Control...

[Charlie Remis & Margaret Lasater]

James McCulloch wrote:

> >  Could one use control to interrogate?

Yes.  The victim is the caster's helpless pawn.  It's fairly clear that the spell
does not just control the gross motor functions or charm the target.  It makes the
caster the most important thing in the world, for whom the victim would do anything.

> I've always played it that they will give you anything they would
> give to a friend.    That way, if there is something that they
> wouldn't tell anyone, the characters would have to at least do
> some convicing.  My problem though hasn't ever been with that aspect of
> the two spells, but rather with the unfortunate likelihood that
> one character will just fascinate a mountain giant (or something
> equally frustrating) and have a huge piece of cannon fodder...
> er, travelling companion.

The spell destroys the target's soul if maintained for too long.  That seems a little
extreme for what you are assuming is basically a simple charm.

> I still don't understand why control is bmc 6 and fascination is
> bmc 1.  Hmmm...  The most irritating part about that is trying to
> capture any fairy.  "I'll take fascination as my one innate power..."

There is a significant difference between the spells.  Once you have Controlled
someone or something you will always have bonuses to Control them again (you have a
10 modifier on your spell success roll).  With Fascination there is no benefit for
having Fascinated them before.  Further, certain races are immune to Fascination, but
have no defense against Control (like elves).  There are several common items which
protect (one even grants total immunity) to Fascination, but only one which protects
against telepathic powers.

Despite this, you may wish to consider, instead of changing the base mana,
instituting a house rule which requires eye contact for Fascination to be cast,
and/or another which allows Control to continue on without destruction of the Soul.

Regards,

Charlie Remis