And no Law Talk please; since this is via an IoP, it is technically not a violation of the Laws, but I doubt the Wardens would see it that way, and that's how I'm going to run it.
Welcome back.Thanks. It's good to be back.
I'd probably go with Domination here. The other two powers have too much baggage, and besides they both give him capabilities beyond simple thrall-making. Allowing Domination to make fine thralls won't break anything.
Clarification: By default, even if it is an IoP, if you go the Ritual route you are still using mortal magic (not sponsored magic) and thus still violating the Laws. That being said, if you want to run it this way at your table, that's perfectly acceptable. Just remember that a player taking evocation in a boom stick has the same argument when it comes to killing. Sponsored magic is free of this restriction (usually). Incite emotion and domination aren't magic and thus don't apply to the laws anyway.Point. Forgot about that. I think what you posted with the Sponsored Magic was closer to what I originally had in mind anyway, so no worries.
How subtle does this enthrallment need to be?Enough that a pair of mid-level (17-21 refresh) wizard NPCs who have lived in this city for the past century could have legitimately missed what was going on with this family (admittedly, this isn't too terribly hard; one's a shut-in female ward expert who has a binding circle to babysit,
Definitely Incite Emotion, with lasting.Okay, after some thought, I think I'll go with the following setup:
Less likely to be noticeable, especially when the person who benefits already has high social skills. If noticed, easily mistaken for White Court manipulation (and hence not Council business). Combined with operating in entirely different social circles...
I hope you're planning on making him a bit more intelligent than Pavel; his father was the real brains of the family, clearly.
The target can defend with Discipline, but cannot counter-attack, leaving them to eventually be worn down.
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?
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: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.
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.)
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.
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
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.Inserted a "against an unsuspecting or helpless target" clause in the power description.
Even an unsuspecting target might be engaged in attacks of their ownYes; 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.
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*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 (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ReversePolarity)? ;)
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)
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.