Bane Thoughtspeech

Isolrem · Post by **Isolrem** » Sat Jul 02, 2005 1:09 am

This basically makes the target room(s) "detuned" - no tells and replies of any kind can be sent, making other communication technics, otherwise less practised, to be of more value (e.g. Flare, if that spell is ever implemented)

Glim · Post by **Glim** » Sat Jul 02, 2005 1:36 am

Good spell idea, though to suggest, I would say it would be better to make it have to be cast upon a person instead of on a room. This would be nice for when you have kidnapped someone and you dont want them calling for help.

Perhaps also there could be some kind of way you can tell when the spell has worn off of the other person, like an echo concerning their amulet of communication.

Lets see: example

cast 'blahblahblah mind cage blahblahblah' Glim

Everyone else sees:
A red halo appears quickly around Glim's head.

A few hours later.

You see the red halo disappear around Glim's head.

I like this idea.

Talamar · Post by **Talamar** » Mon Jul 04, 2005 2:52 am

Hrm,

I really don't like the idea of forcing anyone in this way. I think honestly this would be better handled by..say...removing their amulet? (with their consent to such RP of course)

This gets you the same effect, as they won't be able to send tells without it.

Glim · Post by **Glim** » Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:20 am

Talamar wrote:I really don't like the idea of forcing anyone in this way.

Eh, why is that?

You cant always get there soon enough to remove their amulet before they call for help from the local teleporting wizard/druid/priest.

Talamar · Post by **Talamar** » Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:23 am

Good point.

But here's the kick to that. If you can't remove their amulet before they call for help....how could you cast the spell before they do so?

Same principle applies, but it's just a matter of instead of creating a spell that takes this ability away, why not just do it with what is already available, by removing the amulet.

Tal

Talamar · Post by **Talamar** » Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:39 am

Well,

Part of the issue for me is that I keep getting this mental picture, of someone being forced into Roleplay they are not comfortable with, and due to someone casting this spell they are unable to call for help to stop the situation.

Coding this spell to allow for Otells even while it's on would alleviate this problem.

From the second stand point, I think of the work it would take to code this spell and then make the adjustment I mentioned above, and I can't see why the same thing couldn't be accomplished with just removing the amulet.

It seems just like a lot of work to me, to achieve the same affect, as an smote and the other player removing their amulet.

Though, there is also one point in favor. Allowng this spell would remove the tell ability, without removing the amulet, so that if the roleplay resolved into a PK situation, the victim of this spell, if killed, would still have their amulet on their bodies, and hence be able to send tells for help in reviving/retrieving their corpse.

There are good points, and bad I think to this spell. Personally it makes me a bit uncomfortable to think about, but I can see how it would possibly have some good outcomes as well.

Edited for grammar, and to hopefully clarify the point I was attempting to make.

Jadom · Post by **Jadom** » Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:58 am

While on one hand, I can understand the idea of not "forcing" certain rp on others. But on the other, there is a reason this is a MUD and not a MUSH. Characters have limitations, there are other people who can do things you cannot, and can do things to you.

The honor system is great, which is essentially what asking the other player to remove their amulet would be, but it is also subject to abuse. The other player might refuse not because they are oocly uncomfortable with what is going on, but because they want to be able to shout for fifty of their friends to come trample anybody who messes with them. Or they could agree, then send off a bunch of tell yelling for help, then remove the amulet and look surprised when the cavalry shows up.

Glim · Post by **Glim** » Mon Jul 04, 2005 5:00 am

Talamar wrote:Well,

Part of it for me is that I keep getting this mental picture, of someone being forced into Roleplay they are not comfortable with, and due to someone casting this spell they are unable to call for help to stop the situation.

The main thing with this, is that under the PK forum rules, you shouldnt need to bring someone else in to stop a PK. Forcing a PK is a bad bad thing that I beleive is against the rules. You should always have the chance to escape a PK one way or another. It may not be in your character's RP to run from a fight or some such, but you chose to have that kind of RP, so it would be your consequences.

Talamar wrote: Coding this spell to allow for Otells even while it's on would alleviate this problem.

I beleive that would be fair, an IC spell shouldnt stop OOC speech.

Talamar wrote:From the second stand point, I think of the work it would take to code this spell, and then make the adjustment I mentioned above, and I can't see why the same thing couldn't be accomplished with just removing the amulet.

I understand what you are saying. But sometimes a character will resist such, dragging out a roleplay by resisting so that they have time to send a tell. Example:

DrowWarrior has just kidnapped Human Thief.
Drow Warrior tells Drow Warrior 2, "Take her amulet".
Smotes come in, where DW2 could say he takes her amulet, but Human Thief roleplays holding onto it, wrestling around. All the while she could be sending tells out.

Alternative with the spell.

Drow Warrior has just kidnapped Human Thief.
Drow Warrior tells Drow Wizard, "Silence her mind"
Drow wizard casts the spell, the thief doesnt save against it and her tells are silenced, they can be assured that no tells went out.

Talamar wrote: Though, there is also one point in it's favor. Allowng this spell would remove the tell ability, without removing the amulet, so that if the action resolved into a PK situation, they would be still able to send tells after they were dead.

Not sure what you meant right here, cant you already send tells after they are dead? Or do you mean, they can send tells after they are dead and raised again so they still have the amulet on their body?.

Rhytania · Post by **Rhytania** » Mon Jul 04, 2005 5:01 am

They would be able to send tells if they where dead even if the amulet isnt being worn...or at at least thats how i remember. now did you think about the NC, how are they gonna moniter the question channel? since you never quite know which character is who, I can see that going over real well, "Sorry, how bout I just RP that I am under the effect of the spell, because I am NC and need to keep an ear out.' What happens then?

Glim · Post by **Glim** » Mon Jul 04, 2005 5:03 am

I would say the question channel wouldnt be affected, Rhy. And since, ideally, the spell wouldnt really block osays, then there shouldnt be a problem.

Talamar · Post by **Talamar** » Mon Jul 04, 2005 5:07 am

Most of that last part was my mistake, as I believe you are able to send tells when you are dead, even if you do not have an amulet.

Though, don't quote me on that, as I've been at work since very early, and my brain is a slight form of mush currently.

As for the NC issue. Yes, if the spell does not affect Otells, this would be alright, as NC could still monitor question and send Otells as to answers.

Most of my arguments, I find have been answered satisfactorily, other than really my innate sense of paranoia.

To sum up. It's feasible, I just really don't like the idea itself.

Rhytania · Post by **Rhytania** » Mon Jul 04, 2005 5:48 am

Dont feel bad, I dont much care for it either. I can see the issue with the spell lasting longer than it should, especially with some casters that have the metamagic feats, and you can go hours under its affect long after whatever roleplay was happenning is over.

Isolrem · Post by **Isolrem** » Mon Jul 04, 2005 5:23 pm

Casting the spell room-wise has the benefit of affecting the caster as well as the target, and anyone who wishes to use tell again simply has to flee the area. (And, if said target is bound and therefore unable to move, it doesn't make a difference)