PDA

View Full Version : Enchantments



Geiger Counter
2010-03-10, 08:42 PM
Tampering with a person's mind is serious business.
Are some enchantments innately evil?
Would any culture consider them illegal?
Edit: Also does telling a person to lay on the ground helpless (so you may coup des grais them) count as a self destructive act for the purposes of the spell?

Ravens_cry
2010-03-10, 08:53 PM
Enchantments as used to influence people to the loss of assets would certainly be illegal in a Lawful Neutral mercantile society, which many civilisations, rather then simply cultures, were. Contrariwise, a Chaotic Good society, disliking the loss of freedom such magic entails, might ban them outright. While I wouldn't out and out consider them evil, stabbing them in the gut is worse then making a bounty hunter forget they met you, great care must be used in their use. After all, you are literally changing someone mind, tampering with the very things that make them, them. Much caution should be exercised in such undertakings.

Kelb_Panthera
2010-03-10, 08:59 PM
Yes, commanding someone to hold still while you Coup de Grace them is definitely giving them a self destructive command. Telling them to hold perfectly still with their eyes closed before you draw your weapon otoh could go either way, depending on whether they've been charmed or not.

faceroll
2010-03-10, 09:01 PM
Yes, commanding someone to hold still while you Coup de Grace them is definitely giving them a self destructive command. Telling them to hold perfectly still with their eyes closed before you draw your weapon otoh could go either way, depending on whether they've been charmed or not.

Charmed doesn't mean you give up your sense motive roll, though. You just consider someone a friend.

tyckspoon
2010-03-10, 09:03 PM
Charmed doesn't mean you give up your sense motive roll, though. You just consider someone a friend.

Which does tend to reduce your desire to Sense Motive everything your 'friend' says. Mind, most people probably won't lay down, close their eyes, and wait that way for six seconds just because a friend asks them to- "No, that's silly" is still a perfectly valid response.

The Deej
2010-03-10, 09:08 PM
Though you're messing with them, it would take a lot to actually change who they are (like the spell Mindrape, which IS evil). However, magical persuasion isn't inherently any alignment, it just depends on how you do it.

LAWFUL:
"Wanna buy some deathsticks?"
"You don't want to sell me deathsticks." *wave hand*
"I don't want to sell you deathsticks."

GOOD:
"You want to go home and rethink your life." *wave hand*
"I'm going to go home and rethink my life."

CHAOTIC:
"I don't have to pay the fee this time." *wave hand*
"You don't have to pay the fee this time."

EVIL:
"Your friend there next to you just insulted your honor. You should challenge him to a duel."
*Charmed dude fights friend, one of them dies*
"Hehehehe, that was fun! Let's do it again!"

faceroll
2010-03-10, 09:13 PM
Which does tend to reduce your desire to Sense Motive everything your 'friend' says. Mind, most people probably won't lay down, close their eyes, and wait that way for six seconds just because a friend asks them to- "No, that's silly" is still a perfectly valid response.

You get a sense motive check whenever someone tries to bluff you.

Starbuck_II
2010-03-10, 09:34 PM
You get a sense motive check whenever someone tries to bluff you.

Bluff only matters when you are lying. If they pass they're Sense motive check what happens: "guy really did want me to close my eyes."

So either way, he still does it if Sense Motive is his defense.

faceroll
2010-03-10, 09:43 PM
Bluff only matters when you are lying. If they pass they're Sense motive check what happens: "guy really did want me to close my eyes."

So either way, he still does it if Sense Motive is his defense.

That's not what the rules say.

Radiun
2010-03-10, 09:46 PM
That's not what the rules say.

"A successful check lets you avoid being bluffed. You can also use this skill to determine when “something is up” (that is, something odd is going on) or to assess someone’s trustworthiness."
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/senseMotive.htm

Might be more convincing if you provide rules

Lapak
2010-03-10, 09:48 PM
I think it's a reasonable question. In most of the settings I've run, enchantment spells are considered more dangerous and more threatening than Necromancy.

Radiun
2010-03-10, 10:06 PM
How's this: Those enchanting enchanters have simply used their gift for social control to make their spells seems charming and legal in the mind of the populace and lawmakers.

Devils_Advocate
2010-03-11, 01:51 AM
Are some enchantments innately evil?
Is some violence innately evil?


Would any culture consider them illegal?
Like theft and assault, casting spells on people without their permission will tend to be illegal for all of the obvious reasons: people don't like having that done to them, allowing it would plainly invite utter chaos, etc.

If a fantasy setting contains a way of directly screwing people over that isn't illegal in real life just because it doesn't exist in real life, it's probably going to be criminal for private citizens to do in a normal society. (Duh, frankly.)


does telling a person to lay on the ground helpless (so you may coup des grais them) count as a self destructive act?
Yes. :smalltongue:


I think it's a reasonable question. In most of the settings I've run, enchantment spells are considered more dangerous and more threatening than Necromancy.
Necromancers using zombies to do manual labor: Not that big a deal.

