So I'm about to run an encounter with goblins in 497. The GPC says they have a "Glamour ("minor illusion only") 15 ability but does not detail how that power works anywhere. I've looked in other books like KAP 4th Ed., without much luck. So the question I put to the forum is — what would you expect this power to be, and what are its limitations?

I think we can all agree immediately that is it an illusion that makes the target see something that is not really there, or alters the appearance of a thing that is there. However, a lot of questions spring from those two concepts:

1.) Is the illusion an objective phenomenon external to those who perceive it? I guess that would make sense if the illusion has to be "minor," (whatever that means) because it's easier to limit the effects. It's almost like bending lightwaves so that anyone in the area perceives it the same way. Therefore you can rule that a goblin can only effect a certain area — perhaps a 10' x 10' cube or whatever. Illusory items will not cast shadows and are not solid, or course. Nor will they necessarily emit sound or light (though they could if one wants such illusion to be more powerful) or have an olfactory component.

2.) Can the glamour be resisted/dispelled? If so, how? An opposed roll of Glamour vs Spiritual? Does it look like a matrix:

When a goblin crits Glamour, he creates an extemely detailed illusion, complete with olfactory, touch and taste components. He can create the likeness of one of your friends that you'll believe (assuming the goblin has has ample opportunity to observe the friend). He can create the illusion of a gurgling brook with water that you can "touch" — it feels wet — and "taste", etc.

Goblin crits Glamour, you crit Spiritual (TIE): You utterly see through the illusion — though you perceive something strange is going on. Perhaps the air shimmers, there's no shadow, it's semi-transparent, etc.
Goblin crits, you succeed (PARTIAL SUCCESS): The illusion "takes" but it's imperfect in some way (see above) and thus you see through it.
Goblin crits, you fail (FUMBLE): The illusion is believed, until touched. Even then, it may persist, but "your hand goes through it" or some such.
Goblin crits, you fumble (MAJOR FUMBLE?): The illusion is utterly believed. The target smells illusory smells, feels illusory heat, etc.

With a normal success and goblin creates an image that effect just two of the four senses (other than touch). So he could conjure a glowing ball of blue light, that moves and perhaps hisses, but puts of no heat and has no substance.

Goblin succeeds, you crit: The illusion is perceived, but you perceive's it imperfectaions and you're able to will it away. The illusion vanishes, or is recognized for what it is.
Goblin succeeds and wins, but you also succeed: See (PARTIAL SUCCESS), above.
Goblin succeeds, you fail (FAIL): The illusion is believed, until touched.
Goblin succeeds, you fumble: See FUMBLE, above.

With a failure, the goblin fails to conjure an image at all. This seems unlikely to me — how does one "fail" an innate magical ability? Maybe if one is unable to concentrate of the effort? Alternatively, it could conjure an illusion, but it's so imperfect that it's immediately "seen through" — The vision of a man in conjured, but his face is indescript, or he has no body below the knees, etc.

Goblin fails, you crit: The illusion does not "take" and you perceive the goblin is trying to weave a glamour.
Goblin fails, you succeed: The illusion does not take.
Goblin fails, you fail: No game effect.
Goblin fails, you fumble: No game effect.

I don't know what it would mean for a goblin to fumble a Glamour roll. The easiest thing to do is just rule that there's no illusion. The more interesting thing to do, would be to yield a comical effect — a man with two faces, like Janus; or a barrel with legs, or am aples that's thrice as big as a normal apple.

Goblin fumbles: ?

3.) What are the limitations? Can the "area of effect" move or must it remain stationery? Or can it move with the goblin, only? Can a goblin disguise himself as a fox or a crow (but not be able to fit in a fox's den, or fly)? How long does the glamour last? As long as the goblin can maintain concentration on it? Does the goblin need to be present to maintain it? If so, what's the effective range? Does he need a line of sight? Can the illusion make things appear that aren't there (like donkey ears on your knight buddy), or a golden throne in the middle of a forest, or is the goblin simply limited to changing it's own appearance? (Distinct from the Shapechange goblin ability which I take to mean the goblin actually tranforms his matter into another creature — here a goblin-fox could fit into a den, and a goblin-crow fly)). Again, if he's just changing his own appearance, does everyone see the same thing, or can the goblin make people see different versions of himself (I say if the illusion is in the mind, the versions can indeed be different, but if they're external objective phenomenon, everyone would see the same thing.)? How detailed are the illusions (maybe with a Crit highly detailed, capable of faithfully creating a specific face, for example)? Are the illusions the goblin can conjure limited to what he himself as experienced (yes, I say).

