Talk:Morality Test (3.5e Spell)

Ratings

Sulacu dislikes this article and rated it 1 of 4.

I will concede that this spell is reasonably original, but I can't condone its use from a roleplaying perspective. Leaving out the issue of whether it should have a save or not, this spell creates a direct correlation between the actions of a character and whether he/she lives or dies. In a game of D&D, life and death should be the result of adventure, encounters and social situations, each of which are usually governed by dice rolls. What is left when you take away the adventure, encounters and social situations and reduce it to a single choice? If you have this boolean called shouldIDoThisThing and pick TRUE when it should be FALSE, you die? And vice versa? 'You are the weakest link, goodbye?' In games with a heavy roleplaying element, the target of this spell ends up being rewarded for sticking to his/her gums by a sudden, ignominious death, all of the pages of backstory the player may have written for that character be damned. What I read from this spell is 'conform and obey, or die' with a side order of possibly being at the mercy of a trolling spellcaster and whatever whims he might have had at the moment. For pure storytelling or plot development value, a geas would be way better.

In games with a heavy roleplaying element, the DM should probably be choosing a demand that makes the character hem and haw about what they should do, like "do this thing you are morally opposed to or die", for example. It's actually pretty traditional for someone in a disguise to tell people to do things they are morally opposed to, and then tell them that if they'd done those things, they would have been punished. --Foxwarrior (talk) 06:53, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

DanielDraco likes this article and rated it 3 of 4.

If used wrong, this will be horrendously boring. You don't use it in combat, you don't use it against a like-leveled target, and you don't use it when your goal is actually just to make them die. This is a geas but more dire and more flexible. It's the curse laid on you by an angered crone who thinks your heart impure, or the method the king's adviser uses to secretly ensure his own primacy. It is a thousand plot devices abstracted and put into player hands in a way that is easily balanced against similar low-level SoDs – first because it runs against three defenses (save, correct choice, level check) as compared to Phantasmal Killer's two, and second because it takes so damn long to take effect. There are a couple small issues, though. [s]It definitely needs to be language-dependent – it would be complete dicks if you couldn't even make an attempt to figure out whether you should follow the command because the caster spoke Aquan.[/s] And while I don't see as problematic the commands which attempt to ensure death, it should have clauses that deal with commands like the following: Do not allow Wish or Miracle or a similar effect to remove this spell from you. (Circumventing the counters against the spell.) Obey this massive list of rules which I am now handing you. (Circumventing the limitations of the spell.) [s]Disobey this command. (Irresolvable result.)[/s] It also fails to have any general way of dealing with anything constant rather than incidental, including prohibitions like my first example above. Since it triggers upon the stated action being done, the only way it has to effectively make a command along the lines of "always suchandsuch" or "do not ever do suchandsuch" is to command the opposite ("cease to suchandsuch" or "do suchandsuch," respectively) and decide that it should not be followed – and certainly sometimes that will be satisfactory, but the caster should have the workable option of being forthright. [s]As a final note, while the general rule that only one simultaneous instance of a spell is permissible on a single target should answer any questions of stackability without being explicitly invoked, it would be good to explicitly invoke it (or countermand it) here, because people will want to layer multiple commands on a single target, and it should be immediately obvious whether that is meant to be allowed.[/s]

I wouldn't say it needs to be language-dependent; given that it works fine even if you give them a command they cannot possibly obey, it's fairly safe to put the onus of making a comprehensible command on the caster. But I changed that anyways.

"Do not do suchandsuch at any time during the duration of this spell." "Do not spend any time not doing suchandsuch."

The standard layering rules (Same Effect With Differing Results) appear to indicate that you could negate this spell by casting over it. That's clearly intolerable, you're right. --Foxwarrior (talk) 05:05, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I am duly mollified.

The first of those might work, but the second doesn't – the moment they have not spent any time not doing suchandsuch (that is, the moment the spell is cast, assuming they are not already engaged in suchandsuch), they have performed the commanded task, and the spell effect resolves. The limitation can be overcome by wording it such that the task's status is uncertain until the duration expires, but this is a very complicated way to render a very simple functionality, and I could see semantics of that level causing arguments at the table. I think it would be nice to see a simple way to handle a more general sort of a command, and not just a command to perform a task.

Huh, didn't even think of it that way. Two problems solved for the price of one.

