|
13 months ago ::
May 29, 2012 - 6:10PM
#1
|
Date Joined:
May 28, 2012
|
Think about it...
Linking a spell effect to health becomes offensive when violence is encouraged to force the compliance of a powerful foe or NPC. Auto-failure for a powerful adversary reduced to 10hp or lower might seem reasonable, but the implications of deliberately slapping around an NPC until they become vulnerable to Charm Person are horrendous.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 29, 2012 - 6:14PM
#2
|
|
|
Think about it...
Linking a spell effect to health becomes offensive when violence is encouraged to force the compliance of a powerful foe or NPC. Auto-failure for a powerful adversary reduced to 10hp or lower might seem reasonable, but the implications of deliberately slapping around an NPC until they become vulnerable to Charm Person are horrendous.
That just caught me off guard. Good point though... 
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 29, 2012 - 7:03PM
#3
|
|
|
Hmmmmm, yeah, well I can see how the rule does literally work that way. OTOH you're not going to do something like that to anyone you care to ever have decent relations with again, which in D&D probably means their going to be ganked pretty soon anyway. In any case, if you look at the 'ethics' of PCs too carefully it gets ugly pretty fast by anything like modern standards of ethical behavior.
That is not dead which may eternal lie
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 29, 2012 - 7:53PM
#4
|
|
|
Charm person is just misnamed. It's really induce abusive relationship.
Before posting, ask yourself WWWS: What Would Wrecan Say? Spoiler:
Show
My Webcomic
Updated Tuesday and Thursday
Read my blog on the WotC Community Site (updated irregularly to avoid spamming the "Featured Blogger" list).
You can follow me on Twitter: "@DnDJester"
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 29, 2012 - 7:59PM
#5
|
Date Joined:
May 24, 2012
|
Maybe the monsters are into that type of thing? In all seriousness, I don't know. Perhaps it can be house ruled as more effective if the creature is more healthy... unless they're into that.
Disgruntled ghost of the Knights of W.T.F.
(Keep D&D alive, end the edition wars!)
"And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Disclaimer: Most of my posts are based on opinions (and are sometimes humorous, other times inspirational)
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 29, 2012 - 8:00PM
#6
|
|
|
Gee, it's almost like spells that can negate the agency of an opponent or NPC are a bad idea.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 29, 2012 - 8:12PM
#7
|
|
|
Gee, it's almost like spells that can negate the agency of an opponent or NPC are a bad idea.
Imperius Curse anyone? (Although why Imperius is unforgivable while the Weasley brothers selling love potions isn't, I'm quite unsure).
I think the 2e Complete Psionics Handbook had use of powers like Domination being considered evil. I think certainly some cautionary advice in the DMG and PHB with regards to mind control magics would be a very good idea.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 29, 2012 - 8:30PM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Jan 28, 2008
|
Is it any worse than tossing a bolt of mystical energy through the ogres chest blowing it's heart and spine out it's back?
Any worse than a group of "heroes" charging into the homes of primitive ugly savages (and should all primitive ugly savages be killed!?) - murdering their entire home - pillaging - and then returning to their people to drink and do gods knows what?
If a player wants to beat someone down - then mind control them - it's just another evil option for players out of OH SO MANY.
Either accept the fiction for the violent - morally ambiguous mess it is - or instill genuine morality in it and plop some goblin women and children in their warrens. Slaughter ogre mothers. Have the kobolds declare war against the human-ish races because of oppression - and not because "we iz evulz".
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 29, 2012 - 8:57PM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Nov 22, 2007
|
OP,
Definitely going to say just that if I ever play a wizard.
Medhia,
I have done this. It took about 3 gaming sessions until one of the players said "I feel sick to my stomach. I don't think I can play this character anymore.".
The group wanted to play evil characters and I just took normal adventure settings and replaced all of the orcs with female and young. I let them realize that all of the males were out raiding.
I think it was the description of the orcish baby crying over the corpse of its mother that did them in.
They haven't asked to play evil alignments since.
Brave Knights of W.T.F. Gryphon Helm Winner.
Edition wars kill players, this will kill Dungeons and Dragons.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 29, 2012 - 9:58PM
#10
|
- Unconventional Mafia Pro
- Dark Lord
Date Joined:
Jun 25, 2001
|
Gee, it's almost like spells that can negate the agency of an opponent or NPC are a bad idea.
Except I don't think that's the point of this. To me, the issue is that a "make friends" spell is more effective when you've just personally slapped the target silly.
As to the issue of charming at all? Well, it's a subject you can approach from multiple angles. On one side, a charm/dominate is a nonleathal way of starting to neutralize your foe. Use such techniques well, and you can come out of things a technical pacifist. On the other side, of course, messing with people's heads is one thing that starts to get slimy when you consider the philosophical ramifications. I would say that 5e charm is, so far, the least problematic from that angle since the Charmed condition is prety basic (and even notes a different result for hostile enemies). really, I think that enchantment magic is ultimatley just a tool, with no alignment of its own.
While most of the hp-threshold spells came off really well, working with the conceit that a weakened (or naturally weak -- many monsters have sub-10 hp to start) opponent will be more vulnerable to spellcasting, applying it vanilla to charm person does seem off. Perhaps it would be better if Charm's threshold was if the subject had maximum hit points ten or less.
"Enjoy your screams, Sarpadia - they will soon be muffled beneath snow and ice." THE COALITION WAR GAME-Phyrexian Praetor Round 1: (4-1-2, 1 kill) Round 2: (16-8-2, 4 kills) Round 3: (18-9-2, 1 kill) Round 4: (22-10-0, 2 kills) Round 5: (56-16-3, 9 kills) Round 6: (8-7-1) [current round] Last Edited by Ralph on blank, 1920
|
|
|
