Mechanics for Dark magic (Vile/Taint)

[User3]

First, some core design rules:

1. There should be no easy way to mitigate the costs. This means that even extremely powerful but common spells like Heal or Wish should not be able to remove them.

2. Dark sorcerers or wizards need to be able to use it as their spells per day without being dead in a week.

3. They should be mechanically different from regular spells to highlight their "apartness" from normal magic (even normal evil magic).

4. They need to be different enough or powerful enough that normal casters would be tempted to take them.

5. There should be no way to taint people against their will.

6. Corrupt, Taint and Dark will all be used interchangeably as descriptors. Evil will still be a normal subtype that is separate.

Here are some ideas :

The Magic:
1. Corrupt magic will do vile attribute damage(the cost) with no save. The RP will be curses or mutations that affect the character and will follow them to clones, reincarnated bodies, magic jars, Polymorphed forms, etc. The attribute lost should be chosen by the caster.

2. Corrupt spells that have an ability drain cost should all be capable of being cast spontaneously from spellbooks or scrolls. (To make it easier to tempt people to use them).

3. Corrupt spell DCs will not be based off of a stat, but on levels of Dark Caster(+1 per 2) plus the amount of stat drained (Spell Focus can also apply). Dark Casters can boost DCs by adding a drain cost to known spells(see class section).

4. Corrupt spells will all have the [Evil] descriptor.

5. Some spells will only be on the corrupt list. The corrupt list will be open to any spellcaster. Any spell can have a coirrput version.

6. Feats with RP considerations will allow access to spells of a certain subtype(for example, blood sacrifice might be necessary for Healing spells or a certain magical mask might be the only way to cast Illusion[Phantasm] spells).

7. Magic items might also be created that grant access to corrupt spells without the cost. They would have an RP cost of their own, though (like the magic items in the Friday the 13th TV series).

8. Demons(and other Evil subtype Outsiders) will be able to teach spellcasters a corrupt spell version spell formula to any spell-like ability they possess.

9. Corrupt spells can be cast in armor.

10. Spell failure due to failing a concentration check still means that the attribute points are drained.

11. Corrupt spells are arcane or divine when cast using those slots or Arcane when cast by Dark Casters.

The Taint:1. Since common spells will not fix Taint,(as per our design rule #1), a mechanic is needed to fix the damage. I was thinking about:

A. Levels in dark classes might offer one-time reductions for each level (with a complete switch-over of levels a complete wipe).

B. Levels in light classes might offer a complete wipe (and the RP consideration that no more can be used.)

C. Each adventure(XP gain) or level gained without any dark magic used might allow a d6 reduction.

D. Levels or XP regained by Restoration spells will not allow for additional reductions in Taint.

The Classes:

1. Dark Casters will have a number of spells known that they can cast without corruption costs(2 per level, I think). Dark Casters will gain spells per the wizard progression for spells per day. See rule 10 regarding spells with corruption costs. Dark casters can only learn corrupt versions of spells.

2. Casting Levels in Dark Caster can be gained by trading in levels of class abilities of other classes on a one for one(like the paladin/blackguard trade-in). The RP excuse is that Dark magic corrupts and changes people. This mechanic is iffy and needs some work. Levels in dark caster will not stack with other spellcaster levels, and PrC levels cannot add to them.

3. PrCs can exist for normal spellcasters to gain small amounts of corrupt magic as known spells(like a Dark Caster, but no more than 1 per level). These spells use the normal Corrupt spell/Dark Caster mechanics.

Ok, so there are my ideas. How do they look?

[Lago_AM3P]

Why?

What's wrong with regular spells and just calling them 'evil'? Using dark and corrupted spells is very disadvantageous and you'd have to make them noticably more powerful than other spells to get people to cast them.

And since people are already complaining about the power of spells...

[User3]

People will always complain about the power of spells as long as spellcasters can dramatically alter the landscape of a combat, campaign, or adventure with his spells, and fighters are stuck with the whole "roll dice, do damage" rut spiced up with dumb special attacks like Sunder(useless on 75% of monsters, and hard, and smashed swag) or Disarm(useless on 75% of monsters, and so poorly conceived that the weapon ends up in the enemy's square, and its not difficult at all to take a move action to pick it up again during combat).

I can't do anything about that.

-----------------

As for "why dark magic?," I say that it makes for good stories and its fun to flirt with as a PC.

The power I'm offering is its ease of use(as a spsontaneous spell) and spell choice(as it crosses class bounderies).

The disadvantages are bearable in small doses, and tough in large ones.

