Spells Trance and Domination

[darthauthor]

Does spells like Trance and Domination (Book Rifts Ultimate Edition: page 205 and 206 respectively) work on Dinosaurs?

[Grazzik]

Does spells like Trance and Domination work on Dinosaurs?

Trance? No, because the enchanted "character" (and dinos are not characters) must under stand what the mage says, and dinos don't understand language. If the dino was a pet and a species with the same intelligence of a dog, then maybe if trained in the same language as the mage.

Dominion? No, because the spell replaces the victim's will and dinos have no will to replace, only instinct, as they are animals.

BTW a big ask to EVERYONE asking about spells and such, provide references to where the spell is if you want a response. Otherwise, it is plain rude, lazy, and disrespectful of the people trying to help you. It is a royal pain in the backside to hunt down vague references without a page cite. Spells particularly are scattered across many books for crying out loud and we can't assume you are only asking about a version in a core book as some are reprinted/modified in other books dealing with various magic disciplines (particularly elemental magic).

BTW if your forum identity is actually "EVERYONE" and you don't do this sort of thing, I apologize and I hope you appreciate the intent of my brief rant.

[drewkitty ~..~]

Trance and Dominion are in the 'Core book" set of spells for each Game that uses magic.

Though I totally agree with you to providing 'Where in the books is what you are asking about". This is for Every Question.

Also Use the full words of an abbreviation before using that abbreviation through-out the rest of the post. Sort of like the VTT post in the All Things PB forum. It might be common outside these forums, but they are not common here in these forums.

[Library Ogre]

Dominion? No, because the spell replaces the victim's will and dinos have no will to replace, only instinct, as they are animals.

Belief that animals do not have will is the opinion of someone who has never owned a cat.

[darthauthor]

Library Ogre,

That was so funny. I'm still laughing as I write this.

[Grazzik]

Dominion? No, because the spell replaces the victim's will and dinos have no will to replace, only instinct, as they are animals.

Belief that animals do not have will is the opinion of someone who has never owned a cat.

Having owned several cats... yes, well, they aren't animals... they are the spell Domination incarnate... now I must feed my furry overlords

[ShadowLogan]

Does spells like Trance and Domination work on Dinosaurs?

I am going to disagree with previous posters in their answer (I DO AGREE about the need to cite page references). I think that the spells in question can work on them given psychics CAN commune/influence animals and if a psychic can do it I don't see why a mage couldn't (for reference Commune with Animals Sensitive Psi Power in PF2E pg169, you also have the ability to use Super Psi Powers of Hypnotic Suggestion AND Empathic Transmission on animals per text PF2E pg174-5 or RUE pg178-9).

[Library Ogre]

I'll also note that, even if you can't control someone with Trance, it does put them in standby mode, which is useful in and of itself. I'd also say you could use it with non-verbal communication... you can't tell them to come over here, but you can put a halter on that T-rex and guide him into the big crate marked Triassic Acres.

Domination might also be useful in a similar way, though the level of control you have is going to be a lot less than someone who speaks the language would be able to manage.

[Grazzik]

... psychics CAN commune/influence animals and if a psychic can do it I don't see why a mage couldn't (for reference Commune with Animals Sensitive Psi Power in PF2E pg169, you also have the ability to use Super Psi Powers of Hypnotic Suggestion AND Empathic Transmission on animals per text PF2E pg174-5 or RUE pg178-9).

Commune with Animals - "...accept the psionic as one of their own. It also enables the psychic to send and receive emotions and rudimentary thought "images"" - I'd argue this simply influences the animal's instincts rather than an intellect capable of will or through the use of language.

Empathic Transmission on animals - "...enables the psychic to instill a powerful emotion into another living creature" - again on an instinctual/emotional level, not on the level of language as indicated in the text of Domination.

Hypnotic Suggestion - "The power is limited to relaxing/calming somebody down, putting a person or animal in a light sleep, helping a person to relax and focus on a particular thought (good for helping someone to remember things), and implanting subtle ideas." - I'd argue that the only part of this power that affects animals is putting them to sleep, given the grammatical construct of the sentence; however, it is open to interpretation by GM.

I'd consider the potential for Domination to be used in a very limited way to commune with animals through the tone of the mental commands (i.e. angry, happy, sad), but in a way that influences their instincts, rather than through specific willful commands as written in the spell's description. You might be able to mentally vibe "angry" to a T-Rex, but it wouldn't be so nuanced as to communicate "just bite the intruder a little bit"... a T-Rex will be a T-Rex and, depending on the familiarity the T-Rex has with the mage, might just as easily see the mage as an angry threat as they would see the intruder a threat <chomp num num num>.

