Edit: Because I forgot to include the initial point I had when quoting the above .... Making it inter-mage only kind of goes against the theme of 'Mundane v Magic' that TLI's most base conflict is built upon. I'm incredibly against any magic that is codly forced to stay within magic circles and not able to be used to manipulate or control the mundane world that tries to hard to burn the pesky mage-folk.chronodbu wrote:Dragon's idea sounds like a really cool one for that aspect. Making it so it's more of a protection against the person in general. Again though, I feel this should be restricted to awakening and not castable otherwise we'd just have every fire mage ever using it on the Order constantly.
To be clear, the "Protection" aspect was to go a bit hand-in-hand with "more knowledge about it existing" aspect as well; I don't believe there's a helpfile for it for non-mages, which is fine, but it's also not mentioned in the Rhyme of Portents or Superstitions or anything like that. In my head it works better as a bit of a delayed bit of insurance. So, casting it on an Orderite, who might be more appraised of the spell and what it does, will probably not end well. I kind of it as lighting a small fire to direct a larger one: sure, it works in theory, but planned poorly it will just give you two problems to deal with. I think there should be an included matter of trust in the spell, something where an afflicted non-mage has a -very- clear idea that they're being magically controlled -before- any ability to be actually controlled or influenced comes about. Maybe not by whom, but long enough to combat the spell through IC means before it becomes a permanent fixture of control.
Another possible way to solve the issue of the spell being Overpowering and ICly and OOCly too controlling might be to allow a bit of fight back from someone with the spell cast upon it; a bit of chomping at the bit or thrashing against the cage wall that can have a very negative affect on a mage enforcing control on someone who is emotionally unwilling. This could be a command for the regnanted person and rise in affect as the spell lingers, from things like lowering max stamina of the mage to increasing spell failure rates or even inflicting physical burns on the mage if they're unable to keep the mind of the afflicted person in line. Some sharp DRAWBACK to the spell might ensure the very powerful (and, in my opinion, very thematic!) control it allows some pause to keep it all in check. I'm a big fan of the 'Yes, but..' approach to conflict-enabling, offering players options that come with consequence, and it doesn't seem that Regnancy has those consequences to make it a risky gambit for the mage in question.