All in all, I think it adds to the game rather than taking away from it. Since people seem to like the idea of Vile or Tainted magic, the only obstacle is a set of good mechanics.

[Username17]

Although indeed I don't think it necessarily needs a set of game mechanics at all. Indeed, you can always just slap the "dark" tag on a bunch of spells and have that not actually mean anything game mechanically. It will still mean something in the story, which is the important part of why you would have dark magic in the first place.

It doesn't have to have mechanics where it corrupts you, it can just have flavor text where the people who use it happen to be corrupted.

-Username17

[User3]

I guess so. Spells like Magic Jar and Charm are basically evil spells, but its not enough to just be evil. Its somehow cooler when there is a corrosive mechanic behind it all.

[Username17]

Charm can also have the special effect where you are so good and pure that even the monsters feel your niceness rub off on them and become nicer themselves. Or it can be the whole thing where you fool innocents into believing that you are their trusted ally so you can betray them.

Either one works, and the game mechanics are the same. There doesn't need, or particularly want, to be a mechanic for how the evil version blackens your soul and the good version enlightens people - that can totally just be flavor text.

Any time you add game mechanics to anything you have the possibility of breaking the game, and in any case make stuff more complicated. If something can be done perfectly adequately with no mechanics at all, it usually should be.

Having corrosive mechanics which mean that you can (and therefore should) cast certain more powerful spells X number of times within a certain span makes the spellcasting process more like doing your taxes - and that's bad.

-Username17

[User3]

When was the last time an adventurer used a monster for something good? Unless they couldn't find a way to communicate with it, they throw it at the next monster. Mind control, even with good intent, is still one of those blanket evil things.

--------------

I think that just the corrupt rules in the BOVD might be the best way to go, with an addition that the damage from the spell is vile.

[The_Hanged_Man]

1089158181[/unixtime]]I guess so. Spells like Magic Jar and Charm are basically evil spells, but its not enough to just be evil. Its somehow cooler when there is a corrosive mechanic behind it all.

Where do you get this? Magic Jar (possession) I can sorta see. But Charm? Say you're a lover, not a fighter. Why is it evil to make somebody your buddy, see the path of righteousness, and start walking the straight and narrow, instead of just slicing off their head?

[Desdan_Mervolam]

1089216116[/unixtime]]When was the last time an adventurer used a monster for something good? Unless they couldn't find a way to communicate with it, they throw it at the next monster. Mind control, even with good intent, is still one of those blanket evil things.

If charming is your schtick, why not tell the first monster "Go forth and sin no more", and then charm the second monster too?

-Desdan

[User3]

Free will.

Taking away someone's free will is evil, even if they themselves are evil and you are forcing them to be good.

Imagine a world were high level wizards cast Mind Rape on every person to force them to be good. Would you fight those guys, or help them?

[RandomCasualty]

Well, I don't think charming is any worse than killing something. I mean lets face it, you either charm the monster, or run it through with your sword, or burn it to ash with a fireball.

Given those choices, I don't think charm is any more evil than fireball.

As for the main topic on handling dark magic, personally I'd just say that you put some tags on spells and have those spells shift your alignment towards evil. I don't think you really need a mechanic for shifting someone's alignment because you don't have that in the game anyway. Alignment is always one of those areas that is purely DM judgment anyway, so let the DM decide with dark magic too.

Also, you could have it do some descriptive changes, like gradually transform casters who use it, so they have forked tongues, clawed hands or glowing red eyes.

I don't really suggest you make dark magic that much more powerful. Have it do some nasty stuff in general, but don't grossly inflate the power level, like allowing people to cast it in armor. Magic is generally powerful enough already. Like the dark side of the force, dark magic shouldn't necessarily be more powerful, it should just be a little quicker. Say perhaps that a mage could memorize a dark magic spell for free of each level, as though he were a specialist. This entices normal mages to cast dark magic, while not really giving dark mage NPCs a huge power boost CR wise.

[User3]

Killing someone in the heat of combat with a sword or Fireball is understandable; you are doing to it survive.

Stealing their will so that you can send them after your enemies is evil. Then you are consciously making a decision to take their lives in a rather painful way(combat).

This is why the law has justifiable homicide, manslaughter, and other degrees of murder with premeditated murder being the worse. Even just telling someone to kill someone else is as bad, legally speaking, as doing the act yourself.

Hot blood vs cold blood, as it were, and circumstances count. Defending yourself or your home, nation, or family are all morally and legally OK ways to kill people (and why paladins can be Lawful Good).

