Post/Author/DateTime	Post
RogerWilco 08-06-04, 11:15 AM	Introduction O.k. I'm with a group of friends and we take turns being DM's. We're currently doing the Avatar trilogy from second edition, although that's not very relevant to the problem I/we have. The party is level 7. For part 1 I am the DM and I ran into the following problem: We have several PC's among whom: 1. A CG Dwarven Cleric of Harwin ( NG minor god of healing he made op himself according to the Healing sample religion from the 2nd ed cleric manual) Most importantly this means is that he can not take sentient life and should try to avoid combat, heal people and genreally be non-violent. He uses things like sanctuary, entangle, obscurement, etc. He has essentially no combat abilities, but almost has mayor access to every domain exept war/combat. He is a very powerfull spellcaster. As he is essentially the only cleric of his faith he behaves like a missionairy and has a large wagon he uses as a temple, travelling across Faerun to preach his faith. 2. A Harper ranger. Problem Now the cleric has some problems: - As per the avatar series his wagon was damaged (as almost all temples in the FR), but he's not repairing it. - He tried to use Raise Dead on some slain enemies to use them as trap bait. At leat in 2nd. this is considered an evil spell. He had not prayed for it, but just hoped to get very lucky to get it granted by his deity anyway. (didn't work of course) - Biggest point. The party approached a kastle enchanted by Bane (mayor deity) The Dwarf just wants to rush in, but the Ranger holds him by the arm as the party had just agreed on waiting until the next morning as most spellcasters were low on spells. In return he succesfully charms the Ranger and orders him to explore the castle. By mere chance the Ranger survives. The ranger is still charmed, and the cleric has used this two times: - when dividing the loot of an encounter by preventing the elven archer to have the bracers of archery[EDIT wrong name], ordering the ranger to keep them. (only the ranger and cleric know about the charm, and the archer therefore is currently very annoyed by the ranger) - In an encounter with a Dragon cultist (ready to summon a black dragon) he ordered to attack the cultist. Luckilly our wizard charmed the cultist before bad things happened. As a result he has not been getting new spells from his deity lately, making him almost useless. I considered this enough reason to have his deity do that. This has lasted four sessions. Currently the Ranger is due for his saving throw to end the charm (every two weeks) And he's going to succeed and probably attack the cleric, probably splitting the party between them, making it impossible to continue the quest. Questions - Should I have handled this differently? - Any ideas on way's to continue from here? - general comments?
Nagol 08-06-04, 01:46 PM	Your group will soon explode from internal pressure. Start preparing the next campaign. As a player under 1E and 2E, I would use Charm Person on a new travel mate to remove any threat of treachery and then treat them with respect and generosity to demonstrate their friendly feelings towards me were justified or at least that no harm came to them from the spell should they learn of the effect. 3E removed that use of the spell by reducing its duration tremendously. The caster in this case, by abusing the enforced trust of the other character, has started a time bomb. The only way to defuse the situation before it ignites is for one of the two characters to die permanently before the saving throw is made. Should you have handled it differently? Yes. You allowed the charmer too much influence over the victim. At no point in the game (1E through 3.5E) did any Charm spell allow the caster to order the victim around. The victim merely believes the caster is a particularly good friend. Walk up to your best friend and ask for 6 month's salary or for a large asset (house/car -- equivalent of a magic item) for free. I expect the most common reply will be a laugh. If you are friends with a store owner, ask for a large purchase at cost -- you won't get it, in general, because the store owner needs an income too. Anything you wouldn't provide that friend and/or anything you are unsure if the friend would provide for you couldn't be forced using a Charm Person spell. A friend tells you to keep something from another friend? Maybe, depending on relationships and alignment. A friend orders you to explore and incredibly dangerous area? Either it is a bad joke or your friend in under some evil influence. That being said, a non-violent cleric of a pacifistic god probably shouldn't be ordering person A to attack person B. That would probably count as violence and a breach of tenet. In fact, some of the orders given to the victim should certainly count as evil acts that may sway the cleric to an alignment unfavourable to his diety.