I realized a small RAW issue: none of the lines describing the spell result actually say that the spell ends. No matter what, it continues for the full three days. This might be desired (they do the task when they shouldn't have, and survive, but then they do it again and are not as lucky), but it should probably either be patched or explicitly described as a feature of the spell. --DanielDraco (talk) 04:20, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Spanambula dislikes this article and rated it 1 of 4.

The best I've come up with so far: *tap tap* "Excuse me, would you tell me what day it is?" "Uh, it's Tuesday." *DIES* Heck, do it as a reach spell with conceal spellcasting. "Hey, your majesty, look at these!" *flashes tits* King: *dies* I still think at the very least this spell should get an additional Fort save to resist the death part like Phantasmal Killer, but at least now there's a save. Okay, so the spell has changed, and I still don't like it. If your spell requires complex roleplay to be "used correctly," and' you've had to add two saves and a level check to make it 'balanced', then it's probably better off as an artifact or maguffin of some kind.

Those are pretty good. --Foxwarrior (talk) 07:29, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Phantasmal killer does not also require a touch attack. --Foxwarrior (talk) 19:10, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I would think that observations about needed changes would say much more about problems it had before than about how it is now. Surely phantasmal killer would not bother you more if I could convince you that the designer originally didn't give it a save at all, and only gave it saves upon further reflection?

Artifacts and macguffins have the essential problem that they can only be introduced by the DM. I'd argue that the opportunities for making the DM roleplay NPCs reacting to this spell are at least as wonderful as when NPCs use the spell on PCs. --Foxwarrior (talk) 05:05, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

The-Marksman dislikes this article and rated it 1 of 4.

I dont actually oppose or dislike the spell itself as is, what I have a problem with is the lack of balance and lack of clearness in the wording. I would be fine with someone changing my rating on my behalf to like if someday all the following changes are made: the descriptive text needs to be expaned to close loopholes about how long a required action can last and the issues brought up below that would allow for abuse as described by Franken Kesey and Ghostwheel, there needs to be a fort save at the time of death to resist the effect, and the spell needs to be affected by most if not all of; Greater Dispel Magic, Break Enchantment, Remove Curse, Limited Wish, Wish, Miracle without any chance of killing the target or the dispelling character. These spells Ive listed are in the game for a reason, which is to help characters with issues like this. These changes would be nessesary to properly balance this spell. But if these changes were made, then this would be a fun spell.

Blocked Rating	Eiji-kun opposes this article and rated it 0 of 4.
	This rating refers to a substantially different version of the article, or concerns mentioned in it have already been addressed.What Ghostwheel said, but... mind you.... no save. So there's that.

Oh yeah, it was more than a bit different when most of these ratings were done... --Foxwarrior (talk) 06:53, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Blocked Rating

Ghostwheel opposes this article and rated it 0 of 4.

This rating refers to a substantially different version of the article, or concerns mentioned in it have already been addressed.An old man comes to you, casts a spell, and tells you to do something. You brush him off--after all, there's no incentive to do the thing. Three days later, you're dead. Alternatively, "Do this thing you're morally opposed to or die." Also, I touch the dragon. "For 24 hours, you must pick up a spoon and immediately drop it and immediately pick it up and continue this until the 24 hours are over." You might be dead (and can be res'd in a VH game), bu so will the dragon.

Qwertyu63 opposes this article and rated it 0 of 4.

You've done nothing to fix the actual problems with the spell. Those problems being: The idea the spell (tell someone to do something, they either die or don't depending on if they do it) is a bad idea on the face of it. The addition of the level check just means it is less likely to work. The clause about removing it just seems spiteful. The spell level is still too low. This spell still gets 0/4 from me.

• Feel free to elaborate. I'm pretty sure that giving people challenges filled with second-guessing and roleplaying is not a bad idea on the face of it.
• Yes, and that makes it not overpowered. It also means that the caster can't simply cast it over and over again on a temporarily trapped victim in order to guarantee that they must do or die.
• Spiteful? Perhaps. Necessary? Without question.
• See point two. --Foxwarrior (talk) 04:14, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

• The second guessing with the stakes that high is a horrid idea.
• Just because your powerful gun only hits some of the time does not make it less of a powerful gun.
• Not without question. Consider it questioned.
• See point 2. --Qwertyu63 (talk) 14:46, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Considering the balance range and that level 4 spells already include "double save-or-die" effects (phantasmal killer) and "do things you're morally opposed to, or else" effects (lesser geas), I don't understand why you think the addition of second guessing makes this too strong for the level. And while you're right that making the gun less likely to hit doesn't mean you have a less powerful gun, that doesn't imply that the strength of the gun is itself inappropriate in context. But since you think the effect is too strong for the context despite the availability of similarly strong guns at the same level, can you please suggest a level that you feel more appropriate for this VH spell, and why you think it would be better?

