Preferred Enchantment conditions

[whitelaughter]

What sort of conditions do GMs and players put on enchantments?

"Only me" is asking to get bound as a ghost into the item, and spent eternity using for it someone else.

=======================================

My preferred conditions are: "the creator; if you kill someone who stole the item you may use it for a month; use of the item may be negotiated with a valid user of the item, but cannot be for longer than their ability to use the item; if you avenge the death of a valid wielder you gain their remaining time being able to use it."

of course, if the enchantment does harm, then rather than have a user condition, it makes more sense to have a target condition, and if someone doesn't meet the criteria, they become the new target!

=========================================

It would be fun with a new character to say "what do you think of my Enchantment? Got it during the sack of the City of Wonders. A pirate asked me to determined the conditions, and I found that it will work fine for anyone who kills someone who stole it...well, it works fine for me now..."

[Shiningbrow]

I would expect the most obvious would be "Only usable by a member of cult/clan X", or of a particular race (eg, uz, mostali, aldryami).

[PhilHibbs]

Cult-only will be the most common. Clan-only might also be popular.

Since multiple people can contribute to an enchantment, I can see this being useful for rewards.

"Thank you for your great service to the (clan/cult/tribe). As a reward, the priests will help you make an enchantment of your choice. They will contribute 3 POW towards it, but one of them will go into a usage restriction limiting it to the (clan/cult/tribe), and the (clan/cult/tribe) will claim it when you no longer have need of it."

Also, scenario hook to reclaim such an item that has fallen into the wrong hands.

[Joerg]

Related question: once there is a limitation on an enchantment, who can add further restriction or allow another user group by adding a point of POW to the Enchantment?

[David Scott]

11 minutes ago, Joerg said:

Related question: once there is a limitation on an enchantment, who can add further restriction or allow another user group by adding a point of POW to the Enchantment?

Anyone within the previous restrictions. The restrictions can't be expanded. Although there's likely some sorcerous techniques that could "dismantle" enchantments.

[Dragon]

2 hours ago, David Scott said:

Anyone within the previous restrictions. The restrictions can't be expanded. Although there's likely some sorcerous techniques that could "dismantle" enchantments.

Agreed

[Dragon]

We used something like: Limited to members of the Culbrea tribe who are any of these three; the original enchanters, the rightful current ruler of the Culbrea, or who have gained possession of the item in a matter consider fair trade by Issaries from someone who was a valid user of this item.

That way someone who stole it, looted it from our bodies, or otherwise was coercive (e.g. Dominate Humanoid, Intimidate) could not use it, but one of the original enchanters or the ruler of the Culbrea could restore it to usable condition and pass it on to other Culbrea tribe members.

[whitelaughter]

[tribe only] will result in the same problems as [creator only] with users being bound into the item as ghosts. At a more mundane level, enslaved tribes - frex the Orlanthi in the Lunar Empire - would be used as item wielders by the owners.

You could also breed owners; a baby inherits the item from parents, who have been executed; the child is then brought up as a slave warrior, think Mamluk/Jannisary.

[whitelaughter]

On 2/10/2023 at 7:11 PM, Shiningbrow said:

I would expect the most obvious would be "Only usable by a member of cult/clan X", or of a particular race (eg, uz, mostali, aldryami).

What does that achieve? Every cult, clan and race have thieves and murderers.

[Shiningbrow]

1 hour ago, whitelaughter said:

What does that achieve? Every cult, clan and race have thieves and murderers.

Who can be excommunicated or cast out... and thus, no longer considered part of the cult/clan. Race is a different issue. But, that's just one possible aspect of trying to instill conditions.

[kr0p0s]

Could a user condition be: an individual chosen as worthy by the clan/ tribe/temple wyter. Once the current weilder dies the item, if retrieved, returns to the abode of the wyter and another worthy is selected. This could lead to some role-playing completion of tasks or a contest.

[David Scott]

4 minutes ago, kr0p0s said:

Could a user condition be: an individual chosen as worthy by the clan/ tribe/temple wyter. Once the current weilder dies the item, if retrieved, returns to the abode of the wyter and another worthy is selected. This could lead to some role-playing completion of tasks or a contest.

Sure, that's no different than Clan Champion, etc.

[Joerg]

8 hours ago, whitelaughter said:

[tribe only] will result in the same problems as [creator only] with users being bound into the item as ghosts.

Not a problem if you kill the binder (even if only temporarily). At the very least, the ghost needs to be re-summoned, a fate that can be avoided by getting bound into a different enchantment.

 

8 hours ago, whitelaughter said:

At a more mundane level, enslaved tribes - frex the Orlanthi in the Lunar Empire - would be used as item wielders by the owners.

Wielders who may claim not to be able to access functions. In order to add to the enchantment, IMO the enchanter needs to fulfill the wielder criterion.

 

8 hours ago, whitelaughter said:

You could also breed owners; a baby inherits the item from parents, who have been executed; the child is then brought up as a slave warrior, think Mamluk/Jannisary.

