Lie as mind control

[Scorus]

The way that the Lie spell is written, it could be used to force a character to do something. A simple "You desperately want to..." or "Your family will be killed if you don't..." would result in them doing something they wouldn't ever do (jump off a cliff, attack their friends, give them all their money). I'm guessing this wasn't the intent of a spell that doesn't even require POW vs. POW? If not, what language would work to prevent this?

The text of the spell:

This spell can be cast undetectably right as a trickster tells a lie. Anyone hearing the lie automatically believes it to be true, no matter how outrageous it is. They continue to believe it until they have incontrovertible evidence of its falsehood, or for at least one full melee round in any case.

[Lordabdul]

47 minutes ago, Scorus said:

I'm guessing this wasn't the intent of a spell that doesn't even require POW vs. POW?

I know that this is confusing because some spells mention the resistance roll (POW vs POW) and some other don't, but, in fact, all spells except noted otherwise require a resistance roll.

It's an interesting question however (and not addressed in the rules) what happens if the caster fails the resistance roll... would the target be aware of it? I'm tempted to say "yes" at least in the case of a fumble. I might be a nice GM and let the target stay unaware if it's just a normal failure.

Edited October 21, 2020 by lordabdul

[Scorus]

34 minutes ago, lordabdul said:

I know that this is confusing because some spells mention the resistance roll (POW vs POW) and some other don't, but, in fact, all spells except noted otherwise require a resistance roll.

It's an interesting question however (and not addressed in the rules) what happens if the caster fails the resistance roll... would the target be aware of it? I'm tempted to say "yes" at least in the case of a fumble. I might be a nice GM and let the target stay unaware if it's just a normal failure.

Wow, I didn't realize that! Still seems a little on the powerful side since it could make someone commit suicide!

Since this spell specifically says it is undetectable, I would think it would not be 'felt' if it failed.

[Rodney Dangerduck]

43 minutes ago, lordabdul said:

all spells except noted otherwise require a resistance roll

Spell text says "automatically", seems clear to me that there is no resistance roll.

IMO, this spell is ridiculous, with or without a resistance roll.

 

Edited October 21, 2020 by Rodney Dangerduck

[Joerg]

If the Lie spell is a manifestation of the Illusion rune, it creates a variant reality for all in hearing range (who understands the language?) that makes the things said by the caster Truth. You don't get a saving throw against an illusionary wall, either, the visual component remains even if you walk through it, and its touch component may be present without any visual component if so desired, but can be overcome by a STR vs STR check or (in case of an illusion made to carry stuff) a SIZ vs STR check.

 

What's the deal with something that's provably counter-factual?

"You know that you can trust me" isn't easily disproven, although a party traveling with a Trickster might very well wear badges inscribed with "you can't trust <Trickster name>". But then, the Trickster may up the ante and add: "You know how much, my friends wear badges to that effect." without inciting anyone to actually check what these badges are saying.

"We are all friends here, the plan was to be meeting peacefully" may have an effect similar to Befuddle (after a Befuddle victim has been overcome).

 

[Lordabdul]

45 minutes ago, Rodney Dangerduck said:

Spell text says "automatically", seems clear to me that there is no resistance roll.

I wouldn't assign this meaning to the word "automatically" here. Feel free to interpret it otherwise.

21 minutes ago, Joerg said:

What's the deal with something that's provably counter-factual?

The text gives an example that's clearly intentionally outlandish ("the sun isn't going to rise tomorrow"), so I'd say pretty much anything goes.

Where I don't agree that this spell is "ridiculous" or can be "abused" is that the caster can only control what the target believes. You can't predict what the target will do about it, and I think that's where the GM can have fun with it. You tell them "your family will be killed if you don't....", it doesn't mean they'll do that. It means they'll believe that something or someone is threatening their family and only doing "whatever" will save them. What kind of danger are they in? Where are they? How does the action relates to the danger they're in? Is a spirit responsible, or a God, or a band of trolls, or the Lunars? The target might have a lot of questions for you all of a sudden -- maybe they will think you're just the messenger, or maybe they'll think you're in on it and draw a sword. Maybe they'll rush to check on their family. Anything could happen.

I think the Lie spell is the most ripe for misuse and the GM making a player regret trying to abuse it. It's a spell that requires careful dosage: not too little, not too much.

