The Art Of Enthrallment For Fun And Profit--How To. [No Law Talk, please]

[bibliophile20]

I'm wary of the latter 2/3rds of this clause, as it would seem that those in-the-know, and with the means to do so, should not be shut down in such a way without so much as a roll to resist.  What happens when he, hypothetically, attempts to enthrall a Corpsetaker-esque psychomancer who happens to be fully aware of what he's attempting?

That clause is taken from the Domination power (I mostly just reskinned it), so...  *shrug*

As for him trying to whack a wizard or other spellcaster, they could retaliate, just not via that fragile "channel" of sociability that he used (I'm visualizing the power as giving psychoactive "weight" to words and ideas that are implanted slowly over time; i.e. brainwashing over dinner); once the jig is up, it's time to switch to the much less subtle option of Incite Emotion. 

As for trying to enthrall a psychomancer?  If he was really, really good and got good rolls and kept the psychomancer's guard down long enough to slip in a few suggestions, yeah, it could work.  It would be about as likely to happen as a mouse managing to outmaneuver Mister, though.

[Becq]

@bibliophile20:

I'd go with Incite, but use a customized version of it: Incite Subservience.  Same idea, but different flavor on the aspects generated.  As to making things permanent, consider that if you deal enough damage to take the target out (either all at once or over time) you now have the power to, for example, rename aspects.  This is not a trivial thing, and might be a better fit for your NPC.  A Renfield is a mindless drone, but someone with the aspect "Loyal subject of Mr. Jones" is a free-thinking person who *wants* to do what Mr. Jones asks of him.  (And given that most 'generic' people won't have much in the way of consequences, taking them out with Incite/Lasting/Potent is fairly trivial.)

I'm wary of the latter 2/3rds of this clause, as it would seem that those in-the-know, and with the means to do so, should not be shut down in such a way without so much as a roll to resist.  What happens when he, hypothetically, attempts to enthrall a Corpsetaker-esque psychomancer who happens to be fully aware of what he's attempting?

Answer: if the target is able to fight back, then Domination doesn't work.  For it to work, the target must be rendered helpless, which means they can resist, but can't counterattack, as noted in the power description.

[bibliophile20]

@bibliophile20:

I'd go with Incite, but use a customized version of it: Incite Subservience.  Same idea, but different flavor on the aspects generated.  As to making things permanent, consider that if you deal enough damage to take the target out (either all at once or over time) you now have the power to, for example, rename aspects.  This is not a trivial thing, and might be a better fit for your NPC.  A Renfield is a mindless drone, but someone with the aspect "Loyal subject of Mr. Jones" is a free-thinking person who *wants* to do what Mr. Jones asks of him.  (And given that most 'generic' people won't have much in the way of consequences, taking them out with Incite/Lasting/Potent is fairly trivial.)

interesting point.  Thing is, subservience is a pretty complex emotion and whacking someone with that would be pretty blatant. (imagine someone that's arguing with him suddenly getting a whammy of that; the discontinuity would be jarring enough to be noticeable).  The more basic emotions--greed, lust, fear--are easier to slip under the radar, methinks.

Answer: if the target is able to fight back, then Domination doesn't work.  For it to work, the target must be rendered helpless, which means they can resist, but can't counterattack, as noted in the power description.

And for Hypnos, "helpless" means "constrained from full action by the social contexts of conversations, meals and social intercourse and a lack of overt hostility".  So he couldn't use Hypnos against a debate partner--or the PC who suspects he's a rapist--but he can use it against the mayor over a nice political dinner. 

[Becq]

interesting point.  Thing is, subservience is a pretty complex emotion and whacking someone with that would be pretty blatant. (imagine someone that's arguing with him suddenly getting a whammy of that; the discontinuity would be jarring enough to be noticeable).  The more basic emotions--greed, lust, fear--are easier to slip under the radar, methinks.

Who says it has to be a 10-second combat round style of attack?  After all, clubbing someone over the back of the head is a physical attack ... but so is putting a slow-acting airborne toxin into the ventilation systems.  And the basic form of Incite requires a mental attack via seduction (or the equivalent) which is nothing like instant, so I imagine that an Incite Subservience attack could take place over the course of ... oh, say a staff meeting.  Or a dinner.  Or whatever is appropriate.  Not only that, but the character has control over the results of the take-out, so the change needn't be as dramatic as going from "I have two

(click to show/hide)

assholes

-- I sit on one while the other tells me how to do my job" to "I'd bear my boss' babies, if given a chance".  You're right, that would be too obvious.  But it could be much more subtle, with a series of minor tweaks over the course of days, weeks, or months.

