Well, if we could come to an agreement on our own, that would probably carry as much weight as an official ruling in my mind.
|
Considering the whacked out things crazy religious and/or superstitious people still do nowadays, let alone stuff they did hundreds of years ago, may be drowning perceived demonic children is not so out of the ordinary. Even mothers will do crazy stuff at times to "protect" their children.
I think it is fairly clear that the spell says that the target will not be receptive to anything it considers harmful or out of the ordinary for it. Drowning your children, for any parent, is pretty much out of the ordinary; unless, they have conceived that doing so is going to save their children in some way.
Why do we need to take it all the way to infanticide? There will be plenty of situations where the target may resist the spell. For example, the target may see the caster as a trusted ally, but any requests to help her allies might be enough to require a roll. May be the target has absolutely no desire to see the remaining party members alive and this goes against it's ordinary nature.
But the DC to convince her of that would presumably be insanely high.
At this point I think we have entered dead horse territory until a Dev weighs in.
There is no DC, only an opposed check. Succubus has a 27 Charisma, or a +8 bonus. The NPC woman is going to have a +2 at best. So they roll 1d20 and add their modifiers.
That's the check. That's it. If we were in a game, a GM could add a bonus or penalty to either check, but we're not. No DC, opposed rolls.
An opposed ability check could still be said to have a DC right? The DC is set by the opposed roll. I know in opposed skill checks they still word it that way, at least.
I think that's all Ciretose means.
|
|
Well, if we could come to an agreement on our own, that would probably carry as much weight as an official ruling in my mind.
I think we already have. There have been some really good responses here. Ashiel has put a lot of work into the interpretations as well. Really, if we string this out any longer, we're only debating [arguing] for the sake of it.
But the DC to convince her of that would presumably be insanely high.
At this point I think we have entered dead horse territory until a Dev weighs in.
There is no DC, only an opposed check. Succubus has a 27 Charisma, or a +8 bonus. The NPC woman is going to have a +2 at best. So they roll 1d20 and add their modifiers.
That's the check. That's it. If we were in a game, a GM could add a bonus or penalty to either check, but we're not. No DC, opposed rolls.
An opposed ability check could still be said to have a DC right? The DC is set by the opposed roll. I know in opposed skill checks they still word it that way, at least.
I think that's all Ciretose means.
Ciretose has consistently referenced Diplomacy for determining the DC of the request. I'm not Ciretose, but I don't think that's what he means.
|
|
An opposed ability check could still be said to have a DC right? The DC is set by the opposed roll. I know in opposed skill checks they still word it that way, at least.
I think that's all Ciretose means.
If you want to apply one, but it is kind of pointless IMHO. It is an opposed check and the high roll wins. It means that there is even a chance for that CHA 8 character to pull off a victory against the CHA 16 target.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I love how rules lawyers try to turn a 1st level spell like CHARM into some horrid game breaker. Give them enough time and they'll try and convince you that WIZARD MARK is just an understated version of SYMBOL OF DEATH.
Way to blow things out of proportion...
However, if you'd like, I'm sure I could work on your request...
|
|
I love how rules lawyers try to turn a 1st level spell like CHARM into some horrid game breaker. Give them enough time and they'll try and convince you that WIZARD MARK is just an understated version of SYMBOL OF DEATH.
Arcane Mark could be a Symbol of Death when you tell your companions to hit the guy with "D-Bag" written on his forehead! :) Fireballs away...
If you want to apply one, but it is kind of pointless IMHO. It is an opposed check and the high roll wins. It means that there is even a chance for that CHA 8 character to pull off a victory against the CHA 16 target.An opposed ability check could still be said to have a DC right? The DC is set by the opposed roll. I know in opposed skill checks they still word it that way, at least.
I think that's all Ciretose means.
Apply what?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I love how rules lawyers try to turn a 1st level spell like CHARM into some horrid game breaker. Give them enough time and they'll try and convince you that WIZARD MARK is just an understated version of SYMBOL OF DEATH.Arcane Mark could be a Symbol of Death when you tell your companions to hit the guy with "D-Bag" written on his forehead! :) Fireballs away...
I was just thinking of how AM BARBARIAN looks for arcane marks on targets to help him decide if the are wizards. So yes if your carrying around a book with Arcane Mark on it assuming you have RAGELANCEPOUNCE coming any day now.