Edited October 21, 2020 by lordabdul

[Joerg]

I asked about provably counterfactual statements.

Quote

The text gives an example that's clearly intentionally outlandish ("the sun isn't going to rise tomorrow"), so I'd say pretty much anything goes.

This proof is only available on the next dawn.

"There is no sun in the sky" is immediately falsifiable.

"The sun is crashing down on us" at least takes a minute or two to falsify.

"You cannot see the sun in the sky" is really the case where the GM has to decide how much mind control you can exert.

"These aren't the droids that you're looking for" probably is the classical example for this spell.

 

Edited October 21, 2020 by Joerg

[Lordabdul]

1 hour ago, Joerg said:

I asked about provably counterfactual statements.

Then I guess your spell dissipates immediately?

For example, if you say "there is no sun in the sky", then looking up will resolve it, and you potentially wasted a Rune Point (unless you wanted someone to look up!). But saying "there is no sun in the sky, the bright thing is Sedenya's bright and illuminated aspect", or some other explanation/excuse, will prevent the spell from fizzing out.

[Rodney Dangerduck]

2 hours ago, lordabdul said:

all spells except noted otherwise require a resistance roll.

A friend pointed out an even better counterargument why Lie requires no resistance roll: you cast it on yourself.

[Lordabdul]

Just now, Rodney Dangerduck said:

A friend pointed out an even better counterargument why Lie requires no resistance roll: you cast it on yourself.

Casting spells on oneself (or on other willing targets) never requires a resistance roll, though.

[Glorion]

1 hour ago, lordabdul said:

I wouldn't assign this meaning to the word "automatically" here. Feel free to interpret it otherwise.

The text gives an example that's clearly intentionally outlandish ("the sun isn't going to rise tomorrow"), so I'd say pretty much anything goes.

Where I don't agree that this spell is "ridiculous" or can be "abused" is that the caster can only control what the target believes. You can't predict what the target will do about it, and I think that's where the GM can have fun with it. You tell them "your family will be killed if you don't....", it doesn't mean they'll do that. It means they'll believe that something or someone is threatening their family and only doing "whatever" will save them. What kind of danger are they in? Where are they? How does the action relates to the danger they're in? Is a spirit responsible, or a God, or a band of trolls, or the Lunars? The target might have a lot of questions for you all of a sudden -- maybe they will think you're just the messenger, or maybe they'll think you're in on it and draw a sword. Maybe they'll rush to check on their family. Anything could happen.

I think the Lie spell is the most ripe for misuse and the GM making a player regret trying to abuse it. It's a spell that requires careful dosage: not too little, not too much.

This is Glorantha. Whether the sun rises tomorrow is never automatic, although persuading Yelm not to rise tomorrow would be a big Heroquest. Haven't had a good Sunstop in centuries... But otherwise points taken. For it not to have unfortunate results does require an imaginative GM.

[Rodney Dangerduck]

10 minutes ago, lordabdul said:

Casting spells on oneself (or on other willing targets) never requires a resistance roll, though.

Agreed.  And since you cast Lie on yourself, not the people listening, there is no resistance roll.  It just works.

Since it was an instant spell that is now "gone", nor can it be dispelled.

[Glorion]

3 hours ago, lordabdul said:

I know that this is confusing because some spells mention the resistance roll (POW vs POW) and some other don't, but, in fact, all spells except noted otherwise require a resistance roll.

It's an interesting question however (and not addressed in the rules) what happens if the caster fails the resistance roll... would the target be aware of it? I'm tempted to say "yes" at least in the case of a fumble. I might be a nice GM and let the target stay unaware if it's just a normal failure.

As has been pointed out, this is irrelevant because you don't cast it on others, you cast it on yourself. However, I am not sure that means you do not resist it if you are a Trickster, come to think of it. Maybe you do if you feel like it.

More to the point, it is .an Illusion spell, cast with the Illusion rune. I don't think you can resist it with your POW, but why not with your Truth rune? I think if your Truth rune roll is better than the caster's Illusion rune roll, then maybe it doesn't work on you?

[Akhôrahil]

40 minutes ago, Glorion said:

 I think if your Truth rune roll is better than the caster's Illusion rune roll, then maybe it doesn't work on you?

This isn’t at all in the rules, but is a very cool idea. Opposed rolls for runes would make a great mechanic.