Tribes can (and willl) be disbanded, with the wyter potentially lost forever. The re-formed Dundealos might lose an enchantment or two if their former wyter is no longer available. Making an item bound to a cult member involved in maintaining a certain site sounds like the best bet to keep an enchantment active, although that can backfire like for the Varmandi who lost control over the Greenstone temple.

A janissary won't be a tribal member recognized by the tribal wyter (IMO the criterion for "member of the tribe" rather than "descendant of the tribe").

It is easier to install a puppet king (like Blackmor or whatever the Colymar king eaten at the Dragonrise was called) in a "free and fair election" (and a crown test to convince the wyter) and then invite the prospective enchanter into the tribe.

[PhilHibbs]

18 hours ago, whitelaughter said:

[tribe only] will result in the same problems as [creator only] with users being bound into the item as ghosts.

Scenario hook!

I doubt that this happens very often. I get it for "creator only" or any other unique individual, if it's a really powerful item, but a clan or tribe item can be far more safely traded away.

[Squaredeal Sten]

So far among my players, very few conditions.  Enchantments suck up POW, and my players struggle for every point of POW.  If I recall correctly the current project is to enchant a rock with enough capacity to bind Krampus into,  and they don't know for sure how many characteristics Krampus has.  I think they intend to bind him and then drop him into the sea.

Thanks, by the way to Austin Conrad, whose Throat of Winter has provided play value for several Dark Seasons.  

[French Desperate WindChild]

On 2/10/2023 at 5:16 AM, whitelaughter said:

"the creator; if you kill someone who stole the item you may use it for a month; use of the item may be negotiated with a valid user of the item, but cannot be for longer than their ability to use the item; if you avenge the death of a valid wielder you gain their remaining time being able to use it."

how many pow do these conditions cost ? seems to me more expensive than the object itself

i'm not sure there are a lot of conditions for standard enchanted objects (aka 1 - 2 pow) it is cheaper to enchant another item if needed

 

But in my opinion, for powerful items,  as others, I would say member of the cult  / clan  / tribe / bloodline / guild, depending on the item, who created it, etc... It could be too designed to some role in the said community   (archi priest / ring member / elder / leader / etc...)

Another option is "designated wielder by the previous wielder" something like a testament or gift.

In all cases something very simple to understand and to check. After all if, to become prince of sartar, the conditions are "just" "be part of the Sartar bloodline" and "succed to fire the flamme" , I'm not sure that a sword with bladesharp 4 and Face chaos needs more.

 

[kr0p0s]

11 hours ago, Squaredeal Sten said:

 If I recall correctly the current project is to enchant a rock with enough capacity to bind Krampus into,  and they don't know for sure how many characteristics Krampus has.  I think they intend to bind him and then drop him into the sea.

 

I hope you find a way to remind them what happened the last time Krampus was bound. He wasn't very forgiving when released on the shamans death!

[PhilHibbs]

1 hour ago, kr0p0s said:

I hope you find a way to remind them what happened the last time Krampus was bound. He wasn't very forgiving when released on the shamans death!

Normal enchantments do seem to expire on the binder's death, but I'm sure there's a way to prevent this from happening. Maybe you get an immortal or a spirit to perform the binding?

[kr0p0s]

1 hour ago, PhilHibbs said:

Normal enchantments do seem to expire on the binder's death, but I'm sure there's a way to prevent this from happening.

There is a lot of tension between this rule and Maximum Game Fun in the Q&A for Enchantment. So much so,  you wonder when it's ever applicable. Is the rule to prevent magic item proliferation? 

[Godlearner]

Quote

Is the rule to prevent magic item proliferation? 

We always played that all bound creatures are released at the time of the binders death. Enchantments are forever, but the nature of materials is such that they breatkdown with time or get destroyed, and of course the nature of conditions are such that many surviving items are not usable by those who find them. We have also created spells which can disenchant an item and grant the caster a portion of the POW used in creating the original item. All of these things together keep the nimber of magic items in game in check.

[Shiningbrow]

Part of this issue (bindings cease after death) is that it sort of removes one of the more standard concepts in RL mythology - the entity trapped for millennia, only to be discovered by a random person, and all sorts of hilarity ensues.

[PhilHibbs]

9 hours ago, Shiningbrow said:

Part of this issue (bindings cease after death) is that it sort of removes one of the more standard concepts in RL mythology - the entity trapped for millennia, only to be discovered by a random person, and all sorts of hilarity ensues.

Normal bindings, created with just a couple of points of POW and no exotic procedures, release on death. Not all kinds of bindings have to. One of the scenarios in The Pegasus Plateau has an example.

[Joerg]

Get a spirit to cast the Binding. The binding spirit is essentially immortal.

[HreshtIronBorne]

1 hour ago, Joerg said:

Get a spirit to cast the Binding. The binding spirit is essentially immortal.

As a sort of corollary, can a Wyter do this for a group that has one? 

[Shiningbrow]

3 hours ago, Joerg said:

Get a spirit to cast the Binding. The binding spirit is essentially immortal.

While that may be the case, technically, there's been big arguments in other threads about whether someone can be forced to contribute POW to enchantments. I see no reason for the same to not apply to spirits. (of course, it may be that the spirit is more than willing, but how likely is that to be?)