Spell Changes

[Ansha]

It should also be pointed out that our current description of the Charm Person spell includes the text about an opposed Charisma check. So the suggested change would be simply bringing it in line with what we already say it does.

As for the logistics of the opposed Charisma check, I don't think it would be out of line to have a charmed subject attempt to defend its new friend, either by using actions to intercede with its old friend against its new OR by attempting to subdue its old friend(s). Even in your personalized example with Olaf, assuming he failed the save against the charm to begin with, while he may not outright attack Alyra, he would be desirous to defend the person who charmed him, too. Even against his old friend. I think this could be simulated by making it so that the opposed CHA check automatically activates Subdual--and of course, any defensive abilities that can be used on the charmer should be.

[NESchampion]

I'm not convinced that situation works though; Olaf and Alyra are allies who have faced hell together. Any friend of Olafs asking his protection from her would be met with a huge "Huh?" and a demand for information and reasons why, no matter how good a friend he viewed them to be. At best I could see him demanding them to stop and explain what is going on, not to start slinging spells around defensive or otherwise.

[Ansha]

That's trying to personalize the issue too much, quite frankly.

[NESchampion]

That's trying to personalize the issue too much, quite frankly.

Fair enough; those sorts of situations would require a DM anyway as it borders CvC easily.

[Rotku]

That's trying to personalize the issue too much, quite frankly.

Fair enough; those sorts of situations would require a DM anyway as it borders CvC easily.

The point you were making is a good one, NES, and I don't think saying that "CvCs require a DM anyway" is a good dismissal of the argument. DMs are not, on an ALFA wide basis, always required for a CvC - unless rules have changed considerably since I was last around. Some servers may have house rules requiring them, but it only requires one server to stick with the ALFA (minimum) ruling and NES's argument applies again.

[Ronan]

Meh.

Alyra and Olaf are 'helpful' towards each other. Helpful > friendly. Also, either of them attacking the other is obviously harmful. In most cases Olaf subduing a Knight in Silver is also obviously harmful: sure he can easily do it but it'll get him in trouble later.

With an opposed charisma check you could convince an experienced adventurer to enter easy combat (which wouldn't later get him arrested), like killing some goblins. Thats not obviously harmful. This seems like an edge case and not worth implementing, even if it were possible without a DM.

I would like to extend charm's duration, have it make charmed creatures non-hostile and give it an appropriate placeholder effect (which would do nothing, unlike the current effect). But thats about it.

[t-ice]

Anyhow, turning Charm Person (lvl 1) into essentially Dominate Person (lvl 5) with a lucky CHA check for engine purposes feels off.

Precisely. The fact that it takes a Cha check to make a charm victim "do something it wouldn't normally do", doesn't mean that the cha check can make it do anything it wouldn't normally do (like, say, murder his own mother because he's your friend now and you asked.). It just means that if the actions you ask the charm victim to do is otherwise ok, but against the morals and ethics of the victim, it gets an additional chance to resist you via the Cha check.