...so if something bad happens in-game, and the ultimate removal of "player agency" happens, and a char dies, and your player is unhappy, you just handwave that away...good to know.
You're trying to reduce it to the most extreme example, which is a logical fallacy, but yes, if a player was literally so disappointed to lose their character that they didn't want to play the game anymore, I'd arrange a resurrection quest of some kind. And then have a discussion with the players about how deadly of a game they want. It's just a game, geez. Consequences are great as long as they enhance the fun.
I see. And if the majority of the players want a deadly game? And maybe, just maybe, some players have more fun when there is risk and consequences in the game. That was how it was designed. In your view of the game, why even track HP? Or spell slots, if a player exhausts their allocation, and are no longer "having fun".
If most of the players want a deadly game and insist that it be fair and equally deadly to all, then that player will have to decide if they want to continue playing under those conditions.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Yes, correct. Some of the responses here still referred to the player as a "she" ... as in "she doesn't have to play..."
It's those responses I'm calling out, and asking to be better and think about what kind of assumptions they're making.
Agreed. This is the my approach as well.
"D&D is a game where body and mind control exists. This means that sometimes (not all of the time, just some of the time) you will lose some or all agency. Your character might be charmed, dominated, mind controlled, grappled, paralysed, blinded, and so on. If you don't like this then you need to reconsider whether or not you want to play this game."
Right...
I would ask, is it OK if your character is knocked unconscious? If so, why is that not "taking your agency away" but Charming is? After all, when the DM imposes the "Unconscious" condition on you, it takes away your ability to make any moves or do anything in the game until the condition is removed. What if you really wanted to run across the room and pull a lever? Isn't your being made unconscious "taking away agency?" And if not (I suspect the player would say no) then how is Charmed any different?
What about the Frightened condition? The Command spell?
OMG what about Wish???
There are 100 of these in the game if not more... and the player cannot reasonably claim that somehow Charm is different from all these others. Conditions exist in the game, and can be imposed in a variety of circumstances. To say that you want the right not to be subjected to conditions is to say you don't want to play D&D.
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.
Tell the player "There's the door. You have a choice. Roleplay your char, or use the door.".
I once played a char, sort of as a one-off guest player in another DM's game. He waited and waited until one char was alone (we were searching a large home). As it happened, it was my char. He took me aside, and told me "You are possessed. You now bide your time, and I want you to isolate and kill one of the other chars." I did just that, and one of the DM's regular players died in an epic battle.
That is what RP is all about.
While this is how I would approach it as well, keep in mind that some players may have anxiety when put in the spotlight like that. We don't know what the table dynamics are or how well the players know each other. Maybe the player is a bad sport, but I don't think it's really fair to just assume it.
As for whether we as DMs should change the abilities we use on our players to match their preferences, I agree with that stance, at least to a point. My goal is to maximize the fun of everyone at the table, including me. Me personally, I have the same amount of fun using Charm Person as I might with Tasha's Hideous Laughter or Grease or any number of other spells. It's no skin off my back to avoid certain monsters or situations if I know my players wouldn't enjoy them.
If I know one guy will ham it up if I charm him and someone else will just kind of withdraw until they regain control of their character, well yeah I'm gonna try to target the guy who will have fun with it and go after the sulky one with something else. Now I'm not going to do this against all rational behavior of the attacker, but it definitely influences my choices. And why shouldn't it? We are here for fun, not to flex our authority over others or to make the most accurate combat simulation we can.
Certainly this is not acceptable, but I've never run into this situation and would never expect to. I'm not dealing with bad-faith players here. None my adjustments were by request and I'm not sure my players even realize I'm doing it. Perhaps I'm just very lucky to have a good set of players, but I don't really have to worry about players trying to "get away" with things or take advantage of me.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
I once had a player who was hit by a mass damage spell due to a trap someone triggered. They quit the game on the spot because they took damage. Your situation isn't quite as extreme, but I agree with others. Be delicate about it. Explain that this isn't a "homebrew" rule and it's a solid foundation of the game mechanics. Charm doesn't happen *too* often, but when it does, it does. Let them know for future characters they can take proactive choices to help avoid being charmed if they don't enjoy that condition. Elves have advantage. Can take ability score improvements or feats to buff save chances. Etc. But, rules are rules are rules. Are rules. Lol
Call me Knives.