Friendly neighborhood illusionists: Helpful with many endeavors in entertainment and communication. Tend to be tricksters, but it's not like illusions can force you to do anything.

Paranoid diviners: Anything that you might do to end their invasion of your privacy they see coming before you even think of it, so this is something that you learn to live with. Besides, they are good at rooting out threats, and they keep pretty good tabs on each other.

Enchanters (or, more likely, telepaths) who treat mental illness: How do you know that they're not implanting subliminal triggers or something while they're at it?

Summoners: They use non-mind-affecting spells to gain control over other creatures. How... how does that even work? :smallconfused:

Enchanter secretly Dominating people: Severe threat to personal and national security. Be on the alert. Contact local officials if you notice anything suspicious.

Necromancer using spawn-creating undead under his control to make more spawn-creating undead: RED ALERT! ALL HANDS TO BATTLE STATIONS! THIS IS NOT A DRILL! :smalleek:


How's this: Those enchanting enchanters have simply used their gift for social control to make their spells seems charming and legal in the mind of the populace and lawmakers.
They're not all on the same team. An enchanter is going to dislike the prospect of being mind controlled as much as anyone else. A group of enchanters who want free reign to control everybody else will take over the government and damn well criminalize the use of mind-affecting magic by anyone but them.

But I imagine that they generally prefer to work covertly. To borrow from Scott Adams: (1) If hypnotism worked, wouldn't hypnotists rule the world? (2) How sure are you that they don't?

faceroll
2010-03-11, 01:53 AM
Are some enchantments innately evil?
Would any culture consider them illegal?

Mind Rape is. There are some others in BoVD that get the [Evil] tag.

Ravens_cry
2010-03-11, 03:41 AM
Though you're messing with them, it would take a lot to actually change who they are (like the spell Mindrape, which IS evil). However, magical persuasion isn't inherently any alignment, it just depends on how you do it.

LAWFUL:
"Wanna buy some deathsticks?"
"You don't want to sell me deathsticks." *wave hand*
"I don't want to sell you deathsticks."

GOOD:
"You want to go home and rethink your life." *wave hand*
"I'm going to go home and rethink my life."

CHAOTIC:
"I don't have to pay the fee this time." *wave hand*
"You don't have to pay the fee this time."

STUPID EVIL:
"Your friend there next to you just insulted your honor. You should challenge him to a duel."
*Charmed dude fights friend, one of them dies*
"Hehehehe, that was fun! Let's do it again!"
Fixed that for you.

Wings of Peace
2010-03-11, 03:59 AM
Edit: Also does telling a person to lay on the ground helpless (so you may coup des grais them) count as a self destructive act for the purposes of the spell?


Probably not if all you say is "Lay on the ground and close your eyes."

onthetown
2010-03-11, 06:53 AM
In 3.5 Dragonlance Campaign Setting, the Wizard of High Sorcery prestige class outlines what schools you're able to specialize in for your robe colour. Enchantment and necromancy are for Black Robes.

Influencing, manipulating, and controlling somebody's mind? That sounds evil to me. But does that make Bards evil, since their class basically specializes in influencing and manipulating people to get things done, plus all the enchantments that they get?

Depends on how you use or abuse it, I guess. You could play an evil enchanter and a neutral enchanter and all that would differ is the way they use their spells and for what reason.

Harperfan7
2010-03-11, 10:59 AM
1. Not any from core at any rate.
2. Absolutely
3. They don't have to be laying down to be coup de graced, do they?

Optimystik
2010-03-11, 11:02 AM
In BoED, what you do with them after they are charmed matters more than the actual charming itself.

But Suggesting your way out of every conflict may fall under "lack of respect for dignity or life" if done often enough.

Ashiel
2010-03-11, 12:31 PM
A similar situation came up when I was playing a neutral good necromancer back in 3.0 (when mindless undead weren't evil). A paladin was giving her a hard time, and the two ended up in something of a debate. She pressed that death magic - particularly with regards to the undead - had so many positive applications. The paladin at one point said "Well you have to admit people have a reason to be afraid of you! Necromancers can make the bodies of your loved ones attack you. Such power should be feared."

She then noted something along the lines of: "Yet you with your sword could just as easily take that life away from someone and are to be feared; and are feared by people such as ourselves for your zealotry. You speak ill of necromancy, but you allow enchanters to walk the streets freely. Have you ever considered that an enchanter could force your still-living loved ones to attack you? Would you prefer to kill your own wife or brother self defense, or let them kill you because you couldn't bring yourself to fight back? What life is left for the thrall if you make such a heroic sacrifice; knowing that he or she killed their love as they refused to defend themselves?"

The paladin's reaction was something akin to: :smalleek: