|
Charitable Impulse is a spell from Chronicles of the Righteous. I am using the PSRD definition, because I don't own the resource, but here it is:
An affected creature practices nonviolent combat behaviors according to the following list of priorities, beginning with the first priority. The subject continues to perform a priority until he can no longer fulfill its demands (at which point he moves to the next priority) or until the spell ends, whichever comes first.
1st Priority: Heal injured creatures within 30 feet, beginning with the closest creatures and using whatever methods the subject has at hand (including potions, spells, and so on).
2nd Priority: The subject gives his weapon away to the nearest creature within 30 feet who will accept it. If no creature accepts the weapon, the subject drops the weapon on the ground.
3rd Priority: Cast beneficial spells and/or use beneficial magic items (including potions, wands, and so on) on creatures within 30 feet, starting with the closest creatures.
4th Priority: The subject gives away his non-worn possessions—the contents of a backpack or similar item count as one item each, as does the container itself—to creatures within 30 feet. If no creature accepts the items, the subject drops the items on the ground.
5th Priority: The subject gives away his remaining possessions (including his armor, boots, cloak, and so on) to creatures within 30 feet. If no creature accepts the items, the subject drops them on the ground.
If the subject fulfills all five priorities, the spell effect ends.
The problem is there are implications here that I think (in fact, I hope) the designers didn't consider: Specifically, priority #5 with a long-duration spell. For example we were just playing Perils of the Pirate Pact, and during the last fight, an extended Charitable Impulse got cast on a certain female NPC then due to a series of area-affect spells, she could neither move nor see anyone nearby. So 1 & 3 aren't useful--instead, she just drops her weapon, then starts dropping her equipment, and eventually starts stripping off her "armor, boots cloak, and so on."
So we have a spell that, under the right circumstances, can make NPCs strip naked in the middle of the battlefield.
No me gusta! I got lucky, because I was playing with four dudes, so we just awkwardly cracked the expected jokes. But you throw in a kid or any number of people who wouldn't find that funny, and you have a huge problem. And frankly ... I found it unpleasantly awkward, so this isn't just a "what if" kind of concern.
So I think we should ban this spell. I'm not saying the spell isn't awesome, as it clearly is, but it needs to be adjudicated by GMs who can (1) know their players and what they like and (2) adjust spell effects accordingly. In PFS, where we GM for strangers and are bound by the rules, this spell is a recipe for disaster.
PS: I'm not calling the caster(s) of this spell creepy, nor am I saying that creepers will abuse it. In fact I'm not using the adjective "creep" or "creepy" in reference to any person or persons at all. I'm saying the spell itself has a presumably unanticipated but rather problematic creep factor.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Magical traps that, for example, teleport a character into one room, and all his or her belongings (including clothes) into another, have been around in the game for several editions. I'm not saying this is a simple matter, but it's a matter that we've been dealing with for decades.
I think that mundane clothing is a reasonable exception on the spell effects. So, if your table enjoys the idea of a naked dwarf huffing and puffing around after a bout of generosity, then play it up. If the players wouldn't enjoy that -- including, but not limited to, kids or a player who would feel awkward and put upon, then have them end up in whatever mundane clothes they're wearing under their armor and magic cloak.
Aye it doesent say anything about striping naked
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Heh, I came to this thread expecting an argument for power "creep", and was analyzing the mechanical impacts of the spell from the get-go, completely missing the actual concern.
Anyway, "and so on" is pretty squarely in the field of GM interpretation, so I don't really see a problem.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Even just including suggestion and dominate person, there's a long list of spells that can be used dozens of times more creepily than this spell.
Hell, a friend played a module where his sorcerer mind-controlled the (female) end boss to strip naked and do laps for 8 hours around the performance arena where she was fighting to protect her reputation. Needless to say, her "street cred" took a hit after that adventure.
This isn't an issue with the spell, it's just one of many ways magic can be used that, if run poorly, can be awkward. It's up to the GM and the players to rein it in, not the PFS coordinators to ban/censor everything that can be used offensively.
|
Ignoring the potential creep factor, which I think we should, for reasons present in Mike Brock's link.
Lets compare this spell to hold person (which I think is the most similar.)
They are both level 3 wizard/level 2 bard spells (although hold person is 2nd level cleric/witch/inquisitor while chairtable impulse is lvl 3 cleric/witch).
They both target 1 humanoid and they both have a will save to negate.
They are both enchantment (compulsion) [mind-affecting].
Hold person is medium range, while charitable impulse is short range.
They both take the target out of combat for 1/round per level.
Hold person gives the target a new save every round but makes them helpless. (Lowering AC considerably and making them coup-de-grace-able)
Charitable Impulse does not make the target helpless and ends if the target is attacked. It also forces the target to help nearby creatures.
