OK, need some help on this issue since it must be resolved before my next game session (or two).
In my current game, two characters (one a priest, one a ranger) were Charmed by a Beholder (see associated thread in 2e forum for questions relating to that monster). Both are now under the sway of that fell creature. All my player knows is that two of his characters were Charmed but he doesn't know by what, or how. I am keeping that hidden until the rest of his party faces off with the monster in its lair.
Anyhow, here is my quandary. I know that characters Charmed by monsters are treated differently than by the mage or priest spell of the same name. The Beholder can exert powerful 'control' over the characters (but not suicidal commands) enough to turn them against their allies. I fully plan to do this.
I am not so concerned about the ranger. My main focus is on the Charmed priest and how much access to the full array of spells granted him by his patron Power. I know that basic spells (levels 1-2) are minor in nature, whereas those of 3rd and higher are granted by the direct intervention of intermediates serving the Power.
Would this cleric be able to utilize ALL of the spells of his magical arsenal?
This situation is not without precedence in a module! For those of you familiar with Against the Cult of the Reptile God (wow, LONG time since I uttered that name! one of my faves), there were priests of Merikka who were Charmed by the power of the spirit naga. These clerics, though tormented by the magical domination, apparently, if memory serves me correctly, could use all the spells in their repertoire.
Shouldn't I allow likewise with this Charmed priest? Of course, there will be some type of 'atonement' he may need to enact, granted that he survives long enough to be rescued and the magic removed!
I am interested in your various ideas, including that you may disagree with the way the module handled this situation. I am open to suggestions.
I am also interested in how you would handle the 'atonement' for this priest, including any intermediate 'penalties' he may accrue for acting outside the dictates of his faith. If it helps, he's a specialty priest of Fharlanghn.
I would allow access to all spells for now. As the gods are not watching every priest 100% of the time. Also the god will give the priest the ability to use the granted abilities given to them by the god. If the priest cannot over come the beholders will over time the god will stop granting the priest powers.
In the end its the DM's decision. However, give the priest the opportunity to fail in his duty first. After all defending or fighting ones friends ids trivial to a god. "Are you spreading my will and faith in your actions?" "How, long have you abandoned my teachings and followed another path?" "You will not receive any more gifts from me." "As you have abandoned me I shall abandon you."
The charmed cleric could use the full array of spells, but consider that the cleric doesn't then suddenly consider their companions enemies, just friends that are trying to hurt "an even more trusted friend". The cleric is within their rights to use hold spells and such in order to cripple rather than kill. If all such spells are used, then more drastic means could be used. And of course the cleric can heal the heck out of the beholder too.
As to atonement, it all depends on how drastic the cleric ends up getting with his companions. Serious wounding/death of a companion could result in some major penalties, such as loss of all spells (or at least those above above 2nd level) until an atonement is completed. Very much up to the DM though. _________________ - Moderator/Admin (in some areas)/Member -
Last edited by Cebrion on Mon Jul 30, 2012 6:15 am; edited 1 time in total
For precedent the other way, see L1 The Secret of Bone Hill, wherein...
[spoiler]
...Qualton the schizophrenic abbot secretly prayed to an evil deity for his 3rd-level spells.
[/spoiler]
My rationale for the clerics in N1 is that the naga deity Shekinester was the true power behind the "reptile god" cult, and it was she who actually granted their 3rd-level spells.
Thanks for the tips, fellas. I was thinking along those lines, but wanted a general consensus before turning loose my 'new toys' against their friends.
Another thing... the Charm ability only grants the monster basic communication with its subjects, not full, 'speaking' ability, correct? It's not as if the Beholder can 'talk' with them via the link, from my understanding, only give minor commands and the like. Or am I in error?
The charm ability does not grant communication. So unless they can both understand each other already the best the spell will do is convince them they are in the friend zone. However, whose to say the beholder does not have telepathic communication from some other source. Otherwise they would need so common form of communication.
