Shattered Kingdoms

It makes perfect sense gameplay wise.


As I've stated above, they DO have that responsibility. If they break faith by not RPing the charmer with the same respect that you are RPing as the charmee, I expect you to send us that log.

How can the excuses continue to get more pathetic? Obviously you could continue to hate everyone except the charmer. They would now be at least the equivalent to your high priest in your eyes. And if you hate your high priest too, then treat the charmer as the voice of your god.

(I won't even get into the doctrinal issues of the fact that Hate is only one of the three portfolios of Dabi and isn't even necessarily the primary one.)

Just like real life, sometimes your character is going to be presented with contradictory information. If you are a real roleplayer, you will attempt to work that out in character instead of complaining about it on the forums.


Not going to happen.

It being more powerfull than all fortitude, reflex and willpower spells makes sense gameplay wise, in PC combat?
Look at the level the spell is gained compared to the other spells
Really I shouldn't make this point again as others have made it and it was answered insufficiently.



Playing a Dabi and diabollic char can be argument enough to play out a sadistic griefing persona (taking the extreme). I cannot argue against that.
I can argue against the gameplay value for the recieving end to be extremely low. Something is definately wrong if a player on the recieving end actually enjoys being charmed, expected to play along in good RP sense, drop their eq and have their charmer junk their things one by one or the like.
Seriously - all offensive spells combined don't level with the degree of punishment this gives.

To me, you are talking about game balance, not game play. The game play argument is that it doesn't make sense to RP with your hated enemy. That's what I was refuting as making perfect sense.


It was answered sufficiently. I've said that there are issues with the spell that are being investigated. And I've said that further changes to the spell will be a direct result of how we see it used in this incarnation. Talking about it here isn't going to sway me at all. Send us your logs.


You probably can't understand how frustrating it is for me to see you write a response to a quote which was already the answer to your complaint. With this change, I am holding BOTH charmees AND charmers to a higher standard of roleplay. If charmers aren't living up to their new responsibility, send us the logs.

I think something that people tend to forget when they start arguing about their moral codes is that spells like charm are a -compulsion-. You don't get a say in it whether you do what you're told or not. This doesn't mean your character doesn't know what's going on, that s/he's not internally disagreeing with what's going on. Or maybe s/he's in a mental fog. That's giant-sized area of interepretation is where roleplay comes in.

The only problem that I have with the current adaptation is that the spell is so poorly defined that an extraordinarily heavy burden of proof is on the charmie to show that the charmer is doing anything they shouldn't be.... rather than the reasonable expectation that both sides be held to a code of conduct, code-enforced or not.

After all, the charmer does not love their victim - it's a pretty safe bet that the person is an enemy or at least the charmer has no moral compunction against enslaving someone's will. So what expectation is there that they give anything more than a token few lines of interaction (see also: afterdeath pk roleplay) and do whatever the heck they like?

The charm spells lack of definition is because it's sheer stock helpfile. Nobody has bothered to define it beyond "This spell causes your victim to follow you and obey your orders" and the equally hazy "you can't leave your beloved master."

How about raising this helpfile above its stock roots, and define it in a manner that makes demands from both sides. Balance.

@Dulrik
There is no such thing as game balance to me, hence why I do not use that term. It is all about creating a jolly time - gameplay.

The quote which you say was the answer to my complaint, wasn't exactly that, unless you intent on using these logs only for a mechanics in pk survey - which you could get any day on the log site most players use.

As a professional game developer, 'game balance' is part of my lexicon. If you want to communicate with me in a helpful way, you should use it when using these forums.


I intend to use it for both a mechanics in pk survey and potentially as punishable instances of poor role play. As for log sites, I don't use them due to both time constraints and other principals. If you want my attention, you need to use this forum and/or send me stuff directly.

Feel free to write a sample help file and post it here. Both players and immortals can evaluate it for suitability and immortals will make the final call as to whether or not it goes in and with what edits.

Works for me, and I will do so. However, I would like to point out that when I said that, I do believe that it should be enforced by code, without a need for the "proof" you mentioned. It's a joke for charmers to pretend that it's only the charmies that have been failing to live up to their role when we have regular examples by self-proclaimed Abuse Revealers showing off their stuff over on [REDACTED]. Ultimately, it's the same people playing this game... on both sides of the spell. There is no us vs. them.

Someone go to the log site and copy paste all the charm stuff into D's box, should keep him enetertainted for a few days.