Domination and Emotion
Actually, that's a personal reading that the rumors are true. :)
I think you think that I'm claiming that domination, as written, changes emotion and I'm not. I'm claiming that domination, as written, does no such thing. I'm also claiming, however, that domination isn't as clear-cut as the rules-only interpretation indicate, which is borne out by AP-writers using it as so. :)
Also, I'm not attempting to use Stockholm Syndrome by any stretch. I'm using magic.
Hypnotism is not something anyone remembers. It specifies that the hypnotized doesn't remember being hypnotized. Charm, sure, Dominate, sure, but if the BBEG suddenly likes their "captor" and their captor begins to be friendly with them, then "oh, it was all a big misunderstanding" can easily be the BBEG's reasoning for why they've changed mentally. The other problem with what your assertion is that it would mean that a charmed person doesn't like the person even when they're charmed. That's fallacy. They totally like the person they've been charmed by for the entire duration. They might disagree, sure, but to play up that aspect is a purposeful undermining of the concept of the spell. BUT! If you need memory-alteration (and I know I do!), then a simple modify memory will do it, simply erasing the parts where you're actually casting the spells. Heck, while dominated, have the BBEG do it on themselves with whatever would be most convincing after your hypnotism-effects.
...
You know, I'm writing this all down for lat-... er, I mean just because. Yeah. No reason.
As for throwing off the entire dominate effect, I thought I recalled reading recently that they simply aren't forced to follow through with that command. Am I thinking of a higher-level domination? I don't have the time to look it up right now.
EDITED: to sound less confrontational as I neither wanted nor intended to sound confrontational. Also, because I wanted to add a smiley and had one more applicable idea.
Look. You are the Raving Dork. You´re the GM in this case, and you obviously don´t see a problem with how it has developed. Personally, I think the idea of party members separating and possibly later coming into conflict is cool, and interesting in a long-term campaign... If it wasn´t the PCs, I would probably want a long-term NPC ally to do similar. So I won´t get into problem with you how you allowed it to happen, etc, even if I don´t think it was entirely unproblematic.
Assuming it develops more or less as you lay out, how to make it most interesting?
I would think that given the Enchanter PC is now playing master puppeteer, and pushing thru with the BBEG´s own plans, they themselves will become Evil at some point because BBEG´s plans are Evil. You as GM get to decide when they cross the line... And that probably won´t affect anything right away, since they aren´t a Paladin/Cleric of Good diety, etc.... But you can think of situations where it WILL affect something... Perhaps not obviously, but high level NPCs checking the PCs alignments will notice something, and maybe not act on it in an obvious way (to PCs), but they won´t be as open/ will be more doubting/ prepare extra defenses vs. the PCs(/the Enchanter).
It sounds like the Enchanter character is gung-ho on following thru with the plans. Besides, alignment issues, it seems like the Enchanter would/should be forced into situations where they will be forced to ´persuade´ the party to take actions that they otherwise may not... Yet not be able to fully reveal their reasons for that, which may make their argument less convincing. Depending on the your game, this may even result in the Enchanter trying to use the same Dominate-type tricks against other PCs - In this case, you REALLY do need to be more thorough in the restrictions you place on doing this. But assume the Enchanter DOES succeed in doing this against 1 PC - they will now have signifigant less daily spell slots, from ´maintaining the lie´ with both the PC and the BBEG. Also, it sounds like they have a very tight schedule to maintain the BBEG in their grasp... Have some events occur that prevent their timely return.... or just really push the time limit to get them scared of that happening. IF any PC-enchantment happens (which is extra problematic, game-play-wise), you need to have a good way to keep the group at large oblivious, and ideally, any players who DO know about it can know just enough to think it is about something else more petty... But that whole issue is problematic enough (and I don´t think the Enchanter should get away with the same tricks he used vs. the BBEG... at this póint, you can say that is a plot device and forget the problems, but Dominating other PCs shouldn´t be that easy).
Again, they seem set on following thru with the plan... But perhaps the plan was flawed from the beginning, and the BBEG just didn´t know.
Also, I would try and think of some other plots of the BBEG that have absolutely nothing to do with making money, and aren´t directly related to the main plans that result in making lots of money... In other words, the BBEG has some side-business that the Enchanter continues to be unaware of, mainly because they themself are so obsessed with the money making part. = More Surprises.