[g33k]

Not a fan of finding ways to nerf the Lie spell.

Eurmali are f'ing dangerous.  There's a reason for all the opprobrium heaped upon them.

[g33k]

11 hours ago, Rodney Dangerduck said:

...

IMO, this spell is ridiculous, with or without a resistance roll.

...

That's part of the point.

But I disallow players who want to take Trickster PC's to be good party-members, faithfully and strategically deploying their (considerable!) powers for the greatest advantage to the party, the mission, etc.

Edited October 21, 2020 by g33k

[Psullie]

believing something does not automatically result in acting on that belief 

if what is preventing someone from a specific course of action is believing one thing, then the lie spell would be the catalyst for action. Used with out context would likely just cause doubt or confusion

[Stephen L]

12 hours ago, Rodney Dangerduck said:

IMO, this spell is ridiculous, with or without a resistance roll

Isn't the whole point of Eurmal to be ridiculous?

It can be used to great effect, and I think enhance a campaign.

Whilst there is a danger it could be misused, I'd point out that it's all about the lie uttered.  So, it's a bit like a wish, that the interpretation could go horribly wrong.  So the listener could interpret the lie very differently to the intent of the one lying.

I'm afraid I'm a very slow thinker as a GM, so anytime I can see the scenario going awry, I'm not too proud to call a refreshment break to think about things.  And I could see, determining how the listeners interpret a lie being such a moment requiring some extra thinking time...

[Rodney Dangerduck]

The comparison of Lie to Wish, a game-breaking 9th level D&D spell, just shows how overpowered it is.

I know that Greg famously said "Kill the Trickster".

But the "solution" to "kill them", or to agree, yeah, Tricksters are "ridiculous", and cannot "be good party-members", the GM must step in to control their actions, is very unsatisfactory.

You are basically outlawing them as a character class.  And yes, they are a class the way most people treat them.

Far better, IMO, is to tone down Lie, make it a workable spell, and actually allow PCs to be Tricksters.  I don't expect this to actually happen though.

[Scorus]

Thanks for these answers and opinions! It sounds like the majority believe that Eurmali should be given enough rope to hang themselves and then quite literally have that happen when they go too far. But allowing a wet-behind-the-ears initiate with a low POW use a 2 point rune spell to initiate mass suicide by telling a whole clan meeting that "You desperately desire to stab yourself in the heart over and over right now" just doesn't cut it for me. It is the difference between making them believe something, which is what I think the spell was intended to do, and making them do something. If every Eurmal is a Kilgrave, then that becomes the story line.

[Lordabdul]

11 hours ago, Rodney Dangerduck said:

Agreed.  And since you cast Lie on yourself, not the people listening, there is no resistance roll.  It just works.

Since it was an instant spell that is now "gone", nor can it be dispelled.

Oh I misunderstood you sorry. I had indeed missed the "Self" in the spell description.... you're right. Ugh. I don't like that at all.

[g33k]

58 minutes ago, Rodney Dangerduck said:

The comparison of Lie to Wish, a game-breaking 9th level D&D spell, just shows how overpowered it is.

I know that Greg famously said "Kill the Trickster".

But the "solution" to "kill them", or to agree, yeah, Tricksters are "ridiculous", and cannot "be good party-members", the GM must step in to control their actions, is very unsatisfactory.

You are basically outlawing them as a character class.  And yes, they are a class the way most people treat them.

Far better, IMO, is to tone down Lie, make it a workable spell, and actually allow PCs to be Tricksters.  I don't expect this to actually happen though.

1.  Agreed that a character's "Cult" can often be likened to a D&D "class."  But there's some pretty big "but" exceptions to that... Orlanthi can reasonably be run like a D&D Fighter, OR a Rogue, OR a noble, OR a caster-type, OR "multi-classing" 2 (or more) of those.   Which... uh... pretty much means that "Cult of Orlanth" isn't like a "D&D character class" at all!  Ernaldan's can be similarly variable, albeit in different directions.  B.Gor Axe-Sisters and Humakti, rather less so (canon attests to a "weaponsmith" subcult of Humakt who know the secret of iron, and who might be a LITTLE less "avatar of death" ish; and a Brewer subcult of Babeester G).  Storm Bull of course are D&D "Barbarians" with specific "anti-Chaos" and "storm" foci & less inherently "nature"ish... as classic a "class" as it gets, IMHO.  Despite the big "but"s, the Cult-v-Class likeness is a very decent comparison to make!  Eurmali, in particular, are "class"ish I think.