The lesser geas comparision also makes me question the lack of removing spells, though the PK comparison does not (because you just get raised). A middle ground where they can remove the spell, but the caster learns that you failed the test might work ok since similar spells already have "or you know, go talk to a cleric" appended to them. That's subject to upcoming comments on tag change though.... - Tarkisflux ^Talk 18:21, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Returning 3 years later to say this, but I wouldn't allow this spell at any spell level. The idea needs major overhauling. Picking it apart, I found two parts that would have be ban it on their own; combined, they make the spell completely unacceptable.

Problem 1: "If morality test would be dispelled or removed by any effect weaker than a wish or miracle, the target may choose to have the spell continue to take effect instead; if they do not choose that, they die if they fail an opposed level check against you."

The classic "unstoppable" bug. I've fallen into this mental trap a couple times. This paragraph should not have been written. And it's the less severe of the two problems.

"In addition, you must secretly decide whether or not they should do it. [...] The creature is aware that either doing or not doing this task will result in their death, but not which one."

Yes, the very point of the spell is unacceptable to me. It becomes a damn coin flip. A quote from the Princess Bride comes to mind. "All I have to do is divine from what I know of you: are you the sort of man who would put the poison into his own goblet or his enemy's?"

As an added digression, even if it was scaled back to "Geas, but with death as the penalty", I'd still oppose it. But that leads into my general bias against two types of spells: Geas spells and Save-or-die spells. I hate both of em. --Qwertyu63 (talk) 21:44, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

	Franken Kesey likes this article and rated it 3 of 4.
	This is a very fun and balanced way to really mess with a creatures mind. Also superior to using: Turn To The Abyss (3.5e Spell), Visions of Rebirth (3.5e Spell), Path of Diabolism (3.5e Spell), and Celestial Epiphany (3.5e Spell).

Condition Removal

Dispel magic, break enchantment, remove curse, wish, can anything remove this test before it reached the "do you die" phase? - Tarkisflux ^Talk 16:46, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

The easy way around any of those is to ask a common question that the subject would likely immediately respond to in such a way that fulfills the condition of the spell. "Tell me the date." "Tell me which way to the closest town/tavern/temple." "Look at this [anything]!" They're dead, unless everyone immediately casts one of those spells every time someone asks them to do something before responding. Spanambula (talk) 23:13, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Nah, it would show with detect magic, which you could then use to ID the effect and cast the spell if appropriate. And being scanned by one of those a day doesn't seem too far from expectations (particularly since you're often in the cone while scanning for magic items / traps / whatevers). - Tarkisflux ^Talk 00:42, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that would work so long as the thing you tell them to do takes a while to do. But since one of the spell's conditions is "If they do the task before the duration ends, and you had decided they should not do it, they die." you just tell them to do something plausible/logical that takes next to no time at all (such as a "Look at this innocuous thing!" kind of task). Then there's no time to cast any of the detection spells you mentioned. (Ok, I see Foxwarrior added a will save to the spell, so at least now it's a save-or-die. Still, ehh.) Spanambula (talk) 02:40, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, for some reason I thought that the death hit after day 3, not after completion or rejection of the task. My mistake :-(. I need to reconsider the use cases of this spell now... - Tarkisflux ^Talk 02:49, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Being able to remove the test before reaching the "do you die" phase is like appending "or you could, you know, go talk to a cleric instead" to the end of the test. --Foxwarrior (talk) 04:00, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Well yes, it's rather like that now that you added the "know stuff" line to the spell. Before it was a bit more stealthy and the 3 day trigger made a bit more sense. - Tarkisflux ^Talk 04:36, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