Ciretose has consistently referenced Diplomacy for determining the DC of the request. I'm not Ciretose, but I don't think that's what he means.But the DC to convince her of that would presumably be insanely high.
At this point I think we have entered dead horse territory until a Dev weighs in.
There is no DC, only an opposed check. Succubus has a 27 Charisma, or a +8 bonus. The NPC woman is going to have a +2 at best. So they roll 1d20 and add their modifiers.
That's the check. That's it. If we were in a game, a GM could add a bonus or penalty to either check, but we're not. No DC, opposed rolls.
An opposed ability check could still be said to have a DC right? The DC is set by the opposed roll. I know in opposed skill checks they still word it that way, at least.
I think that's all Ciretose means.
I think he's referencing Diplomacy as a source of guidelines for situational modifiers that would apply to the opposed ability check.
His use of the term "DC" shouldn't imply that he wants to set fixed numbers and have the caster of Charm beat those numbers using the Diplomacy skill.
From what I gather he is well aware that the spell calls for an opposed charisma check, and is only referring to the result of one charisma check as the "DC" for the other charisma check to beat.
There is plenty of precedent for this wording, in skill descriptions such as Perception for example, which cite an opposed Stealth check as the "DC".
I love how rules lawyers try to turn a 1st level spell like CHARM into some horrid game breaker. Give them enough time and they'll try and convince you that WIZARD MARK is just an understated version of SYMBOL OF DEATH.
+1, I lol'd at this.
No matter what logic you use, many will still prefer to misread or RAW their way into something ridiculous.
It's exactly why things like Charm Person get re-stated or have paragraphs of text to fully describe a more simple spell because of misinterpretation. I remember in 2E how Invisibility had to be more clearly expressed in expanded editions and the Complete Wizard. The concept of Illusions (Phantasmal Force) required pages and pages of examples and limitations just to ensure the player couldn't pull the wool over the DM's eyes.
Nothing new here. Same kind of behaviour.
|
|
Well, that is the problem with interpretation. It is subjective. I would not be too quick to call something absurd, lest it come back to bite you in the dice bag.
I like how people try to be inventive with the way magic is applied in Pathfinder. Why does it have to be so static. If you can make charm person work for your benefit, and the GM supports it, why not?
Arcane mark is a 0-level spell, but it can be damn useful at times. My sorcerers and wizards always have a sigil, so applying it through arcane mark can often act as a warning or sign for my companions, or even as the focus for party attacks or pursuit. It can literally be a symbol of death as well!
"All who bear this mark [apply spell] must die! Go now my followers and destroy all who wear this sign!"
It is also a good way of saying "it's mine!"
"So guys, look! This magic staff bears my mark, obviously it was meant for me! Guys?"
Apply what?A modifier beyond Charisma, such as Diplomacy or a circumstance bonus.
Oh. Yeah, I would apply a situational modifier to the opposed charisma check for sure, and I don't see that as a house-rule at all.
Of course you are right, the opposed check will be pretty swingy and depend on the dice a lot, since ability modifiers are not that big compared to skills with lots of ranks invested and so forth. All the more reason not to gloss over the importance of factoring in the situational modifiers since they will result in more realistic and fair outcomes.
|
|
Oh. Yeah, I would apply a situational modifier to the opposed charisma check for sure, and I don't see that as a house-rule at all.
Of course you are right, the opposed check will be pretty swingy and depend on the dice a lot, since ability modifiers are not that big compared to skills with lots of ranks invested and so forth. All the more reason not to gloss over the importance of factoring in the situational modifiers since they will result in more realistic and fair outcomes.
I would definitely let a player have a bonus if they have spent time and invested resources into wooing the character over to their side. If the target already has some reason for liking the character, why not?
Beyond a circumstance bonus or penalty, I think it is a house-rule because the spell specifically says it is an opposed Charisma check. I may be out of my stuffing on this one! So making it a Diplomacy check would be, but using it to enhance a Diplomacy check is not. Really, I think it comes down to the player and the GM on how they want to expand the use of this spell
I'm not saying make it a diplomacy check, I'm saying apply reasonable circumstance bonuses or penalties, like you do to every other role in the game that I can think of. By RAW even.
BTW you are the only poster on these boards whose avatar is so scary I actually hesitate to disagree with you.
This argument reminds of of the sirens in BG I who charm your fighters and then make them kill you. Oh those things were scary. Never loved that racial bonus vs magic that dwarfs had so much. XD
Hey I told my little brother about BG after I saw you talking about it in the adventure guide. What's the best way for him to get into it he has Mac and Playstation.