2.  I actually don't see very much scope for Trickster in most PC parties; it's a bad option (and frankly I'm sorry to see it in the core book).  Eurmal is an asshole!  He cannot be trusted.  He's very Loki-like, the "Loki" of myth (not the one in MCU who was redeemed, and died in a tragic effort to save his brother), who betrayed the Aesir&Vanir to ally with the Jotuns & other monsters.  This is the guy who will  F_@K S#1T UP  just to see it happen, who will betray you for no better reason than that you shouldn't have trusted him ... and he wanted to teach you that lesson!  Eurmal didn't steal Death to give to Orlanth to HELP Orlanth; he DUPED Orlanth into using an unknown disaster, because Eurmal knew, not the details, but that it would BE a disaster.  In RPG terms, he is a pure PvP "spoiler" character, and I've never had or seen a good game with one of those.

2a. That said... I can see a tiny window for a Eurmali PC.  If the player understands what he is, there IS the sort of "mythic destiny" thing Eurmal has, of breaking shit and breaking shit and breaking shit and eventually, something good emerges from the ruins.  He needs to collaborate with the GM against the plans of the party (not necessarily the players; though it's best they understand & approve that (a) the Eurmali is there to be a monkey-wrench in all their plans, & (b) there's gonna have to be some mythic-destiny Deus Ex shit to show them an ALTERNATE path to resolve the disasters the Eurmali will create).

3.  If you want a "Thief / Rogue" type, there's plenty of other ways to go.  Many Darkness cults have a decent bent that way, as do Disorder Cults.  Lanbril is explicitly a God of Thieves!  Orlanth's mythography gives plenty of scope to say a full-on "thief" can be a good Orlanthi (he just needs to not steal from kin & stead, i.e. those he's honor-bound to support in conflict).  You can (if desired) play such a character with a prankish & mischievous nature.  That should fulfill most player desires to play in that direction, without going full-on Eurmali.

[g33k]

1 hour ago, Scorus said:

... If every Eurmal is a Kilgrave, then that becomes the story line.

Note that "Lie" isn't a common Rune Spell, even amongst the Eurmali !

RQG core, p. 294:  "The Eurmal cult is an illusion.  It does not exist in any formalized sense.  Each Eurmal shrine is a separate subcult."

RQG core, p. 295:  "Special Rune Magic:  All Illusion Spells (Illusory Motion, Illusory Sight, etc) and Reflection."  (n.b. that's not all Illusion-Rune magic, just the named "Illusory..." spells!  I'm confident of this, because of the next point...)

RQG core, p. 295:  "Eurmal has countless subcults.  Each shrine is associated with a Eurmal and provides additional special magic." (emphasis mine)  There follows a list of some of those "countless" subcults (as examples NOT a comprehensive list), only ONE of which provides Lie.

===

Also, realize that even those Eurmali who DO have the Lie runespell, won't routinely use it for mass-murder; graveyards are remarkably free of Disorder and mayhem!  Much better to use Lie to tell the Thane that his chief lieutenant isn't as trustworthy as the Thane thinks... and the town bully that the plainest-looking girl in town is the most beautiful... and the shepherds that one of their sheep is a "Looks Harmless" Broo... and... etc.

Admittedly:  with a Eurmali, mass-murder isn't ever entirely off the table...

 

Edited October 21, 2020 by g33k

[Rodney Dangerduck]

1 hour ago, g33k said:

Note that "Lie" isn't a common Rune Spell, even amongst the Eurmali !

By some strange coincidence, every Eurmali I've ever met somehow knows Lie.  Saying it's uncommon is like protesting police brutality in the old Junta game.  No effect.

[g33k]

5 hours ago, Rodney Dangerduck said:

By some strange coincidence, every Eurmali I've ever met somehow knows Lie.  Saying it's uncommon is like protesting police brutality in the old Junta game.  No effect.

Maybe they were lying to you (about Lie)...  😇  

 

More seriously, though,  I blame the GMs for that.

(though now I wonder... how many Eurmali have write-ups in canon; and how many of those have Lie?)

Edited October 22, 2020 by g33k