If someone truly doesn't want to be Charmed, there are ways to protect themselves: buff the stats that provide the relevant saving throws, take the Resilient feet, play an elf or half-elf (or a centaur or satyr to gain immunity to Charm Person specifically), or be an Oath of Devotion Paladin of at least 7th level.
Simply trying to dictate that you're immune to the condition because you don't like it doesn't work.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
And furthermore doing so negates the special abilities of those named classes and races. Elves have advantage against charm, not immunity to it, for example... so if you allow a player to have a non-elf just be immune to charm because the player doesn't like it, this negates one of the racial abilities of the elf. It further negates a class ability of the Paladin.
Players are not allowed to just "have" for free abilities that are attributed to classes, races, or feats. If you want the ability, you have to take the race, class, or feat when you create or level up the character. Otherwise, why have races, classes, or feats at all? Just let the players write down on their character sheet whatever they want.
Extreme? Yes... but this is fundamentally what the player is asking for. "Give me an extreme version of the elf ability even though I am not playing an elf." Why? "Because I want it."
No, not acceptable.
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.
Charm Person is one spell. Refusing to play against monsters that do damage would break the game. Maybe there are other RPGs you could play, but not D&D.
It's up to you. Maybe you have a ton of friends waiting in line to play at your table and can afford to lose a player. I think it's an accommodation that can be made without ruining the experience for everyone.
The OP used they / them for the player, and once used she. On re-reading it was referring to the NPC, but it's easy to get confused on a quick skim.
What about Wish? Suppose one player wishes for another player's character to have sex with them? Some things are within RAW but are unacceptable in the metagame. It's a less extreme example, but for this player, being charmed is unacceptable. You can either deal with it or part ways.
Being unconscious tells the player what they cannot do. It doesn't tell the player what they must do. Likewise frightened. It doesn't say you must run away, it says you cannot move toward the frightening creature. Most players play it very mechanically and circle around maintaining the exact distance. Command would likely also be a problem for this player.
Being unconscious is something we're all familiar with because we do it daily. Having our mind controlled is not, and some people may be uncomfortable with the idea.
And yes, apparently the OP believed Charm Person forced the character to do something, because they found it unacceptable when the character did nothing. They might not have had a specific action in mind, but they clearly wanted the PC to intervene in some way: speak up, maybe, or attack the party. IMO, the DM went beyond the RAW of Charm Person by saying the PC would not find it acceptable to see the party attack the NPC. The spell doesn't say that. That's the DM's interpretation. It's up to the player's interpretation how they treat their friendly acquaintances.
I think that's a very extreme example, and would be down to DMs discretion. It would be very similar to a character saying they pinned down a villager (or PC) and forced themselves on them: It would not be likely to be acceptable behaviour at many tables.
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.
In that case the player from the OP did nothing wrong.
I agree, insisting that a Charmed player role play against their character's and the player's true motivations is akin to making Persuasion or Intimidation rolls against PCs. If players think it's fun and want to play along, that's fine, but it has the potential to feel like losing your agency. Whether you as the DM believe it's technically taking their agency or not really doesn't matter. If a player feels like they're losing their agency, it's not fun.
Who cares if the "player feels they are losing their agency'"??? It is part of the game that they signed up to play. It has always been part of the game. If the player is not having fun, there is the door.
Me. I care if players are having fun.
I see...so if something bad happens in-game, and the ultimate removal of "player agency" happens, and a char dies, and your player is unhappy, you just handwave that away...good to know.
I intentionally tried to keep it gender neutral, but the assumption that it was a female caught me off guard too. I used she because it was an NPC that was female that cast the Charm Person. I can see why someone might have seen that and thought female player but that's not the intent
You're trying to reduce it to the most extreme example, which is a logical fallacy, but yes, if a player was literally so disappointed to lose their character that they didn't want to play the game anymore, I'd arrange a resurrection quest of some kind. And then have a discussion with the players about how deadly of a game they want. It's just a game, geez. Consequences are great as long as they enhance the fun.
I see. And if the majority of the players want a deadly game? And maybe, just maybe, some players have more fun when there is risk and consequences in the game. That was how it was designed. In your view of the game, why even track HP? Or spell slots, if a player exhausts their allocation, and are no longer "having fun".
If most of the players want a deadly game and insist that it be fair and equally deadly to all, then that player will have to decide if they want to continue playing under those conditions.