It is however one of the few round/level disabling spells in the game that does not allow a new save.
While it will sometimes be awesome when you get the enemy cleric to heal you, I suspect it will sometimes be balanced out by the bad guys receiving the benefits of the new charitable giver.
My opinion in summary: Sometimes this spell will be amazing. Other times it will be worse than hold person. No need to ban.
|
|
Ignoring the potential creep factor, which I think we should, for reasons present in Mike Brock's link.
Lets compare this spell to hold person (which I think is the most similar.)
They are both level 3 wizard/level 2 bard spells (although hold person is 2nd level cleric/witch/inquisitor while chairtable impulse is lvl 3 cleric/witch).
They both target 1 humanoid and they both have a will save to negate.
They are both enchantment (compulsion) [mind-affecting].Hold person is medium range, while charitable impulse is short range.
They both take the target out of combat for 1/round per level.
Hold person gives the target a new save every round but makes them helpless. (Lowering AC considerably and making them coup-de-grace-able)
Charitable Impulse does not make the target helpless and ends if the target is attacked. It also forces the target to help nearby creatures.
It is however one of the few round/level disabling spells in the game that does not allow a new save.
While it will sometimes be awesome when you get the enemy cleric to heal you, I suspect it will sometimes be balanced out by the bad guys receiving the benefits of the new charitable giver.
My opinion in summary: Sometimes this spell will be amazing. Other times it will be worse than hold person. No need to ban.
That's kind of not at all why I was having a problem with it, though. If you're going to ignore the creep factor, then this thread doesn't exist; nobody's here to talk about the mechanics of the spell.
Edit: Well, okay, you are, I guess. I don't ... you know what I mean! D:
|
|
Link
If you're saying that "armor, boots cloak, and so on" does not inherently imply all (mundane) clothing, I'm fine with that; I just won't run it that way in the future.
But that's how I read it this morning (making me the individual douchebag in question) and others have read it that way as well (I just played with 4 of them), and I don't want to be at an event where someone starts screaming that I'm ignoring RAW because I refuse to have an NPC drop trou.
|
|
LinkIf you're saying that "armor, boots cloak, and so on" does not inherently imply all (mundane) clothing, I'm fine with that; I just won't run it that way in the future.
But that's how I read it this morning (making me the individual douchebag in question) and others have read it that way as well (I just played with 4 of them), and I don't want to be at an event where someone starts screaming that I'm ignoring RAW because I refuse to have an NPC drop trou.
Feel free to slap them upside the face with each and every rulebook you have on hand if someone does something this stupid, one after another.
"No, she leaves her basic clothing on" is miles inside the "up to interpretation" zone.
|
|
LinkIf you're saying that "armor, boots cloak, and so on" does not inherently imply all (mundane) clothing, I'm fine with that; I just won't run it that way in the future.
But that's how I read it this morning (making me the individual douchebag in question) and others have read it that way as well (I just played with 4 of them), and I don't want to be at an event where someone starts screaming that I'm ignoring RAW because I refuse to have an NPC drop trou.
Feel free to slap them upside the face with each and every rulebook you have on hand if someone does something this stupid, one after another.
"No, she leaves her basic clothing on" is miles inside the "up to interpretation" zone.
But it does have a game effect. The spell ends after all the priorities have been met. Removal of mundane clothing is at least another round of futzing around. Plus, what if you cast this on a monk? If they're not wearing armor and they don't have a weapon and they don't have any healing and they don't have any beneficial spells, they'll take off their bracers and then they're done. It's not just about "now I get to say she was naked."
Edit: Well, okay, we all know it totally is about that, but that's not the argument people are going to make. :P
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
LinkIf you're saying that "armor, boots cloak, and so on" does not inherently imply all (mundane) clothing, I'm fine with that; I just won't run it that way in the future.
But that's how I read it this morning (making me the individual douchebag in question) and others have read it that way as well (I just played with 4 of them), and I don't want to be at an event where someone starts screaming that I'm ignoring RAW because I refuse to have an NPC drop trou.
No I think he's implying that those who automatically turn disrobing into a sexual event are the ones walking the creep line.
The newest Thor movie had someone running around naked and it was the furthest thing from creepy or sexual.
If you don't want it to be creepy, simply just don't go there and don't let your players go there.
Venture-Lieutenant, Washington—Pullman
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
LinkIf you're saying that "armor, boots cloak, and so on" does not inherently imply all (mundane) clothing, I'm fine with that; I just won't run it that way in the future.
But that's how I read it this morning (making me the individual douchebag in question) and others have read it that way as well (I just played with 4 of them), and I don't want to be at an event where someone starts screaming that I'm ignoring RAW because I refuse to have an NPC drop trou.
No I think he's implying that those who automatically turn disrobing into a sexual event are the ones walking the creep line.