The 3 day trigger means that the person gets some time to ponder their choice, which is good in those situations where the spell is actually being used as some sort of big moral test. --Foxwarrior (talk) 07:29, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Wait, I'm confused. My reading of "If morality test would be dispelled or removed, the target may choose to have the spell continue to take effect instead; if they do not choose that, they die." would be, "if someone tries to remove this spell and you let them, you instantly die" which makes this the spell equivalent of trying to remove a facehugger, which makes this spell even more broken than it already is. (Compare to Geas/Quest (6th level), which can be dispelled in several ways.) Feel free to correct me if I'm misunderstanding this. Spanambula (talk) 08:48, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

That's an interesting interpretation, but no. The idea was for it to be like "this spell can't be removed, even by a wish" with the caveat that they can die to bypass that restriction. I think it matters; spells don't end on death, right? Either way, I suppose it would be fine to replace that line with the simpler thing. --Foxwarrior (talk) 19:10, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I like what your sketching out with this spell so I want to give you some of my thoughts about the spell, and you can do with them what you want. If you like anything I say and you want help with writing or wording on anything I'd be eager to help. The problem is, its not nearly enough text for this to be completely balanced given the grave situation the spell puts someone in.

One thing thats bothering me about this spell, is what do the spell name and the spell description have to do with each other? How does giving someone some random task decided by you, tell you anything about their morality? Like, if you ask a Paladin to go out and kill the arch bishop, and if he doesnt, he dies? How does this answer anything about the Paladin's morality?

The point of the spell should not be to just kill the target. If you want to just kill them, there are plenty of existing spells for that, Circle of Death, Finger of Death, Symbol of Death, Power Word Kill, etc. This spell has far more potential than to be some silly way to kill someone. This spell makes me think of Jigsaw from the Saw movie franchise. The greatest thing about Jigsaw isnt that he puts people in these crazy situations .. the greatest part of Jigsaw's puzzles, is that THERE IS ALWAYS A WAY OUT if you have the courage and determination to find it and do it. As worded with your spell at the moment, it isnt nessesary at all to make sure they have a "FEASABLE" way out.

The descriptive text needs to be expaned beyond a few short sentences to close loopholes that allow for characters to abuse this spell. Such as addressing how long a required action can last (see Ghostwheel's rating) and a small part stating that the required task cannot be something that the target is incapable of doing—(something to the effect of "the task set before the subject must be a task that they are capable of at the time of casting)—Such an example of this kind of abuse of the spell would be if you ask a 7th level Barbarian to cast a wish spell for you, since he does not have levels in wizard or sorcerer he cannot accomplish this. As currently worded, you could use this spell to do that, and since the Barbarian wont obtain the levels in time, he will die with no chance to save himself, no saving throw to resist the death effect, no chance of dispelling the spell (because that kills you too), and no chance of achieving the goal set by the spell.

Also the spell needs to state that the if caster asks you to kill yourself, that you either get a crazy bonus with a resave or it negates the spell completely (my preference). There also should also be some kind of bonus on the save if the required action is something that grossly violates your alignment or moral code. I know you've stated before that you didnt want people to be able to get out of this spell with a Wish, but by even saying that your degrading the point and power behind a wish spell. This spell should be affected by Break Enchantment, Limited Wish, Wish and Miracle. This spell, like any other is made up of magic, and certain magics interact with other magics in various ways, and these spells Ive listed are in the game can help to keep a balance. Just by allowing this spell to be affected by those other spells, does not degrade this spell in any way, if anything it would make people more likely to include this spell into their campaigns because it has balances to it. Also, having this spell be affected by the spells that I listed doesnt nessesarily mean that most or all characters WILL have access to them in time.

Those are my thoughts on this spell, and I only offer these thoughts in an attempt to help you to make your content the best it can be. Let me know what you think. The-Marksman (talk) 15:06, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

There, now it's a perfectly subpar spell, its only remaining power is that everyone is so very afraid of it.

It's a 1-round cast time, touch attack (that's about 150 ft. less range than phantasmal killer), with two saves and Spell Resistance.

If they're not too fond of the "figuring out what moral code the caster prefers" thing, they can just go to an Efreet and ask to skip the challenge.