The only moral choice in a Charm is to use it to bypass a monster to get to some other goal or using it to do some non-combat service. Once your Charm-ees start being hurt or dying for you, you are well into evil town.

[Desdan_Mervolam]

Wait, robbing a creature of its life -- making it so it will never be able to make a decision again because being dead really limits your options -- Is less evil than charming a creature that wants to kill you, and then ordering it to abandon its evil ways?

Nowhere does it say that you must order charmed creatures to kill things for you.

-Desdan

[Username17]

For the record, the last time I saw Charm used was against an earth elemental which got pulled out of a planar binding trap. The earth elemental was bound to jump the first non-dwarf that stepped on a step, which happened to be my character.

So our mage charmed it, and we let the Earth Elemental follow us around until we got to an earth temple and had it banished back to its home plane. The charm was used to prevent a monster which had no personal interest in our destruction anyway from feeling obliged to fight us, for long enough so that we could sort it out and make everyone happy.

Charm doesn't have to be evil, it forces people to like you, but if you are inherently likable anyway you can jolly well take the time period to get them to know you and like you for real. When used for good, it's good. When used for evil, it's evil. It's no different from the fireball in that respect.

From a special effects standpoint fire can be "sulphorous hellfires" or "righteous flames of purity" and it doesn't matter. People who are good shoot good fire, people who are evil shoot evil fire.

People who are good use good charm, and use charm for good. People who are evil use evil charm and use charm for evil. There doesn't need to be any more mechanics than that.

-Username17

[The_Hanged_Man]

1089227808[/unixtime]]This is why the law has justifiable homicide, manslaughter, and other degrees of murder with premeditated murder being the worse. Even just telling someone to kill someone else is as bad, legally speaking, as doing the act yourself.

/OT legal lesson:

No it's not. If I tell you to kill, say, Bozo the Clown, and you do, I face criminal sanction only if our discussion rose to the level of a conspiracy to kill Bozo. Even then, I will face lesser sanctions than you, the killer.

I could write editorials saying "Kill Bozo - he hates America!!! He wants the terrorists to win!" and convince you to do it (little different from Charm). Not a crime. Protected by the First Amendment, unless I make a direct threat or say something amounting to a clear and present danger of a criminal act

/end OT legal lesson

I think enough's been said on the Charm/Murder evil dichotomy.

[User3]

/Begin legal lesson
I can only use California law as an
[counturl=4]example[/counturl], as it is my home state and the only place I am really familiar with. Its in PDF. The relevant section is only half-way down.

By California law, conspirators to a crime face equal liability. Even telling someone how to commit a crime is the same as doing it.

/end legal lesson.

So in terms of evil, I'd say that Charm was an evil spell in almost all occasions.

However, a neutral person can commit evil acts occasionally in the service of good. That's why they are neutral and good are good.

Let's face it, DnD is in some cases either blatantly immoral (Charm or Magic Jar), plain yucky (all corpses will be looted), or ruthlessly amoral (going treasure hunting is OK as long as the people you are murdering try to kill you first, even if you are breaking into their house/dungeon and may have murdered their friends, family, or tribe).

Its a great game and everything, but I'm never going to accuse it of being a well thought out vision of morality.

[The_Hanged_Man]

/continuing OT education in the law

So wrong. I'm a lawyer. I practice criminal law. This is what I do. And I'm in California.

Conspiracy, aiding and abetting, those are adjuncts of the principal crime. You do not get punished nearly as much as you do for actually doing the crime. Them's the facts. You are theoretically liable as a principal. That and a quarter'll buy you an LA Times (winner of 6 pulitzer prizes).

As for speech, I suggest you look at Brandenburg v. Ohio and its progeny. Pretty hard to get a conviction for someone saying "Go kill Bozo," unless they conspire somehow in the killing.

/end OT legal discussion (I hope)

[User3]

Rats. I only read the last post and missed the other good ones.

Yes Frank, that is a borderline good use of Charm. Its still evil if you took that Charmed creature into situations where is could be killed (criminal negligence and coercion). Its also might be bad game mechanics due to the oppposing mind control effects rule. Unless you could communicate with the Elemental and make a Cha check to get it to not do the what the other effect wanted(to kill you), and then you made another opposed Cha check with the spell's creator, it wouldn't have worked. But maybe it was 2e where life was simple( not good, just simple).

Des,
I never said is was less evil to kill someone. The same circumstances that make mind control OK also make murder OK. Its Ok to kill or mind control in defence of nation, family, or home.

Everyone.