The newest Thor movie had someone running around naked and it was the furthest thing from creepy or sexual.
If you don't want it to be creepy, simply just don't go there and don't let your players go there.
You want people to employ common decency? HOW DARE YOU SIR!
|
|
You want people to employ common decency? HOW DARE YOU SIR!LinkIf you're saying that "armor, boots cloak, and so on" does not inherently imply all (mundane) clothing, I'm fine with that; I just won't run it that way in the future.
But that's how I read it this morning (making me the individual douchebag in question) and others have read it that way as well (I just played with 4 of them), and I don't want to be at an event where someone starts screaming that I'm ignoring RAW because I refuse to have an NPC drop trou.
No I think he's implying that those who automatically turn disrobing into a sexual event are the ones walking the creep line.
The newest Thor movie had someone running around naked and it was the furthest thing from creepy or sexual.
If you don't want it to be creepy, simply just don't go there and don't let your players go there.
Yeah, I know. Kinda radical.
|
|
We shouldn't ban anything because in myyyyy experience an optimised archer can do way worse.
Oh what?
Hrm.
I think a lot of the tone of the game falls squarely on the GM. I've had one or two players that have slowly moved the game in a creeper direction and I've had to place an iron wall to ensure the game just never goes there.
If this spell comes up, I'd recommend GMs grab the reins on their game to keep it tasteful for everyone involved. Make some obvious reminders about field reports going back to Ambrus Valsin so that an offending PC is well aware that their boss is going to learn about any attempted creepiness one way or another.
Hey! I can have the same creep factor without any spell at all!
<cue dramatic ripping off of clothing>
Similar issues have been around since, well, forever. Even outside roleplaying games people sometimes run into situations where they have an audience and need to speak carefully on sensitive subjects.
It's called "being tactful". And there's no set rules for it.
Amusingly, years ago I played a "wild child" druid in another living campaign that, to other party member's chagrin, disliked clothing as being confining and unnnatural. Made for some amusing interparty conversations. But when children or other sensitive souls were at the table, I either downplayed this aspect or just didn't mention it at all.
No special rules needed, no bannings. Just use your judgement.
-j
Bards, they can get laid whenever they want provided the charisma is along with the right spells and the words are chosen carefully. Then again this can be done with anything that the bard feels like "talking" about.
Step 1) Round 1: Fascinate.
Round 2: Charm Person.
Round 3: Suggestion.
Step 2) ???
Step 3) Profit!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hang on, what is creepy about being naked? If you say it's not being naked, it's being forced to strip, then the creepiness is about the control, not being naked, and you have a lot of other spells waiting in line to be banned. Hold person enabling coup de grace? Totally not creepy. [sarcasm]
If you have minors (or anyone for that matter) who think being naked is creepy then you need to take a long hard look at your cultural mores and socially induced hangups. Seems the Victorian stupidity made it alive and well across ye olde ponde.
Bards, they can get laid whenever they want provided the charisma is along with the right spells and the words are chosen carefully. Then again this can be done with anything that the bard feels like "talking" about.
Step 1) Round 1: Fascinate.
Round 2: Charm Person.
Round 3: Suggestion.Step 2) ???
Step 3) Profit!
That's five steps I count...
Anyways, I always thought you wore clothes under your armor... Am I the only one who does that?
Bards, they can get laid whenever they want provided the charisma is along with the right spells and the words are chosen carefully. Then again this can be done with anything that the bard feels like "talking" about.
Step 1) Round 1: Fascinate.
Round 2: Charm Person.
Round 3: Suggestion.Step 2) ???
Step 3) Profit!
That's five steps I count...
Anyways, I always thought you wore clothes under your armor... Am I the only one who does that?
Some just like to go Commando.
|
|
Nobody wears nothing under armor (esp the chains and plates)
The doublet was an arm length piece of padded clothing upon which the Hauberk/Cuirass was placed. It was never placed directly onto exposed skin because of the ridiculous amounts of chaffing that occur anytime someone is wearing such armor. (it's essentially a buttoned jacket)
|
|
And we won't even go near the subject of chain armors and hair. Ouch!
But, more seriously, just treat it matter-of-factly, skip any detailed descriptions, and move on. Remember that the subject is just taking clothing/armor/what-have-you off, not doing a pole dance or stripping in the theatrical sense.
|
|
Some just like to go Commando.Bards, they can get laid whenever they want provided the charisma is along with the right spells and the words are chosen carefully. Then again this can be done with anything that the bard feels like "talking" about.
Step 1) Round 1: Fascinate.
Round 2: Charm Person.
Round 3: Suggestion.Step 2) ???
Step 3) Profit!
That's five steps I count...
Anyways, I always thought you wore clothes under your armor... Am I the only one who does that?
ugh, the chafing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You could have black censor bars appear as appropriate.
:D
-j