Used as a SoD, it was already no better than phantasmal killer before today (no range, 1-round cast time, no effect if only one of the two rolls failed; its only advantage was that it worked on mindless creatures). --Foxwarrior (talk) 08:33, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

You keep comparing this spell to Phantasmal Killer. Was the point of this spell to just kill the target, or was the point of the spell about creating drama and mystery in the game through a compelling and intriguing moral challenge? Because the way you seem to be so upset about making your spell "subpar" you make it feel like this was more meant to be a kill spell and you "had" to neuter it. Did I miss the point of the spell entirely? If you dont want the spell in its current version, then undo the edit to its previous revision. Its your peice of work, your the only person on the planet that needs to be happy with your work, screw what me or any of the other people here in the discussion think. The discussion page is just here for others to give their input, its not a democracy, we dont get to vote and change the content of the page. My only concern was trying to help you with making it balanced, but if balanced wasnt what you were shooting for, than just tell everyone so, and they (myself included) can all just mind our own business. The-Marksman (talk) 16:28, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, everybody's been suggesting nerfs to it, and some people have been trying to indicate that the spell is overpowered because you can choose a command which turns the spell into an immediate SoD.

Why did you suggest adding a Fortitude save without also removing the Will save, if you didn't kind of agree with them? If your point was that the save should occur at the end so that characters could say "eh, I know what he wants me to do, but I'll just risk death instead", why didn't you say so?

Also, I notice that I made a couple factual errors in my annoyed rant earlier: touch spells kind of don't care about longer casting times (maybe I should just go and make it a standard action), and a touch attack and a save is usually better than two saves. --Foxwarrior (talk) 18:29, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

This spell seems a natural for only-works-if-target's-hp-below-caster-level, though not on top of existing restrictions. --Ideasmith (talk) 21:05, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

See, you're doing it too. That restriction barely affects its usability as a (longish duration) command spell at all. --Foxwarrior (talk) 22:25, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

The suggestions that I recommended were based on the idea that you were aiming for something bigger than SoD and that proper game balance for your spell had any value to you with this article. But if thats not what it is you wanted to create, then by all means, dont let me or anyone else change what you want for your spell. Also, for the record, choosing a command cant make it SoD on the original version, because without the fort save at the end, they had already failed their will save before hearing the command, so it became "obey random command that you might or might not be supposed to do, or die". The bigger problem of not having a second save, is that the subject has no idea what it is the caster expects of him and no way to determine it without intervention, be it divination magic or outside help such as an Efreet. What if Jack Sparrow casts this spell on you? If you personally Fox, had this spell cast on you, how would you know which action was the one that saves your life? You cant take the guy at his word of what he asked, because he decided in secret whether or not you should comply with his threat/command.

Im not trying to knock your spell at all, I do infact like it. But I can't in good faith rate any article favorably when there is strong potential for player abuse. But if the potential for player abuse of your content doesnt concern you, than just revise the spell to the version that makes you, the author happy, and let the world think whatever they'd like. I havnt changed my rating yet, because although you have altered it to make it more balanced, I dont feel confident you've decided 100% about what version is going to be its final version. The-Marksman (talk) 01:19, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations! You win a trophy for Most Passive-Aggressive Comment!

I guess that means you care, at least.

If someone casts a spell on you, and you fail your save, and you die three days later, is that not a Save or Die? Is roleplaying a character who is doomed to only live three more days so horrible as to be intolerable? Is roleplaying a character who is doomed to have a ~50% chance of dying after three more days a more enjoyable experience?

If Jack Sparrow cast this spell on me, it would be quite traumatizing. He's a fairly decent person, so I'd expect him to pick the one he thought I would choose. But would he expect me to choose the one that, from my perspective, would benefit him more? Or the one that I'd prefer to do? The one that would benefit him less, because I'd be mad at him? The one that I'd prefer not to do, because he went to the effort of casting a spell to get me to do something?

The Joker would be a pretty similar experience, except that I'd expect him to choose the one that would be most likely to kill me.