Finally, assuming it gets to a point where the Enchanter is now Evil, and the plot may shift to open conflict between him and the other PCs, you may want to discuss with the player if there is a point at which perhaps the Enchanter should become a GM-controlled BBEG, and the player can have a new PC character. A short period where PvP is occuring (not necessarily at full-out combat level) is OK, but game-play wise, it just doesn´t seem the best idea, long-term. I would heavily suggest the player make a character who is strongly good and strongly team-orientated at that point, for reasons that are pretty obvious.
Good stuff, followed by...
Finally, assuming it gets to a point where the Enchanter is now Evil, and the plot may shift to open conflict between him and the other PCs, you may want to discuss with the player if there is a point at which perhaps the Enchanter should become a GM-controlled BBEG, and the player can have a new PC character. A short period where PvP is occuring (not necessarily at full-out combat level) is OK, but game-play wise, it just doesn´t seem the best idea, long-term. I would heavily suggest the player make a character who is strongly good and strongly team-orientated at that point, for reasons that are pretty obvious.
That's actually pretty cool, as an idea.
One thing this made me think of, is, "What if the enchanter-player actually took over the BBEG as the new character, who became the party member and they fought against the Enchanter (now controlled by the GM)"? That would be... interesting to say the least. And perhaps, with his time being dominated (especially if played without any real emotional manipulation) said BBEG (losing the "E") would come to regret his vile, scheming, villainous ways, and actually do a heel-face turn (while the Enchanter does a face-heel turn) as he's been subjugated by someone else and now knows what it feels like to be a mere puppet/pawn at the hands of someone else. This would make RP gold right there, if the player is interested, and solves the problem of how, precisely, to introduce a new character into the game without new distrust and suspicion. All this is dependent upon the player being interested, of course.
Also, no scheme for "real, ultimate power" should ever come without stepping on toes, successful or not, and those toes should probably be pretty big. That's kind of an essential for plot-stuffs and continuing adventures.
Also, RD, mind sharing "The Plan" with us here, so we can gleefully poke holes in it while mocking the BBEG (and you by extension*)? :D
*Actually, honestly, I'm totally not interested in mocking you or your BBEG, however I am interested in showing you more controls, as you've requested for a just-in-case scenario, which is why we'd be poking holes in the plan.
If domination was intended to be permanent it would not have a duration.Yes it would. It would say "Duration: permanent."
:P
LOL, fair enough, but you get my point.
Domination and EmotionActually, that's a personal reading that the rumors are true. :)
** spoiler omitted **
I think you think that I'm claiming that domination, as written, changes emotion and I'm not. I'm claiming that domination, as written, does no such thing. I'm also claiming, however, that domination isn't as clear-cut as the rules-only interpretation indicate, which is borne out by AP-writers using it as so. :)
Also, I'm not attempting to use Stockholm Syndrome by any stretch. I'm using magic.
Hypnotism is not something anyone remembers. It specifies that the hypnotized doesn't remember being hypnotized. Charm, sure, Dominate, sure, but if the BBEG suddenly likes their "captor" and their captor begins to be friendly with them, then "oh, it was all a big misunderstanding" can easily be the BBEG's reasoning for why they've changed mentally. The other problem with what your assertion is that it would mean that a charmed person doesn't like the person even when they're charmed. That's fallacy. They totally like the person they've been charmed by for the entire duration. They might disagree, sure, but to...
Any writer can use a rule in strange way or ignore a rule. That does not mean it is intended to be used that.
Hypnotism(real life) is not dominate or charm. Modify memory would be needed which is a specific high level spell, higher than dominate person, to erase memories.
There is a dominate monster spell, but it has an ending time also. It just affects more creatures.
RD ask us how to fix it. We have given him ways to do so. He can choose to give a new saving throw or not too. Now we can continue with the off topic debates we have been having. :)
RD ask us how to fix it. We have given him ways to do so. He can choose to give a new saving throw or not too. Now we can continue with the off topic debates we have been having. :)
Too true! :)
I'm curious. How do you plan on taking over the world, affording to hire a bunch of heroes without having minions to watch over you such as making sure you aren't under a compulsion effect or keeping up wards.