4.) Alternatively, is the illusion in the mind of the beholder? If it is, what are the limitations? Seems to me, once you're in someone's head and can make them see something that's not real, you can make them see anything. A whole forest can appear barren (though you can still walk into real trees that have been obscured by "glamoured"). A moat can appear to have a bridge when in fact none is there. A lavish feast can be spread in a magnificant hall that's doesn't really exist at all.

5.) Can glamours (of either the objective or subjective kind) create lighting effects, and sound? Again, if you're actually in the head of the user— the subjective glamour—I would think the answer is yes. You can make them see, or smell anything. Of course, one could argue that you could make them even feel and taste things that aren't there — a cup at an illusory feast feels solid, as does the chair you're sitting in, and the wine in the cup tastes sweet.

I know there aren't ready answers to these things and the ultimate answer is probably "it depends". But I'd thought I'd start a conversation with the community about it as I'm primarily concerned with game balance, so I need some help sussing that out. If we can come to some sort of consensus of what's reasonable, and codify, it will benefit future Gamemasters that run into the same conundum.

So, what do you expect from a goblin — a creature of Faery — with the power of Glamour 15? I'm open to all ideas!


Best,


T.

IMHO, the clue is in the description: Minor Illusions Only. Thus, I would allow the goblins to create simple illusions, probably influencing only one sense at a time. They could use such illusions to aid them in hiding, for example, making themselves look like a rock or something. And sure, an illusion of a lit torch would still cast light since that is what is part of the whole lit torch illusion. But it would not be hot to touch nor would the fire crackle or smell of smoke, etc.

I would require the goblin to succeed in a skill roll to create the illusion. Even though it is an inborn power, it is still a talent/skill and needs to be rolled. The goblin couldn't continue making minor illusions forever, either, since magic has its cost, although this is likely a lesser limitation... I would require the goblin to concentrate on its illusion, too, to make it move (yes, I would allow it to move) and so forth. If it stops concentrating on the illusion, the illusion would fade. So a single goblin cannot spam multiple illusions willy-nilly. As for the size, I'd say it is 'one thing'. So it would take a group of goblins to create something more complicated like a group around a campfire or a furnished room.

As for countermeasures, well, the stories do seem to indicate that many of the Christian rituals seem to be effective against faerie creatures. So while I might not allow an automatic resist, I would allow a Spiritual roll (likely unopposed at that) if the person invokes JC or recites the Lord's Prayer or calls on the Saint(s), etc, which would be actually what most of the people in that period would do, if they see something they'd suspect to be unnatural/demonic. But that is part of my campaign 'metaphysics': Christians are quite poor in 'magic' (apart from some miracles now and again) but they are strong in resisting pagan/faerie magic. Goblins are weak faerie creatures, as the Faerie go: their magic should not be overwhelmingly strong, IMHO.

I should hasten to add that appropriate preparation can give the target a bonus on the Spiritual roll to "resist" Glamour. Having attending mass and other purification rituals in preparation for the confrontation gets a +5 (only lasts three days, or until next "sin," whichever comes first). Wearing "holy symbols" or amulets gets a (cumulative) +3. Night or darkness imposes a -5 penalty!

Also, I think daylight could impose a -5 to the goblin's Glamour ability, and that sunlight should be treated like darkness is with humans — make an Awareness roll or suffer a -10 penalty on all skill rolls; a successful Awareness roll reduces the penalty to -5 (not cumulative, in the case of Glamour, which is not a skill but an innate magical ability). At GM's discretion heavy shade or gloom, including heavily overcast days, could reduce these penalties to -5 and -3, respectively.