With a Fortitude save at the end, I could instead boost my Fortitude Save up high enough with buffs and borrowed items (after precisely 3 days, and 1 round less) that I only had a 5% chance of dying (better than one can normally hope for when dealing with 7th level casters), and avoid this whole nervewracking experience. --Foxwarrior (talk) 02:32, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Looking back at the history, it looks like I left this for three years without a save, and then didn't obsolete old ratings when I changed it the first time. Sorry for referring to you as some people, Ghostwheel. --Foxwarrior (talk) 06:53, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Comments

Love this spell but will only rate positively if a save was added - or if there was a way to remove. --Franken Kesey (talk) 17:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Does the task need to be something the subject can do within the laws of nature (i.e., if not a magic user, you must cast a 9th-level spell or you must survive the removal of all organs from your body)? Also, how open to interpretation are the tasks? If the task was "help someone" and the subject helped a group, or helped an evil king who killed many - who decides if the deed was fulfilled? --Franken Kesey (talk) 04:06, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Admittedly, the rules for question design could be more complete. --Foxwarrior (talk) 07:29, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Comparisons and New Comments

My last comments on this were back when it was "no save, guess and maybe die", and that was out of line for a 4. Now I think it's out of line on the weak for balance side. This is on the Paladette spell list as a 5, and since that's a list I'm reasonably comfortable with (I don't know the sylvan occultist at all, and it gets some weird shit), I'll use it as a reference. Based on that, this spell wants to be a VH 5 on a delayed casting class, and that sets slay living as a direct comparison much more obviously than phantasmal killer. And in that comparison it could tolerate a boost from its current form, despite the recent tweaks.

Close range beats the touch of slay living, the 1 round cast time probably pays for it though. Level check is an interesting mechanic to drop in afterwards, and I'm not sure it's necessary on a VH 5 spell since there's already a will save. One or the other seems all that's needed for parity with other VH 5 options. And there's still ways to mitigate it, like giving a finger to a level 13 cleric who can rez you or casting death ward a few times (because it's a death effect now, and you know when it might kill you). It's not actually out of line at that point is what I'm saying. It needed a save and it got one, but giving it 2 seems to have gone too far to the other side for a VH 5.

Alternately, you could aim for complexity and have it function as an increased cast time, ranged, slay living without the on-save damage... unless they are willing and voluntarily forgo their save, in which case they get to do the actual mortality test thing and maybe die in 3 days. That also sets up the relative lack of removing spells nicely, since it was a willing submission sort of thing. - Tarkisflux ^Talk 08:41, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Ugh, forgot that a touch range means a touch attack on top of any saves, so keep both of those things I guess. - Tarkisflux ^Talk 08:55, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Changing it to Close from Touch was actually partly so you couldn't hold the charge and skip the problems of a 1-round cast time.

Sylvan Occultist is a full caster who only knows weird spells. They are generally supposed to be on-par with wizard spells of the same level though.

Paladettes are at-will casters, so the level choice for them has additional factors; in this case though, being able to spam the spell only 3 levels after Sylvan Occultists get it (Paladette 4 instead of 5) might not be a big deal? --Foxwarrior (talk) 09:03, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Fluff wise, morality testing seems a more divine than arcane thing to me, so a 4 divine and 5 or 6 arcane might be ok (there aren't any other arcane [death] effects below 7 in the SRD, so precedent is missing on that end). I'm generally a fan of putting spells at the same spell level for both full and partial casters, so 4 for both if you think occultist is a more divine class, or 4 paladette and 5 for the occultist otherwise. It's lower level than slay living at that point, but it's also much easier to manage. I'd skip the previous suggestion of defaulting to slay living for unwilling targets though, as that effect doesn't seem warranted unless you wanted to balance it with something, like one or both of the [mind-affecting] or [language-dependent] tags. - Tarkisflux ^Talk 18:57, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Sylvan Occultist is more sylvan than arcane, really.

Picking some set of tags that let it work on intelligent undead and constructs would be ideal... would trading out [death] for [language-dependent] be sane? --Foxwarrior (talk) 04:14, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Changing it to [language-dependent] makes it look a lot more like a geas variant, and that comparison doesn't work as well for the current form of the spell. So it could be sane, but I think you'd want to embrace the geas-ness of it more at that point - i.e. make it Ench (Compulsion) instead of necro, allow "or you know, just go talk to a cleric" style removal (possibly with caster notifaction), and a level boost to 5 maybe (not sure on that actually) to better fit with the geas family. - Tarkisflux ^Talk 18:47, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Looking at lesser geas again, it really looks like a variant of dominate monster that lets them apologize while they diligently murder their friends for you. Morality test doesn't want to be associated with that at all. --Foxwarrior (talk) 05:23, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

personally, I feel that the "if its dispelled it tries to kill you" is a bit redundant. it cant exactly kill you after it was dispelled. Dr.Drako (talk) 21:58, 17 June 2022 (UTC)