What else is good CRPG that's still available?
Well, that is the problem with interpretation. It is subjective. I would not be too quick to call something absurd, lest it come back to bite you in the dice bag.
I like how people try to be inventive with the way magic is applied in Pathfinder. Why does it have to be so static. If you can make charm person work for your benefit, and the GM supports it, why not?
Arcane mark is a 0-level spell, but it can be damn useful at times. My sorcerers and wizards always have a sigil, so applying it through arcane mark can often act as a warning or sign for my companions, or even as the focus for party attacks or pursuit. It can literally be a symbol of death as well!
"All who bear this mark [apply spell] must die! Go now my followers and destroy all who wear this sign!"
It is also a good way of saying "it's mine!"
"So guys, look! This magic staff bears my mark, obviously it was meant for me! Guys?"
I'm not adverse to creative. However, the creativity needs to stick within the limits of the spell.
Charm is extremely powerful.
But it doesn't let them have you kill off your friends, loved ones, and anyone else who is your ally.
Even without that though you can get it to let you do alot of things. Just not murdering your buds.
-S
|
|
I'm not adverse to creative. However, the creativity needs to stick within the limits of the spell.
Charm is extremely powerful.
But it doesn't let them have you kill off your friends, loved ones, and anyone else who is your ally.Even without that though you can get it to let you do alot of things. Just not murdering your buds.
-S
I am not sure when I made a claim that it allowed you to do so. I will look back over my posts... Nope, I never said such a thing. I am pretty sure I was just breaking down the spell description.
If you actually read my post, I do say the GM has to support it. You know, the guy who pretty much runs the game. The guy who overrules the rules with Rule Zero?
If you want to challenge what I said, that is cool, but do not put words into posts!
|
|
Charm is extremely powerful.
But it doesn't let them have you kill off your friends, loved ones, and anyone else who is your ally.Even without that though you can get it to let you do alot of things. Just not murdering your buds.
-S
Really. So the CE orc berserker you have charmed would consider killing your friends, loved ones and any of your other allies as out of the ordinary? If he thought it was in his power, or you won the opposed Charisma check, he would not kill your loved ones? I am sure the NG human commoner who might be your father would not be seen as a particularly harmful or suicidal action if you commanded the big, tough orc to attack him!
But, hey, I was not making that claim originally.
Charm is extremely powerful.
But it doesn't let them have you kill off your friends, loved ones, and anyone else who is your ally.Even without that though you can get it to let you do alot of things. Just not murdering your buds.
-S
Really. So the CE orc berserker you have charmed would consider killing your friends, loved ones and any of your other allies as out of the ordinary? If he thought it was in his power, or you won the opposed Charisma check, he would not kill your loved ones? I am sure the NG human commoner who might be your father would not be seen as a particularly harmful or suicidal action if you commanded the big, tough orc to attack him!
But, hey, I was not making that claim originally.
*scratches head*
No, not Your family, HIS family.
sheesh.
-S
|
|
*scratches head*
No, not Your family, HIS family.
sheesh.
-S
Your quote originally:
Charm is extremely powerful.
But it doesn't let them have you kill off your friends, loved ones, and anyone else who is your ally.Even without that though you can get it to let you do alot of things. Just not murdering your buds.
You say it does not allow you to kill of your friends etc. May be I missed read it.
Also, ignoring that, I never claimed it did in my original posts. Get your facts right.
Sheesh!
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Loosely related to the succubi using charms in wicked ways, you must think about how a succubus is going to truly hurt you if you get in her way. Will she come after you directly? No. Probably not. More subtle. More sadistic. Like a venom pumped slowly. She'll target your hopes, and your dreams. If you piss off someone and you discover she's a demonic succubus, then by god the first thing you do is not chase after her. You go home, and you begin worrying about your family. You go into super-hero mode. Conceal your identity, and cover your house with wards to hedge out evil. You trap the bat cave with magic traps that summon angelic protectors for your family, or punish evil that steps foot in your abode. You do what you can to ensure your family members are protected from evil, even if you have to commission blessed rings from the local temple.
It's not you that the succubus is coming after. It's your family. It's your job. It's your peers. It's your reputation. She will not risk the edge of your blade, but may frame you for crimes, control witnesses, make long time friends into enemies, break up your relationships, and haunt your ever waking moment with the fear that she may still be around watching you. Is she the old man on the corner selling hotdogs? Is she that sweet girl you met on the bus yesterday? Is she responsible for you not getting that promotion? Is she why your daughter is having night terrors?