I'd agree with some of the others here in that you keep going and working off of the saves, all the while making the Wizard sweat by tossing in some situations where his enchantment could be broken.
For example, the BBEG's brother strolls into town uninvited, sees his brother is acting odd and he hires a magic user to look him over and help him out. Maybe give the enchanter a chance to interrupt this, which would lead to the party possibly asking why they're attacking their employer's brother.
Maybe another wizard / sorcerer has overheard this going on and thought he could get some money by being less greedy by helping the BBEG out and then asking for a portion of the unlimited wealth. Could have the wizard enchanter PC do some sense motives and perceptions to notice this wizard listening in on the conversation.
In any case I'd suggest trying to avoid ending it with the PC as the actual BBEG, especially if he wants to win. Because if he does, he could probably just surprise his party and take them out before the realize what is going on.
I'll chime in on the 'let it ride' side, and not introduce new elements specifically designed to undo the enchanter's plan. The rules that got us this far may or not have been interpreted correctly, but I run with an attitude that accepts the mistakes as apart of the gameworld and does it right next time. So even if dominate has been being misused, I wouldn't change the ruling mid-plan.
Without knowing the details of the plan (if given, I missed them) there's a few things I would do:
1) Require the plan to require doing something so completely evil and repugnant that no one who wasn't already evil would do. If such an action is not inherent to the plan, a complication creates the necessity. If the enchanter goes through with it, everyone will feel a lot better when the party kills him off, probably even the enchanter if he's the tiniest bit of a good sport. If the enchanter balks, then he has the joy of having to backtrack without getting killed by the BBEG or his party members.
2) Do the opposite. Allow a way to subvert the plan into being non-evil. Then it will be easy to believably introduce a situation where he's forced into either admitting his behavior to his allies or engaging in PvP. His call. You should do this ~before~ he gains ultimate financial power so that it's either a moment of glorious greed-driven RP suicide/flee-from-campaign, or the introduction of a whole new set of challenges or him AND his newly included party members. One of my favorite things to do to powermongers like the enchanter is say, "Ok, you win. You now own the village/city/province/country/continent/planet/plane. What do you do with it and how do you deal with the fact that you finessed your way into it while the other similar rulers got there by straight up power greater than yours?
3)If the plan isn't so evil (or obvious) that the other players would be compelled to stop him, let him succeed, disappear to a foreign location, retire, and roll a new character to join the players on their further adventures. Meanwhile, introduce a divergent plotline that puts the rest of the party on a new course with new objectives and anatagonists.
eta: And if you do 2 or 3 (and arguable even 1). I'd do it soon. As in the next session or the one after. You want to be able to have enough time for the arc that builds on this one to be meaningful.
This may not apply to anyone in your group, but I figured I would comment anyway.
I hate PvP games, secret betrayal games, and stuff where a player is the bad guy. Maybe your players are all ok with it, in which case, party on dude! However, if I were in the group, once I found out, I would simply thank everyone for a lovely game and quit, asking them to let me know when the next non-pvp game is, if they have an opening. If I played half a year or more, or until the final encounter, before finding out, I would still be polite but would consider that to be 200 or more wasted hours of my life I will never get back, and I would likely not want to return to any future games.
Now, to be fair, I let everyone that I play with know my play preferences & quirks up front, and I expect them to be honest with me up front if its that kind of game. That way, things dont get awkward later after a betrayal. And when I say betrayal, I mean of me, not my character. If people want to play that kind if game, have at it, just give me the courtesy of not being involved. After I tell you I hate pvp, don't tell me one thing and then do another. Some people have different playstyles and/or shouldnt play together. And thats ok, there's nothing wrong with that. Just let me know. I won't spoil the other players.
All I am really saying is: know your players well. If any of them might be sensitive to pvp/betrayal plots, at least give them the chance to opt out. But if you are sure your group is ok with it then by all means, proceed full steam ahead and have fun!
|
Jealous henchmen plot to remove his new favorite minion.
His plan as normal has him leave the city, sleeping, or meeting with a powerful ruler and body guard. Which makes it hard to find him for the renewal of dominate. Make the enchanter paranoid he has broken free.
A secret society gets involved on one side or an other. Protecting their assets or mcguffin.
Make it a lot of work to keep up doing this alone to encourage the PC to bring the party in on the plan.