How to protect merchant from mind control?

[WingedKagouti]

Originally Posted by khorboth

There is one other method if it's not too late. You could just... not allow it.

You could tell your player that this kind of power is not in keeping with the theme of the game. Much like the ability create (gold) or someone with phobia (coins).

This is worth keeping in mind.

There is no obligation to allow player access to tools that break the campaign. Doubly so during character creation. And if a player is adamant that their character concept(s) needs those tools, then maybe that player wouldn't enjoy the campaign you're offering.

If a Priest technically has access to a divine Mind Control spells or abilities, there's always the option that their god just doesn't want to grant them access to that. Maybe as a trial or possibly a punishment for one or more transgressions. It's worth remembering that D&D gods can override the wishes of their priests regarding what spells they can use each day.

PC Mages might just not be able to find scrolls or books with any campaign breaking spells. And research into those types of spells always fails, produce unreliable versions or the spells turn out to have major flaws that render them more or less useless.

[Anders]

Originally Posted by khorboth

There is one other method if it's not too late. You could just... not allow it.

You could tell your player that this kind of power is not in keeping with the theme of the game. Much like the ability create (gold) or someone with phobia (coins).

Or you could tell them that these powers are exceedingly rare in FR and you don't want the PCs to have access. Just like you're not allowing Drow or Djinn PCs.

This is a good idea.

[Kromm]

Originally Posted by Anders

This is a good idea.

It's certainly hard for a player to complain about not getting to use mind-control abilities they spent points on if they can't spend points on mind-control abilities. They'll probably complain about the prohibition instead, and try to convince the GM to make exceptions. ;) But ultimately, if mind control is outright banned for PCs the way Status 8 is, or banned from the campaign save for rare, powerful foes the way TL12 ray guns are, the problem is solved.

In GURPS, beware the implications this has for prerequisites. A lot of mental-influence spells are prerequisites for spells that might not be troublesome. For example, even if you think Mind-Reading is worrisome, Mind-Sending seems cool enough and is obligatory for Lend Skill and thus Borrow Skill . . . but has Mind-Reading as a prerequisite. The Wisdom spell seems fine, and is a prerequisite for a boatload of important stuff, but is also nearly impossible to learn without some creepier Mind Control. There are a lot of hidden dependencies you'll have to reroute around for your campaign if you don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Of course, you could leave the prerequisites alone and say the versions PCs learn are flawed and don't work, but that resurrects the "But I paid points!" objection.

[Anders]

I could also remove prerequisites altogether. They're not needed for balance.

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by Kromm

. . . which will either end up in the hands of PCs, rendering them immune and spoiling lots of adventures, or be contrived not to work for the PCs (bound to specific NPCs, only work within city limits, only work for Merchants' Guild members, etc.), which will seem no better than "all merchants have Magic Resistance." My GMing experience with various NPCs-only defenses (not specifically against mind control, but as a class of things) is that those two outcomes are usual.

As a player, I'd have no objections to the idea of an affordable immovable (or close to it) defense. Essentially, when merchants set up shop, they have wards installed, much as certain modern businesses might put up a security fence topped with barbed wire. The merchant - and everyone else - is protected from mind-control (and other magical manipulation) while within the merchant's shop/tent/whatever. It's not something the PC's can readily make use of (although depending on how rapidly it can be deployed, they might carry a portable version to set up when they make camp), but unless such solutions seem to only exist for whatever the PC's are trying to do (and/or are conveniently missing when NPC's need to make use of such spells), it wouldn't feel contrived. Of course, this would extend to more than just merchants - the throne room and the like may well be similarly warded (albeit perhaps with a "backdoor" allowing the king's mages to manipulate visitors as needed... which the PC's - or villainous NPC's - may well discover the methods of and exploit for their own means).

Originally Posted by The Colonel

This does highlight how few settings treat mind control magic as being as dark as it really is... to my knowledge, only The Dresden Files takes it seriously, D&D seems to regard messing with other people's volition as morally neutral and the Potterverse seems to find it funny.

It's been a while since I read the Harry Potter books, but I seem to recall the only serious mind-control spell was the Imperio, which alongside Crucio (excruciating pain, used for torture) and Avada Kadavra (an instant-death spell) was one of the three Unforgivable Curses, each of which was supposed to carry a life sentence without the possibility of parole (presumably, Harry &c were given a pass following the events of Deathly Hallows on account of dealing with an existential threat). That's taking it pretty seriously. Granted, I do think the "emotional manipulation" types of spells were considered much more lightly, but with those I think it's more what you do with the spell than simply casting it that would have moral implications - in many ways, it's just an enhanced version of the type of manipulation normal humans pull on each other to get what they want on a daily basis (as Breeze explained in Mistborn much better than I can).