Then find an exorcist...
EDIT: She might even be inhumanly patient about her vengeance. Maybe she leaves you alone for years. Your concern wanes. She has forgotten about you. You are safe. Your family is safe. Until fifteen years later, when your daughter meets a handsome young man. He's a nice guy, and goes to the same temple as you. He's a very eligible bachelor with money, a winning smile, and a good sense of humor. Your daughter is the happiest that she has ever been. Things are looking up!
Little did you know that he began dating your daughter because that trustworthy voice in his head told him to, or that the romance, right up to the marriage has been the succubus slowly working her revenge to its fruition. You give away your daughter on her wedding day, delivering her into the hands of the very succubus you fought fifteen years ago. During the wedding night, her husband takes off that ring of protection from evil you told her to never take off by sucking on her fingers playfully. Now she has her...
EDIT 2: But what does she do with her? Does she send her after you? No. The husband has lost his usefulness. Kill him the voice whispers. So her husband's wedding night is his last. He made you take off daddy's ring, but you're sure that you don't need it anymore. You cast it into the garden, along with with the dagger. You can't remember why, but he deserved to die and it was a good idea to kill him. The police come, and take you away in chains. The town talks about the night when the old hero's daughter stabbed her new husband twelve times. Resist them! the voice in your head cries out, and you fight with the police, kicking and screaming like a mad woman until they throw you in a cart. Your father comes by, but the police won't let him approach the coach, no matter if he is a local hero. You look out at him and he sees your blood stained hands upon the bars, and sees that the ring he gave you is not there. His face turns pale...
He knows...
Guys, I've read everything everyone's said on this thread and, having thought it over, I think we should just go back to yelling at each other about Antagonize.
Okay, seriously now: It seems pretty simply stated in the description of Charm that it makes the target regard you as friendly as relates to the diplomacy skill; it's worth considering that there's a higher level of "I like you" than friendly. It's written into the spell description of Charm that it doesn't make the target "helpful."
However any player out there has rule-lawyered a DM, Charm just can't be more powerful than Dominate, right?
It is not more powerful, but after reading the charm and compulsion section it is a lot closer than I like for it to be.
This is what I'm saying as well. I don't know why I have to keep saying it now, I've said it a number of times now.Nobody is arguing the GM's right to change anything. If that was the issue then it was just a misunderstanding. Our basic point was that GM "modifications" can't be used on the boards, well it was mine anyway.I was never arguing what the exact circumstance modifier should be. I was arguing that a GM had the right to assign one.
This was called fiat. I disagreed. I still do.Ahh I see. The problem is, the ability to assign modifiers should be part of the discussion, as 1) it's normal for a GM to do so, and 2) it turns a ridiculously powerful 1st level spell into a spell closer to the power range a 1st level spell should have.
It is not normal. It is just a GM right to do so, just like a GM can ban crafting feats or change the prices of items in his game. It is just like when someone brings up a point. I might say "the book says ___". They counter with "our GM allows...". That is all fine and dandy, but what the GM allows is not the baseline. What is in the book is the baseline. Once again when we get into "Mother may I" or "Will the GM.." territory on the boards it muddies the waters since nobody can really say ordering someone to kill their mother deserves a +10 modifier, +1, or no modifier at all. In short it is best to just stick to exactly what the book says. Unlike the planer binding spells which mention modifiers IIRC the charm spell mentions none so that is how it should be done to keep everyone on the same page.
@ Wraithstrike I don't actually think that charm person is overpowered or should be a higher level spell. Magic missile is an almost guaranteed casting failure when readied against another caster at higher levels, making it better at preventing spells than even greater dispel magic readied for the same purpose. Now I'm sure that one would say that shield blocks magic missile and so it's okay. I would disagree because shield is only available to arcane casters generally.
Magic missile is not that hard to make a check on unless it is empowered at higher levels. It also assumes you win initiative. Comparing stopping someone to casting spells to shutting down an entire campaign is not even comparable.