RogerWilco 08-09-04, 06:41 AM	thank you for your reply.
FriendoftheDork 08-09-04, 03:08 PM	I also believe you should have handled the charm differently. Now, since you said it takes a week or two before the ranger can save again, this spell is charm monster (1day/lvl) not charm person. In any case, you can actually try to get the charmed one to do things he would not want to. However, never anything against his nature. And this require the charmer to win in an opposed charisma check (or some seriously good roleplaying, or both) Now, getting the charmed ranger to scout ahead probably shouldn't be so hard. cleric (w/charm domain?): "Hey my good friend could you do us the favor of scouting ahead into the evil stronghold? We need the information." ranger: "well.... that sounds a bit dangerous... I don't know.. cleric: "aw, come on. trust me on this one, you can do it. " ranger (failing cha check) Ok, but I could use some buff spells first." Just keep in mind that these are not really orders, but suggestions. And since the charmed once trust and believe almost anything the charmer says, getting him to do something he would normally not do becomes much easier. Still, they must be persuaded! Remember that lawful aligned characters responds better to oreders than chaotic ones. In any case, he should not have charmed his friends.... that's like blackmailing them or threatening them. The cleric should repent, apologize to the ones he has mistreated, and hope not to be thrown out of the party. If not, the party should throw him out on the point of death. Taking away the cleric's spells was the right thing to do, changing his alignent is not. After all, he might have done this for the greater good. only if his intent was to make the ranger kill himself on a suicide mission should the alignment be changed to evil. Nagol, you should read the charm person spell. it is more powerful than you seem to think.
Nagol 08-10-04, 08:47 AM	Actually, the long-term duration of the Charm Person cued me that RogerWilco is running either a 1e or 2e game. In those editions, the spell had an indefinite duration with periodic saving throws depending on intelligence. In those editions, you couldn't even ask a spellcaster to cast a spell for you while charmed. If he did, there was a chance a reverse or harmful effect would occur as he subconsciously resisted the magic. Rereading the 3.5 description, they did up the power of the spell to allow for the issuing of orders -- though those orders are unlikely to function 33%-50% of the time depending on the caster's charisma and are non-repeatable. The power also depends where you draw the line about "harmful". Just keep in mind that these are not really orders, but suggestions. And since the charmed once trust and believe almost anything the charmer says, getting him to do something he would normally not do becomes much easier. Still, they must be persuaded! The victim does not believe you, he interprets what you say in the best possible light: this would mean an insult is treated as a jest as would an order that the victim treats as harmful. Alternatively, cleric (w/charm domain?): "Hey my good friend could you do us the favor of scouting ahead into the evil stronghold? We need the information." "What a great jest, man! Come now! Lets get the tent up." "But we really need that information" "You're serious? (failing CHA check) OK, but let's talk to the party about buff spells and items. I hope the wizard has an Invisibility for me." Remember that lawful aligned characters responds better to oreders than chaotic ones. Absolutely not. The only time I would allow such a distinction is if the order was coming from a source of legitimate authority over the character (his liege, the sheriff, etc.) and the character is socially expected to follow the order normally ("Lay down your arms!") Taking away the cleric's spells was the right thing to do, changing his alignent is not. After all, he might have done this for the greater good. only if his intent was to make the ranger kill himself on a suicide mission should the alignment be changed to evil. The initial charm was a neutral act. Ordering the Ranger into danger by scouting was an evil act (disregarding the safety and needs of others). Ordering the Ranger to keep the bracers was an evil act (greed). Ordering the Ranger to attack the Dragon Disciple was an act against faith. There is not enough information to detemine the morality of the act. So, we have 2 neutral acts, 2 evil acts, and 0 good acts described. The cleric's alignment certainly should be at risk to becoming neutral, since he is good. Now this may be mitigated by acts of good and kind behaviour that were not described. Unless that is the case, the cleric should be warned about sliding to CN. Such a changein 1E/2E is much harsher than in 3E. You lose access to spells if your alignment does not match your diety's. There is an 10,000 xp penalty from alignment drift as well.