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Varyon

As a player, I'd have no objections to the idea of an affordable immovable (or close to it) defense.

Huh. Good point. A Pentagram spell stops mind control just fine and is pretty cheap (seriously, the pentagram spell does enough stuff that you're likely to find things like "we put a pentagram on every flagstone, so treat every hex as a separate pentagram spell. Have fun with trying to cast offensive spells").

[The Colonel]

Originally Posted by Varyon

It's been a while since I read the Harry Potter books, but I seem to recall the only serious mind-control spell was the Imperio, which alongside Crucio (excruciating pain, used for torture) and Avada Kadavra (an instant-death spell) was one of the three Unforgivable Curses, each of which was supposed to carry a life sentence without the possibility of parole (presumably, Harry &c were given a pass following the events of Deathly Hallows on account of dealing with an existential threat). That's taking it pretty seriously. Granted, I do think the "emotional manipulation" types of spells were considered much more lightly, but with those I think it's more what you do with the spell than simply casting it that would have moral implications - in many ways, it's just an enhanced version of the type of manipulation normal humans pull on each other to get what they want on a daily basis (as Breeze explained in Mistborn much better than I can).

I'm pretty sure I recall them quite regularly messing about with people's memories - mostly "muggles" I grant you, but that just touches on another of Rowling's fridge issues - there was a caravan park keeper at that Qwiddich world cup IIRC who had been permanently damaged by the constant meddling and it was treated as something of a joke. Also that fraudulent teacher who had hijacked all sorts of other people's stories and then modified their memories. And then there were the magical date rape drugs. The Potterverse becomes more and more horrifying the more you dig into it.

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by The Colonel

I'm pretty sure I recall them quite regularly messing about with people's memories - mostly "muggles" I grant you, but that just touches on another of Rowling's fridge issues - there was a caravan park keeper at that Qwiddich world cup IIRC who had been permanently damaged by the constant meddling and it was treated as something of a joke. Also that fraudulent teacher who had hijacked all sorts of other people's stories and then modified their memories. And then there were the magical date rape drugs. The Potterverse becomes more and more horrifying the more you dig into it.

Memory manipulation is a bit south of neutral, but not terribly so - it can certainly be a net "good" morally (such as how it's often used in the Men In Black movies, or at least the first one, to protect innocents), but is also something that can easily go very dark. Using it to cover up a sporting match wouldn't move the needle, making it still south of neutral. I didn't recall the groundskeeper being permanently damaged by it, however (I do recall it being mostly a joke with them needing to Obliviate him frequently during the event), but if that's the case that would certainly move the needle southward. Using it to steal credit for other peoples' heroism similarly moves the needle southward, but then Gilderoy wasn't portrayed as a good guy - he was a (minor) villain who received an appropriate comeuppance. I'm not certain what you're referencing with the date rape drugs, but I'd say anything that (safely) knocks someone out is on its own morally neutral, while emotional manipulation is on its own similar, albeit arguably a bit darker (somewhere between knockout and memory manipulation). In all these cases, what you use it for is a much larger determinant on if it's morally good, neutral, or evil. Of course, that's just my personal opinion. For reference, I do think mind control is more evil than any of the above, and you need a pretty good reason (or consent of the controlled) to get it up to neutral, and very good one to get it north of that.

I've no doubt a deep dive into the Potterverse is full of horrors, however.

[kirbwarrior]

Originally Posted by khorboth

There is one other method if it's not too late. You could just... not allow it.

This is always an option and a good option. But I really want to point it out for this campaign idea in particular. The campaign sounds like it's about haggling with merchants, worrying about stock, dealing with the law and the unlawful, etc. If that's the goal, then having Mind Control even exist in the setting throws a giant wrench in that type of campaign, the same way Create Gold Coin and time travel would, or like how many espionage stories become entirely based around shapeshifters once shapeshifters are known to exist. Some things just throw the campaign off the rails before it even starts.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by Anders

So I'm thinking about running a mercantile campaign in Forgotten Realms. How do I keep the party's wizard/bard from mentally dominating all the merchants they come across?

Some thoughts:

1. Magic Resistance (either natural or via items).

2. Wards of some kind.

3. Laws that make it illegal to influence citizens with mind magic (works in places like Waterdeep and Sembia where there is a strong where there's a strong legal places, maybe not so well in other places).

Enraged merchants burning you at the stake after your influence wears off and they realized they've been had. Bodyguards on the lookout for people wiggling their fingers as they talk. Magic isn't that much of a free ticket when everyone knows it exists.