Now charm person has some pretty severe limitations. Firstly, the foe must be a humanoid (the more useful charm monster spell is 3rd-4th level, which removes this restriction). Secondly, it's a mind-affecting spell (not a huge deal but with charm monster it means that you still can't charm mindless creatures, constructs, or undead). Thirdly, charm effects can be blocked by protection from *alignment* spells which are also 1st level spells, that are both very common (possessed by adepts, clerics, sorcerers, and wizards) but are available to every class (potions of it are only 50 gp, and adding it as a permanent magical effect is between 4,000 to +6,000 gp). It's also naturally blocked by high level wards as well. Fourthly, it grants a +5 saving throw bonus if you or your allies are threating the creature in question, which makes it difficult to use in hostile situations.
While am using charm person I think charm monster should be limited as well. Actually I would just have them be one spell. Letting the spell only work on humanoids is a poor limiting factor considering what it can do. I will take that deal all day long for a first level spell. If I go outside of core I can even make it work on undead.
Do I think charm is a good spell. It has very clear and obviously useful uses. I don't think it's overpowered. I do think it may have been a mistake to change the protection spells to only allow the mind-warding feature against the appropriate alignments (the 3.x version of protection spells granted bonuses vs specific alignments, but the mind-affecting protections functioned regardless of alignment).
Yeah PoX(alignment) shuts it down, but expecting to have PoE up and running all day long is not something the king should have to worry about. I mean it makes sense from a certain PoV, but at the same time I think it would just be easier to not have the spell do as much as it does.
Comparing the GM who exercises his fiat to ban crafting feats on the one hand, with the GM who applies simple conditional modifiers to the dice rolls in his game, exactly as he is explicitly supposed to by RAW and RAI and common sense is the most ludicrous thing I've read on these boards. Thinking about the fact that there are otherwise lucid rational people on here who find this comparison to be apt exhaust me so much that I have to sit down and shut my eyes for awhille, lol
The point is that by rule 0 the GM can do what he wants, and it is not "against the rules" or "wrong" to do so. The bigger is that what you do at home can not be done on the boards. You can just use my modifier example of of "since nobody can really say ordering someone to kill their mother deserves a +10 modifier, +1, or no modifier at all.", since that is the more relevant anyway.
Thanks for not asking for clarification though. Of course with this line the followed the craft statement "...but what the GM allows is not the baseline. What is in the book is the baseline. ", I don't think clarification should have been needed.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ashiel, I've said it before, and I'll say it again. You are a sick, sick, evil, twisted, demented bastard...
I love it! Don't ever change.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Magic missile is not that hard to make a check on unless it is empowered at higher levels. It also assumes you win initiative. Comparing stopping someone to casting spells to shutting down an entire campaign is not even comparable.
If charm person is going to be shutting down a campaign then I think the GM really needs to step back and do some re-examining. It sounds like the sort of thing that is said by a GM who lacks vision. The sort that are terrified of anything from the divination school.
That being said, I don't agree on the magic missile thing at all. Unlike charm person which gets progressively worse for the same spell slot (eventually needing to be replaced by heightened charm monster if not heightened dominate monster, magic missile gets progressively better. On its own it reaches 17.5 unavoidable damage at 9th level, which sets the DC to cast a spell at 27 + spell level. A 12th level caster with a +6 key ability is going to struggle to cast spells under those conditions, requiring a 9+ just to cast a cantrip, and require a The fact it's a 1st level spell makes it amazingly easy to boost as well. A cheap Book of Harms gives an almost free maximize on it 1/day, and a cheap metamagic rod can keep you shutting down casters for ages. "Okay, he takes 25 damage and must make a DC 35 + spell level check or fail" is pretty damn good for a 1st level spell slot.
Meanwhile, charm effects are quite the opposite. Charm person begins at DC 11. That's a 50% chance to save against it with a +0. Every +1 to will increases the chance to save by 5%, and every +1 to the DC decreases the chance by 5%. At 9th level, unless you are seriously pumping the DCs of enchantment spells, you are going to struggle to charm anything that's very relevant. For example, if you're 9th level you might easily have a +6 ability score modifier, Spell Focus, and Greater Spell Focus, bringing your DC to 19. You can only affect humanoid foes. A creautre's poor saving throw at this level is generally +7 or better, so you've only got a 60% chance to succeed vs a weak-willed humanoid. Except if you're in battle with them, then they get a +5 to the saving throw, reducing your chances to 35%.
Now charm monster is much stronger. You have a +15% chance to charm them, and it affects almost any creature (barring immunities), but then charm monster is a 4th level spell. It's supposed to be about as amazing as dropping a black tentacles spell into the mix or summoning a hound archon, or creating an army of fast zombie minions with animate dead.