...it does put them in standby mode... you can put a halter on that T-rex...

The spell says "person" and "character", so literal interpretation does not include animals, despite what some may think about their fur babies. Again, I'd leave it to the GM to decide, but if I were a GM I'd not allow it as how a T-Rex brain works may be very different from a higher lifeform's brain, and so the spell may have no effect on creatures that aren't "persons".

All that said, nothing stops a mage from using the rules in Nightbane's TtGD to modify Trance and Domination spells to work on animals. That I'd allow.

[Library Ogre]

The spell says "person" and "character", so literal interpretation does not include animals, despite what some may think about their fur babies. Again, I'd leave it to the GM to decide, but if I were a GM I'd not allow it as how a T-Rex brain works may be very different from a higher lifeform's brain, and so the spell may have no effect on creatures that aren't "persons".

All that said, nothing stops a mage from using the rules in Nightbane's TtGD to modify Trance and Domination spells to work on animals. That I'd allow.

It also says "him".

[Grazzik]

The spell says "person" and "character", so literal interpretation does not include animals, despite what some may think about their fur babies. Again, I'd leave it to the GM to decide, but if I were a GM I'd not allow it as how a T-Rex brain works may be very different from a higher lifeform's brain, and so the spell may have no effect on creatures that aren't "persons".

All that said, nothing stops a mage from using the rules in Nightbane's TtGD to modify Trance and Domination spells to work on animals. That I'd allow.

It also says "him".

Oh, please let's not go there...

[ShadowLogan]

I'd consider the potential for Domination to be used in a very limited way to commune with animals through the tone of the mental commands (i.e. angry, happy, sad), but in a way that influences their instincts, rather than through specific willful commands as written in the spell's description. You might be able to mentally vibe "angry" to a T-Rex, but it wouldn't be so nuanced as to communicate "just bite the intruder a little bit"... a T-Rex will be a T-Rex and, depending on the familiarity the T-Rex has with the mage, might just as easily see the mage as an angry threat as they would see the intruder a threat <chomp num num num>.

I don't object to the notion that Trance or Domination would have limited scope in terms of comprehension by the animal or even a subject of unquestionability (example a young child), but the spells themselves can work on them.

The idea that just because the spell(s) only refer to character doesn't really hold up IMHO as an animal/monster would be considered an NPC type of character OR do you think it only works on PLAYER CHARACTERS? Pointing to "person" also by a strict definition could also backfire and have other ramifications (strictly speaking by the definition of person it means a case could be constructed that all those non-humans in a given setting would be immune to the spells).

Additionally, Simvan (WB30's writeup pg188-90, specifically pg190) ability Psionic Empathy with Animals Power does allow for "It will also obey the Simvan's every command".

[Grazzik]

The idea that just because the spell(s) only refer to character doesn't really hold up IMHO as an animal/monster would be considered an NPC type of character OR do you think it only works on PLAYER CHARACTERS?

This line of arguement all comes down to definitions, many of which one can quibble about until the cows come home. But let's let RAW decide...

"Character" RAW definition - RUE pg 276 - does not include NPCs. So, if a GM wants to be a jerk, they could say the spell RAW specifically excludes NPCs. But who'd be such a jerk?

"Non-Player Character" RAW definition - RUE pg 278 - any character played by a GM. My view (when acting as a GM) is that animals are not NPCs - they are just part of the scenery like trees, and are interactable constructs in an imaginary game and story woven by the GM. If the GM decides that a bunny or T-Rex is worthy of being a character played by them, so be it - the animal becomes a NPC. However, it's the GM's call. When I am GM, they are not by default NPCs.

Pointing to "person" also by a strict definition could also backfire and have other ramifications (strictly speaking by the definition of person it means a case could be constructed that all those non-humans in a given setting would be immune to the spells).

"Person" has several definitions IRL (none in RAW) and up to you and your GM to agree on which to apply. It is probably safe to say the spell wouldn't apply to a corporation which is a "person" in the legal sense in most countries, but when talking about a single living entity, different dictionaries make reference to "humans", "individuals" and "beings". Personally, I use the colloquial definition of an individual who is self-aware (i.e. they understand who they are, what they want, how they feel, and why they do the things that they do). A bunny is not a person since they are not self-aware, but a dragon that looks like a bunny is a person. For a deeper treatise on this, look up reruns of Star Trek TNG. How others interpret the word "person" is between them and their GM.