Out of all the times you saw a charm in action, when did the Charmer just let the monster go? Probably only the times when they couldn't figure out a way to communicate to it to give it orders.

Good is not being unable to do evil. Good is choosing to do good. Neutral is avoiding the work of doing good, and the hassle of doing evil....most of the time.

[Username17]

The only times I have ever seen the charmer not let the charmee go is if:

* The charmer was evil.
or
* The charmee was a character in a video game.
or
* The charmer had no way to communicate with the charmee and it just ended up following the charmer around like a loyal do until it got eaten by a gorgon.

Really. Charm is the spell that turns people into your friends. What do you normally do with your friends? Unless there's some compelling reason to get them killed, you normally don't do that.

All of this talk about evil and good is pointless i the context of the charm spell. It's a spell that turns people into your friend. Unless you're the kind of guy who being friends with is simply an opportunity to betray them, that's not generally the sort of thing that spawns or encourages evil behavior.

Some people say "bwa-ha-ha, they thik I'm their friend, I can get them to pay for sushi!" - but most people say "yay! I have a friend, let's go watch Spiderman 2!"

On the subject of the specific Earth Elemental Charming: the original binder was not present - so it was an opposed check against nothing. Under the circumstances, the Earth Elemental still could not return home until it killed us, but was part of the party essentially for a full week. It was therefore totally in our interests to get it returned home - since then we would't have to fight a large earth elemental (which is something that always sucks, even if you are probably going to win).

-Username17

[User3]

One Effect Makes Another Irrelevant: Sometimes, one spell can render a later spell irrelevant. Both spells are still active, but one has rendered the other useless in some fashion.
Multiple Mental Control Effects: Sometimes magical effects that establish mental control render each other irrelevant, such as a spell that removes the subjects ability to act. Mental controls that don’t remove the recipient’s ability to act usually do not interfere with each other. If a creature is under the mental control of two or more creatures, it tends to obey each to the best of its ability, and to the extent of the control each effect allows. If the controlled creature receives conflicting orders simultaneously, the competing controllers must make opposed Charisma checks to determine which one the creature obeys.

A calling effect might make a Charm irrelevant, but thats a DM call on shady rules, so I'll let it go.

But, where does it say that the original charmer has to be present, either physically or temporally? For the trap to work at all there has to be set orders and instructions given in the spell. Like a level check vs the spell, a mind control spell in a trap has a Cha that can be rolled against, and TK trap perfroming a combat maneuver has a BAB and Int or Cha check. Really, traps have to be semi-sentient to perform most spell effects, as most involve complex choices that must be made before or during the casting or effects.

It may not make a lot of sense, but its magic and it only has to be internally consistant. If there was a rule that said that traps don't get a level check, then it'd be support for a ruling that they don't get a Cha check. There isn't and they don't.

-----------

Second, using Charm to do anything to a person (even send them away from their chosen place that they are standing in) when you are not defending the stuff I stated before is evil, even if you charm them and treat them like a true friend.

Its no different from locking a girl in a room and threatening to kill her family until she agrees to love you and not call the police. Its coersion, and most places have laws against that kind of thing. The end result may be that you get some kind of Stockholm Syndrome thing going and she ends up loving you, and you may be the best boyfriend ever and shower her with love and affection, but the devil is in the details.

Charms are evil. Just because they can be a necessary evil, or acceptable evil, in some situations does not make them good or even neutral.

Fireballs are neutral. You can use them for a variety of purposes that don't involve killing people (like roasting marshmellows. REALLY roasting them.).

Charms are not used for anything other than taking away people's free will, and regardless of how you choose to use them, its an evil act.

[Username17]

What the hell difference does that make? Binding is not a mental control effect. It's a genie wish granting thing. The command was that it had to destroy the people who triggered the glyph, at the conclusion of which it would be sent home.

That's it.

And just like an Efreet is free to misinterpret your wishes - so too was the Elemental able to decide to arbitrarily take a geologically long time to destroy the intruders if it for some reason felt inclined to do that.

And once charmed it did. There's no dueling mental control going on here, neither Planar Binding nor glyph of whossname have the [compulsion] tag on them. Unless the original caster is onhand to clarify his instructions that's the end of it.

-Username17

[User3]

Pretty crap summoner to not include a clause like "now" or "immediately" in his summoning instructions.

Whatever. I'd have let the charm go off and use this clause:

[If you assign some open-ended task that the creature cannot complete though its own actions the spell remains in effect for a maximum of one day per caster level, and the creature gains an immediate chance to break free. Note that a clever recipient can subvert some instructions.

EDIT: Quote tags--fbmf