Michael Cule wrote:
>
> In message <00f301bf8df2$d9bbaa60$e801a8c0_at_GESTALT>, Timothy Byrd
> <timbyrd_at_...> writes
> > but I don't like the idea that given a sufficently
> >high beguile skill you could make any character go totally against
> >everything he stands for. (Like a sufficently skilled trickster
> >could - without magic - convince a Storm Khan to have sex with a
> >walktapus.)
>
> Um. RQ deliberately avoided the inclusion of mind-control spells until
> the sorcerous control spells came along. I always assumed this was a
> Greg-directed moral decision.
>
> I'd say personally that a person has an automatic couple of bumps in his
> favour (equal to a couple of Mastery levels) to avoid being coerced into
> doing something basically opposed to his nature.
>
> --
> Michael Cule
Really? Other than just toasting someon's brain... though I think that the Trickster persuade spells might qualify.
Playing with someone's mind in HW has some very high difficulties tacked onto it built into the magic rules. D+40 or something of that nature. VERY tough to do unless you're pitchhitting for a minor god.
Jeff Kyer
Powered by hypermail