T.

Thanks, Morien, I agree they should be weak, comparitively. But that's what I'm trying to define, in part. What is "minor" and what is "major" magic? I can create havoc and even carnage with one illusory bridge (one sense only — sight) if horsemen go charging across it. Can glamours not create something that large? Is it harder to create something small and animated than large and static? These are the sorts of things I'm thinking about, and looking for a simple way to codify, without getting too technical (a 10' cube area of effect, etc.).

Best,


M.

I don't think I'd limit it to just Christian rituals, BTW. In this world, even the appropriate supplications to the right Pagan god would do the trick.


T.

Thanks, Morien, I agree they should be weak, comparitively. But that's what I'm trying to define, in part. What is "minor" and what is "major" magic? I can create havoc and even carnage with one illusory bridge (one sense only — sight) if horsemen go charging across it. Can glamours not create something that large? Is it harder to create something small and animated than large and static? These are the sorts of things I'm thinking about, and looking for a simple way to codify, without getting too technical (a 10' cube area of effect, etc.).

Personally, I interpret "minor illusion" glamours thus: as something that could be a "trick of the eye." What's that long thing you see out of the corner of you eye, a branch or a snake? What's that at the bottom of the pool, gemstones or pebbles? Is that fallen log over the stream strong and sturdy, or is it really old and rotted? Is that dark shape a bush, or a rock, or the goblin himself?

Basically, these are illusions that make one thing look like something else, which is of similar size and shape to the actual object. The illusions are "real" in that they exist in the world rather than merely in the mind of the viewer but as a minor illusion they are easily seen through when the observers interaction with the object proves the illusion... striking the snake proves it's only a branch, looking at the gems in the clear light of day reveals they are only pebbles, falling into the stream tells you everything you needed to know about the log. Thus, a successful Awareness test *could* reveal an illusion but since most of us accept our first impressions, a knight would have to have a reason to take that second closer look, a reason to doubt his senses, before he could make the test.

My $.02, for whatever it's worth.

Basically, these are illusions that make one thing look like something else, which is of similar size and shape to the actual object. The illusions are "real" in that they exist in the world rather than merely in the mind of the viewer but as a minor illusion they are easily seen through when the observers interaction with the object proves the illusion... striking the snake proves it's only a branch, looking at the gems in the clear light of day reveals they are only pebbles, falling into the stream tells you everything you needed to know about the log. Thus, a successful Awareness test *could* reveal an illusion but since most of us accept our first impressions, a knight would have to have a reason to take that second closer look, a reason to doubt his senses, before he could make the test.


I like that answer. Taliesin, I am changing my mind! :P

To be honest, I would probably go with the Rule of Cool & what I want the goblins to be able to do in this adventure. Not to mention, I loathe throwing handfuls of dice for the NPCs. I'd much rather come up with an effect and then let the PKs resist it, if necessary. PKs could and should roll Faerie lore in advance to see if they have any idea what Goblins are capable of apart from 'evil trickster faerie' which should be a given for anyone with even a hint of Faerie Lore.

Agreed, that's mighty persuasive and "feels" right, for the genre. Unfortunately is it really limits the power to make it almost a novelty, rather than something that can have real consequences. But I do rally like it. Thinking more on it...

Thanks for the contribution, AlnothEasdricson, your two cents are worth much more than that!


T.

I think that a glamour is a semi-real illusion. That is, it's not really illusory, but it is non-permanent. A castle created by glamour is solid (you could throw a stone against it and it would bounce off), but if you were sleeping on the second floor when the spell wore off, you wouldn't fall. There never really was any second floor. You could create a fire through glamour and have it burn down someone's home, but when the glamour ended, the damage would never have happened (though responses by people might have - if they threw water on the fire, the house wouldn't be wet, but the water would still be gone). I would probably rule different glamours differently - a pile of illusionary feathers might save you from falling to your doom, but an illusionary suit of armor wouldn't really protect you from damage (though I wouldn't make you suffer the damage until the glamour ended).