RogerWilco 08-11-04, 05:58 AM	Originally posted by Nagol Actually, the long-term duration of the Charm Person cued me that RogerWilco is running either a 1e or 2e game. In those editions, the spell had an indefinite duration with periodic saving throws depending on intelligence. Sorry if that was not clear, that is what I meant to say as part of my second sentence. We are running second edition for the Avatar series. We've also just started a 3.5 campaign a few weeks ago. (We have a lot of 2nd, and are just starting to buy 3.5) Thank you for your reactions. In those editions, you couldn't even ask a spellcaster to cast a spell for you while charmed. If he did, there was a chance a reverse or harmful effect would occur as he subconsciously resisted the magic. I'm not sure about that. I notified the Ranger of what had happened and left it to him to interpret the effects of the charm on his PC. We both have interpreted the wording of the spell in 2nd edition as doing what the charmer asks of you/suggests without much hesitation (the example in teh Player guide discussing a request of 'holding off the mad onrushing red dragon for a minute or two') Anyone of you has any ideas what the Ranger would think, what he knows, what his attitude towards the cleric would be when the spell ends? It's very unclear from the second edition books. (14 day save is comming up, the Ranger has int 14.)
Nagol 08-11-04, 08:41 AM	For the charmed spellcaster reference, look in the 1e or 2e DMG under "Charming and Control, Charmed Spell-caster". In 1e it is on page 104. I believe the rule was carried over to 2e, but I don't have a source to verify. The Ranger would know what actions he took and who suggested them. He would remember agreeing to the actions because of his affection for the party that suggested them. If he committed actions that were against his typical nature, he is probably aghast at himself and will try to make some level of amends. The Ranger's affection for the Cleric would return to normal levels. He would remember feeling much more friendly to the Cleric but not necessarily understand why. If the Charm spell were cast in front of him initially, he may remember the spellcasting and be able to associate the increase in affection to that event. If the Ranger did not notice the spellcasting, he probably could not place the exact moment the effect began, but probably could place the first time he did something he really normally would not have done. If the Ranger is normally cautious and not prone to lone scouting that would be the scout of the castle. If the Ranger were prone to scouting alone, it would probably be the division of loot.
RogerWilco 08-12-04, 05:21 PM	Originally posted by Nagol For the charmed spellcaster reference, look in the 1e or 2e DMG under "Charming and Control, Charmed Spell-caster". In 1e it is on page 104. I believe the rule was carried over to 2e, but I don't have a source to verify. The Ranger would know what actions he took and who suggested them. He would remember agreeing to the actions because of his affection for the party that suggested them. If he committed actions that were against his typical nature, he is probably aghast at himself and will try to make some level of amends. The Ranger's affection for the Cleric would return to normal levels. He would remember feeling much more friendly to the Cleric but not necessarily understand why. If the Charm spell were cast in front of him initially, he may remember the spellcasting and be able to associate the increase in affection to that event. If the Ranger did not notice the spellcasting, he probably could not place the exact moment the effect began, but probably could place the first time he did something he really normally would not have done. If the Ranger is normally cautious and not prone to lone scouting that would be the scout of the castle. If the Ranger were prone to scouting alone, it would probably be the division of loot. Thank you for your reply. He's normaly not so much into scouting, as I play a rogue in the party if I'm not DMing, and that's the usual scout (maximum hide and move silent, etc.) I think I now have enough information to solve this, thank you. I think i'll have the charm end without the ranger in character knowing what has happened. And i'll send the cleric an encounter with the avatar of his god, telling him he should not do it again, or there will be trouble. It is the Avatar (times of troubles) series after all.