According to 1e DMG on page 65, there is basic command ability, even to the point where friends betray their friends. I was just wondering how far the 'speaking ability' extends, as it doesn't seem to grant, say, a Tongues or Comprehend Languages power. Otherwise, creatures with Charming power would be at a severe penalty in using this ability; it would almost be useless.
2e DMG, pages 63-64, also addresses the issue of Charmed characters, likewise mentioning there is telepathic 'control,' without the need for verbal communication.
I guess I am asking how far this level of communcation extends.
Finally, I am under the distinctive impression that the Charmed characters WILL use deadly force to protect the Beholder and its interests...
Finally, I am under the distinctive impression that the Charmed characters WILL use deadly force to protect the Beholder and its interests...
thanks,
Lanthorn
It all depends on how you interpret this from the DMG under Monster Charm Powers (same section you referenced above) - "This relatively complete control of the charmee's mind enables the charmer to make the victim almost totally subject to its will, including giving up personal possessions, betraying associates, and so forth."
How far will they go in betraying associates? I'm with Lanthorn in thinking they'd use deadly force, but Ceb does make a good point about only using non-lethal powers. One thing you might consider is allowing the charmed characters a saving throw to shake off the charm if he or she is ordered to use deadly force against allies.
Nice quandary. In a 3.5e game I DMed, a different monster (a kaorti sorcerer) sometimes dominated two PCs who had relatively poor Will saves.
The monster didn't use a charm spell but instead a higher level spell, dominate person, which provides for control of the subject through a telepathic link, but which would be limited if the monster and PC lacked a common language. (In our case, the monster knew Common, so it was able to control the PCs completely.)
In your case, if you plan to use charm person, instead of dominate person, then I would rule there to be no telepathic link, and hence even less ability to communicate control. Instead, the "charmed" PCs would merely feel strong affection for their monster, and act based on that, e.g., interfering with other PCs' attacks, casting beneficial spells on the monster, etc.
From the initial post, it sounds like the beholder's charm ability might be better structured by the more powerful, later edition(?) spell effect.
Regarding ability to regain spells, I think you should play it be ear: a god or its servant is unlikely to limit a cleric's access to higher spells unless there is a substantial problem of faith and/or alignment. Once this occurs, it's time for uneasy dreams, signs and portents, etc. to clue the PC into the rising problem. However, if charmed, then the character will nevertheless feel compelled to aid its "friend."
In 2e, iirc, this would make atonement relatively easy, as the out-of-alignment conduct (heresy) was not voluntary but magically compelled.
According to the 1e and 2e DMG's, monster Charm ability is stronger than the spells available to characters via spell. One could make the argument that the Beholder is, technically, using a spell variation, and that the power of their eyes is not an 'innate' power or ability, and thusly, is no more potent that mage or priest Charm spells...
Furthermore, it states (in both books, I believe) that the controlling monster does have a link between itself and the charmed subject, and that communcation is not a problem. Yet this doesn't really tell me how in-depth or to what degree the monster (in this case, the Beholder) and the subject (character) can communicate.
Additionally, the spell you mentioned above seems to be the Domination 5th lvl wizard spell of 2e.
I am leaning more towards the interpretation that it is more powerful than the Charm spell of the same name, but that could be my perspective only. However, I am keeping into consideration any and all suggestions made on this thread, and thank everyone who contributed.
Charm person includes no telepathic communication. The beholder's champ person eye ray effect is not the same as a vampire's charm ability, as it works just like the charm person spell and so the beholder must tell the charmed individual what to do. Fortunately, beholders are rather smart and will usually speak a few of the more common languages of those they might come in contact with. Their Monstrous Compendium entry says they are likely to parlay with particularly powerful parties, so they do talk.
Side note: a simple protection from evil spell blocks out the influence of a charm person spell (though it does not dispel it). _________________ - Moderator/Admin (in some areas)/Member -
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Canonfire! is a production of the Thursday Group in assocation with GREYtalk and Canonfire! Enterprises