I probably wouldn't allow a glamour in direct defiance of reality (like an illusionary bridge where there really is none). But you could create an illusionary bridge at a ford, cross it, and when it disappears, your feet wouldn't have gotten wet. Some I might allow on a subjective basis (you could make the water look shallow, but it just looks shallow, and you would still find it deep if you entered it).

I would also say that glamour is perfect, or almost so. You can't see through it (maybe a critical Awareness roll would alert you to something being off). But it might be possible to dispel a glamour, either through prayer (I.e. a successful Religion roll opposed to the glamour) or through various things the fey are vulnerable to (what do you call those stones with the holes in them?). Regular iron might be enough to dispel a weak glamour. And once someone sees through it, I would say that the whole glamour is broken.

As for the goblin, I would limit him by size or dramatic impact more than complexity, I think. He could make a pouch of gold - and it would look and feel real, and sound real if you dropped it - but not a dragon's hoard. He could make a cave look like a shack, but he couldn't make a castle from nothing.

While I agree with what you wrote, Thane, about Glamour in general, it needs to be pointed out that the Goblins have a limited version of it: "minor illusions only". They are not able to summon glamorous fireballs from their eyes and bolts of lightning from their hindquarters. Changing a bunch of pebbles to look like nuggets of gold, sure, I'd buy that.

Incidentally, a glamorous armor does protect from damage permanently in 4th edition rules. Personally, I'd allow the Faerie Lord of Black Glass Castle to summon an Obsidian Armor around himself with a gesture and cause a big obsidian cleaver to materialize into his hand for battle, and any damage caused is real damage. I don't require any particular reason behind it, but if I had to, the reasoning would be that the damage is not magical but coming from the Faerie Lord's own physical strength: the magical sword is just facilitating it, just like a glamorous bridge would allow you to cross a stream.

Thanks, Thane of Fife. Actually creating solid objects (even if only temporarily) is, IMHO, beyond the scope of a glamor, which, as I'm coming to understand more and more as I read about it, is all about altering (usually enhacing) one's perceptions. Here are some nuggets I snipped from various places on the Web (just use bits of them as a Google search string if you want to track them down):

• To protect and disguise oneself from those who mean to harm you.

• Growing from the Scottish gramarye around 1720, glamer was a sort of spell that would affect the eyesight of those afflicted, so that objects appear different than they actually are. Sir Walter Scott anglicized the word and brought it into popular use in his poems (“You may bethink you of the spell / Of that sly urchin page / This to his lord did impart / And made him seem, by glamour art / A knight from Hermitage”).

• A Glamour (or Glamor) was a spell used to conceal or hide the true form of an object, person or area under an illusion. Glamours were not only optical but also auditory as well. While some of them could remain for an indefinite amount of time, others had a time-based existence and eventually faded. Unlike reality alteration [which is what you're describing, I think, TofE] or transmogrification, glamours did not cause actual modifications in reality but rather distorted the perception of certain beings.

• An item, motif, person, image that by association improves appearance

• Witchcraft; magic charm; a spell affecting the eye, making objects appear different from what they really are.

• A kind of haze in the air, causing things to appear different from what they really are.

SOME USEFUL PATHFINDER DEFINTIONS:

Figment: A figment spell creates a false sensation. Those who perceive the figment perceive the same thing, not their own slightly different versions of the figment. It is not a personalized mental impression. Figments cannot make something seem to be something else. A figment that includes audible effects cannot duplicate intelligible speech unless the spell description specifically says it can. If intelligible speech is possible, it must be in a language you can speak. If you try to duplicate a language you cannot speak, the figment produces gibberish. Likewise, you cannot make a visual copy of something unless you know what it looks like (or copy another sense exactly unless you have experienced it).

Because figments and glamers are unreal, they cannot produce real effects the way that other types of illusions can. Figments and glamers cannot cause damage to objects or creatures, support weight, provide nutrition, or provide protection from the elements. Consequently, these spells are useful for confounding foes, but useless for attacking them directly.