Additionally, Simvan (WB30's writeup pg188-90, specifically pg190) ability Psionic Empathy with Animals Power does allow for "It will also obey the Simvan's every command".

The special powers of any being is at the whim of the author, subject to modification by GM fiat, and not predeterminate of the abilities of any other being. So, Simvan have that ability because they are Simvan. No one said PB games were fair or that everyone had to be described with the same flavor of vanilla.

[ShadowLogan]

This line of arguement all comes down to definitions, many of which one can quibble about until the cows come home. But let's let RAW decide...

I agree it's going to come down to definitions in use.

However, I do think that animals would count as an NPC as they are under the control of the GM.

The special powers of any being is at the whim of the author, subject to modification by GM fiat, and not predeterminate of the abilities of any other being. So, Simvan have that ability because they are Simvan. No one said PB games were fair or that everyone had to be described with the same flavor of vanilla.

I agree the ability is because they are Simvan, but it does provide precedent that a psychic ability (which is how it is classified as) can be used to influence/control an animal. And Magic usually has an equivalent way to do a psychic power.

However, there is further precedent that magic can influence animals given "Summon & Control Animals (ritual)", there are specialized versions for Rodents, Canines" (Rifts BoM pg143, pg136, pg131 respectively). You also have Circle Magic examples in PF2E (Command-Pwr Circle pg150 that works on "other living creatures, forcing them to obey his commands.", you also have Summon Insects pg147 mentions "only follow simple commands and instructions.") So we know magic can be used to control animals, and these examples work with multiples where the spells in question would only need to impact one, so if you can do groups of animals, I don't see why you couldn't do individual animals.

[drewkitty ~..~]

My answer to the OP Q is that trance and domination can be placed on any living being, person, animal, or monster. Why? It is magic that works on the living to divert them from what they want to do.

What it cannot be placed on and work are animatronics, cybernetics and technological non-living sentients. (SWNG: Data, PW: Machine People, and other robot characters.) For these sets of targets the magic might seam like it has taken hold of the individual but it no effect on its actions or thinking processes.
---------------

Dominion? No, because the spell replaces the victim's will and dinos have no will to replace, only instinct, as they are animals.

Belief that animals do not have will is the opinion of someone who has never owned a cat.

Totally hilarious and true. Though I would say that person never had a pet, (has right now a strong willed dog) not just never had a cat.

[Grazzik]

However, I do think that animals would count as an NPC as they are under the control of the GM.

Fair enough, that's your view. My gameplay style is different.

I agree the ability is because they are Simvan, but it does provide precedent that a psychic ability (which is how it is classified as) can be used to influence/control an animal.

Indicative of potential for interpretation, yes. Precedent (as in rule defining), no. Just because water which flows as a fluid feels wet, doesn't mean that mercury which also flows like a fluid must feel wet. However, if you've never felt mercury, it would be fair to say you could infer that it might feel the same way, even when wrong. In this case, the psychic special ability of X does not mean the psychic power Y or spell Z does the same thing or works the same way, even if similar factors (T-Rex) is involved.

And Magic usually has an equivalent way to do a psychic power.

The outcomes may be similar in many cases, but that's like saying a rogue scholar is the same as a vagabond because they both can shoot a laser rifle. In my mind, there has to be something different between the two and so I defer to the idea that psychics can do stuff mages can't and vice versa. You can drink water and coke, but I wouldn't recommend showering in one of them.

However, there is further precedent that magic can influence animals given "Summon & Control Animals (ritual)", there are specialized versions for Rodents, Canines" (Rifts BoM pg143, pg136, pg131 respectively). You also have Circle Magic examples in PF2E (Command-Pwr Circle pg150 that works on "other living creatures, forcing them to obey his commands.", you also have Summon Insects pg147 mentions "only follow simple commands and instructions.") So we know magic can be used to control animals, and these examples work with multiples where the spells in question would only need to impact one, so if you can do groups of animals, I don't see why you couldn't do individual animals.

Meh, those spells were designed for those purposes. You want to think of Trance as similar to a Summon & Control Lesser-type spell without the ritual, go for it if your GM agrees. Not in my games though <asserting GM prerogative>.