Of course, he'd still be able to do a more sudden whammy when the situation called for it...

[Tedronai]

That clause is taken from the Domination power (I mostly just reskinned it), so...  *shrug*

Answer: if the target is able to fight back, then Domination doesn't work.  For it to work, the target must be rendered helpless, which means they can resist, but can't counterattack, as noted in the power description.

Hypnos, then, needs to contain (a modified version of) Domination's helplessness clause.  The version on the previous page currently does not.  And at that point, the clause I pointed out is redundant.

[bibliophile20]

Hypnos, then, needs to contain (a modified version of) Domination's helplessness clause.  The version on the previous page currently does not.  And at that point, the clause I pointed out is redundant.

Inserted a "against an unsuspecting or helpless target" clause in the power description. 

[Tedronai]

Even an unsuspecting target might be engaged in attacks of their own

[bibliophile20]

Even an unsuspecting target might be engaged in attacks of their own

Yes; social combat is certainly an option here, but the key is that they don't suspect that the guy that they're chatting with is brainwashing them.  Therefore, their attacks are resolved on a different level than these mental attacks, and does not qualify as a "counter-attack".  Or, in short, he can brainwash his victims while having a pleasant debate on the current political issue, inflicting mental stress on them.  However, while their rebuttals to his points might cause social stress, they cannot use the same channel to fight back and inflict mental stress upon him. 

[Tedronai]

I suppose my issue, then, is that 'the same channel' already cannot be used to counter-attack unless the target has the ability to do so independently, and that if they do independently possess such ability, there is no reason inherent in the power as written why they should not be able to do so

To put this in perspective:
Me shooting at (attacking) you with a gun does not grant you the ability to return fire despite not having a gun of your own, but if you do have a gun, it doesn't stop you from doing so, either (unless I change from attacking to placing an offensive block...but then I'm not attacking)

[bibliophile20]

I suppose my issue, then, is that 'the same channel' already cannot be used to counter-attack unless the target has the ability to do so independently, and that if they do independently possess such ability, there is no reason inherent in the power as written why they should not be able to do so

To put this in perspective:
Me shooting at (attacking) you with a gun does not grant you the ability to return fire despite not having a gun of your own, but if you do have a gun, it doesn't stop you from doing so, either (unless I change from attacking to placing an offensive block...but then I'm not attacking)

*shrug*  Okay, point.  I was mostly going off of the Domination power description, where that is the general wording.  Maybe the writers were just trying to avoid having people try to reverse the polarity?

[Tedronai]

Domination requires a completely helpless victim and uses weasel words in it's version of that clause.

[Becq]

Yes; social combat is certainly an option here, but the key is that they don't suspect that the guy that they're chatting with is brainwashing them.  Therefore, their attacks are resolved on a different level than these mental attacks, and does not qualify as a "counter-attack".  Or, in short, he can brainwash his victims while having a pleasant debate on the current political issue, inflicting mental stress on them.  However, while their rebuttals to his points might cause social stress, they cannot use the same channel to fight back and inflict mental stress upon him. 

In the power description, "counter-attack" just means the equivalent of "return fire" in general, not necessarily immediately as one or two talents allow.  So if I shoot you on my turn, then you shoot me back on your turn, that's a counter-attack.  If the guy you are using Domination on can return fire with a mental attack ... or a gun shot ... or a knife slash ... or by calling an orbital bombardment, etc, then he is not 'helpless' and can therefore not be the target of dominate.  I take this to mean that unconcious targets are prime subjects, and ones who are chained to a wall marginally less so (unless they have some capability to attack while chained, in which case they are unsuitable).  Even someone trapped in a cage (but otherwise free to move around in the cage) would probably qualify, unless they had a way to attack the Dominator.

But I don't see Domination being a subtle attack in the slightest.  You are trying to strip the target of all free will, and they will feel that the instant you begin doing so.  So I don't see it as in any way suitable for slipping into a pleasant chat over dinner, as would the more subtle Incite-style attacks.

[Sanctaphrax]

Hypnos seems more or less fine to me. I might remove the bit about helpless targets, so that it only works on unsuspecting people. That way, defending against it is easy even if he has you chained to a wall. But it works great at parties, which seems to fit the character.

Really, I don't think it's worth worrying about. For this to ruin a game by accident seems to be almost impossible. And you certainly aren't going to abuse it on purpose. So it probably won't be a problem.