Glamer: A glamer spell changes a subject's sensory qualities, making it look, feel, taste, smell, or sound like something else, or even seem to disappear.


Possible Glamour effects

• The subject’s outline appears blurred, shifting and wavering. This distortion grants the subject concealment (20% miss chance). I'm thinking here of the original PREDATOR film. In KAP terms, this could make it very easy for a goblin to "melt into a forest and conceal himself — -10 on Awareness checks for people looking for him? Course, you could still smell him, so maybe only -5?

• Change one's appearance—including clothing, armor, weapons, and equipment. You can seem one foot shorter or taller, thin, fat, or in between. You cannot change your body type. Otherwise, the extent of the apparent change is up to you. You could add or obscure a minor feature or look like an entirely different person.

The spell does not provide the abilities or mannerisms of the chosen form, nor does it alter the perceived tactile (touch) or audible (sound) properties of you or your equipment. Closely related to this is:

• Create a disguise, to get a +10 bonus on a Disguise check. A creature that interacts with the glamer gets a chance to recognize it as an illusion. Affected creatures resume their normal appearances if slain. Unwilling targets can negate the spell’s effect on them by making Will saves or with spell resistance. For our purposes, it might be asking too much for a goblin to change some one else's apearance, so I'd say "no" there.

• The creature or object touched becomes invisible, vanishing from sight. If the recipient is a creature carrying gear, that vanishes, too. If you cast the spell on someone else, neither you nor your allies can see the subject, unless you can normally see invisible things or you employ magic to do so. Items dropped or put down by an invisible creature become visible; items picked up disappear if tucked into the clothing or pouches worn by the creature. Light, however, never becomes invisible, although a source of light can become so (thus, the effect is that of a light with no visible source). Any part of an item that the subject carries but that extends more than 10 feet from it becomes visible. Of course, the subject is not magically silenced, and certain other conditions can render the recipient detectable (such as stepping in a puddle).

I see this, and the blur effect above, as sort of slipping to the Otherworld. Again, may be a bit much to be able to make other invisible, but the idea of invisibility is consistent with the concept of glamor.

• Make any area appear to be something other than it is. The illusion includes audible, visual, tactile, and olfactory elements. This can alter the appearance of structures (or add them where none are present). Still, it can’t disguise, conceal, or add creatures (though creatures within the area might hide themselves within the illusion just as they can hide themselves within a real location).

This gets tricky and calls to question duration, range and area of effect.

I also think an effect would be to play with shadow. Make them deeper than they are, or make darker shadows flirt among the trees of a gloomy forest, and so on.

I think this stuff is on the right track, I just need to figure out what effects are too much for a goblin. Sure, they're "just goblins," (as Morien pointed out) but they're a hella lot more than your traditional fantasy goblins. I mean, they can wield glamours, for cryin' out loud. I'm all on board with saying they change the appearance of themselves, possibly other creatures, objects, and small areas, with really changing them. So an illusory bridge over a chasm seems like fair play to me (knowing this is all subjective). Or at the very least a damaged and very treacherous bridge could be made to look perfectly safe and sound — depending on the size.

Although I do agree with the earlier post that said only the appearance of objects or creatures that already exist could be changed (as opposed to conjuring the appearance of things like bridges that aren't actually there out of thin air), I have to wonder if such limited effects are too subtle to be of much practical use in gameplay.

Still thinking...


Best,


T.

Incidentally, a glamorous armor does protect from damage permanently in 4th edition rules. Personally, I'd allow the Faerie Lord of Black Glass Castle to summon an Obsidian Armor around himself with a gesture and cause a big obsidian cleaver to materialize into his hand for battle, and any damage caused is real damage. I don't require any particular reason behind it, but if I had to, the reasoning would be that the damage is not magical but coming from the Faerie Lord's own physical strength: the magical sword is just facilitating it, just like a glamorous bridge would allow you to cross a stream.

I can't get behind that, personally. I think any damage a glamour causes should only be a bi-product of believing something is what it isn't, or isn't what it is. If you let glamorous armors offer protection and glamorous blades cause damage, you're moving significantly away from the concept of effecting appearances only. I definitely don't like the idea of a glamorous bridge holding people aloft. That's reality alteration, not manipulation of sensory input.