While am using charm person I think charm monster should be limited as well. Actually I would just have them be one spell. Letting the spell only work on humanoids is a poor limiting factor considering what it can do. I will take that deal all day long for a first level spell. If I go outside of core I can even make it work on undead.
I seriously think you're over estimating it out of sudden shock at its capability. Incidentally, undead tend to have pretty beefy will saves, and command undead is way better in most cases. Being an undead sorcerer or taking feats to use it vs undead is just saving you spell slots generally.
Yeah PoX(alignment) shuts it down, but expecting to have PoE up and running all day long is not something the king should have to worry about. I mean it makes sense from a certain PoV, but at the same time I think it would just be easier to not have the spell do as much as it does.
I disagree actually. In fact, I think that any ruler worth their salt should already have such defenses, simply because even getting into their good graces with such magics could be enough to usurp them. Also, I'd like to point out that...
If a king was taken down by charm person cast on him, I would be excessively disappointed in both that king and the GM, because I'd want to know why that king wasn't bumped off a long, long time ago. Especially since adepts, aristocrats, and experts all have great will saves (all NPC classes I would expect for an King) or one might expect that a king might be a heroic class and all that entails.
I run it strait, with charm being just as powerful as I've described it being here, and yet it's still seen as a risky endeavor by my players. I have been amused by one of the PCs though, because she has made her current character modeled after a siren/sea witch (she is a merfolk wilder with the psionic version of charm person/monster) and she has had the most luck with charming out of characters I've seen in a long time (though to be fair, she's optimized the DCs pretty damn hard, including accepting some LAs for certain charisma-boosting racial perks). She can actually land it against the hobgoblin warriors in the adventure and make them turn on their leaders, and it amuses her to no end.
However, her list of conquests so far includes: A half dragon-hydra with a CR much higher than it's will save (it was his Achilles' heel actually, and she did it out of a gamble trying to save another PC who was getting thrashed by his full attack and snatch feat), a CR 6 bugbear sorcerer, a CR 4 hobgoblin cleric, and 3 CR 1 hobgoblin warriors. She's currently keeping the cleric around and out of combat because she wants to use him as a backup healer. Sadly, the hydra-dragon got slaughtered in their most recent battle (it took a lot of damage and then got hit with a bestow curse for a -6 con and promptly dropped dead). She was soooooo sad. "Nuuuuu, Alxaxil!" she has been whining for the whole week. "Alas, I knew him well!" she exclaims. "You knew him for...what...2 days?", "Shush you! I miss our flying winged 9-headed dragon-thingy!", "You know you could just animate him as a fast zombie"...
Siren: "Oh yeah, I forgot I could do that!"
Psion: "Yeah, you got that animate dead psionic power okayed and you haven't actually used it yet."
Siren: "Ooooh, if I do that, can he still fly!?" *hopeful eyes*
GM: "Yeah, if he's a zombie. He'll be really clumsy at it though, so I wouldn't get into any dogfights on him."
Siren: *<(^.^)>* cheerleader dance
Siren: "Arise corpse of Alxaxil!"
Zombie Hydra-Thingy: "Grrrrpp..."
Siren: "Oh look! Now we can ride around on him again! Does he still breath acid? Zombie, breath acid on that!"
Zombie: *baaarf*
Siren: "Eww...I'll take that as a no."
Psion: (O.<) "That was not pretty..."
Siren: "Okay everybody, get on Alxaxil! Yip-yip boy!"
Psion: *facepalm*
Rofl! Could only have been better if she named him Appa!
Rofl! Could only have been better if she named him Appa!
I think she said something about calling him Appa when she first charmed him, but he was all like "My name is Alxaxil, my dear". She seemed to like that, and went about calling him by his name.
Pretty well spoken for a moronic dragon thing. He had a 4 Intelligence but spoke like 9 languages. It was amusing, because he would sometimes speak different languages at the same time, with each of his heads speaking in a different language. It was amazing how fast they fell in love with that monster. XD
EDIT: He was anticipated to be a recurring character who came in and thrashed stuff, and then ignored fleeing enemies in favor of basking in his own awesomeness and such. Little did I realize he was going to become such an amusing character. The humor is that they got a little reckless and the poor super-monster got dismantled by some CR 4 and under humanoids. Gotta love mob-tactics. XD