Best,


T.

For addiitonal guidance, here's what Greg had to say on the subject when I asked him about it recently:


A minor illusion is something small, like making one thing look like another—a rock look like a piece of cake. Or make a sound, like footsteps on leaves. Petty, non-harmful in-and-of-itself stuff.

Well that brings us back to Thane of Fife's thesis. So maybe an illusory bridge can't be conjured by these guys after all. But I would think they could manipulate light easily enough (like make some will o' the wisp effects) and do spooky stuff with shadow, as I suggested earlier. So maybe no "blur" or invisibility effect but a sort of camouflage that would make them hard to see (Awareness penalty).


Officially, magic always works in KAP, and human have no defense against it. So if a magical spear is fighting them, they can fight the sper, but not against whatever is making it work.

What he's talking about here is that there's effectively no "saving throw" in KAP (at least not so far) — magic cannot be resisted or detected in advance. It just works.


Celtic Glamour is an illusion, but not the pop illusion. Illusion is a temporary reality. Glamour fire will burn you, Glamour food can be eaten, and so on.

This is a bit at odds with with my research, and supports Morien's and AlnothEadricson's suggestion — but there are different traditions and YPMV, and all that. At the least this should be reserved for faerie lords, maybe? Creating matter out of thin air should surely be beyond the power of a goblin. If a glamour can make a rock look like a piece of cake, and Glamour food can be eaten, what if you eat a piece of cake that's really a rock? At that point are you eating cake or rock? Do your teeth know the difference? The concepts seem to cancel each other out. And even though i'm onboard with the theory that you don't have to explain everything, because it's you know faerie, I think you don't want to have the rules contradtict each other. Otherwise, ya don't need rules. And if that's true, why have rules for anything?


I always figure that these minor creatures know how to do one or two things, small things. This one make a light, that one creates the sound of someone walking, etc.

It's interesting that he thought about giving these guys "specialty" glamours. Seems a bit bizarre to me, limiting them to such a narrow focus. Personally I think it's enough to enforce the other limitations.


Best,


T.

Another question: If humans have no "save" vs. magic, what about other faeries? Are members of the Seelie Court impervious to Unseelie glamours, and vice-versa? What about half-fae? Animals?


T.

I can't get behind that, personally. I think any damage a glamour causes should only be a bi-product of believing something is what it isn't, or isn't what it is. If you let glamorous armors offer protection and glamorous blades cause damage, you're moving significantly away from the concept of effecting appearances only. I definitely don'tlike the idea of a glamorous bridge holding people aloft. That's reality alteration, not manipulation of sensory input.


Best,


T.

What goblins have is minor illusions, not full glamour as defined in 4th edition. There glamour isn't just illusions but temporary reality tampering. A sidhe lord who can wield full glamour can do a whole lot more than just minor illusions.

Another question: If humans have no "save" vs. magic, what about other faeries? Are members of the Seelie Court impervious to Unseelie glamours, and vice-versa? What about half-fae? Animals?

My thoughts... it depends. In my campaigns, faeries have The Sight, so they can see glamour for what it is. You can't fool a faerie with glamour, per say. At the same time, they accept the reality of it anyway. If a faerie lord glamours a stick into a sword, the faeries of his court will treat it as a sword. Do they really think it's a sword or are they just "playing along"? The difference is largely academic to the poor knights caught up in their schemes. By some definitions, the glamour of the fae lord is the matter of the Otherworld. It is as real to them as steel and stone is to mortals.These are, after all, beings who dress themselves in robes of spun moonlight and lover's sighs.

Half-fae or mortals with The Sight could see through glamour but should be *very careful* of letting others know that. Faeries don't like people pointing out their illusions. The question asked by a glamoured fae lord to a mortal who sees him is "Which eye can you see me with?" followed by the forcible removal of that eye.

Animals? Domestic animals are typically portrayed as being as "blind" as humans... except for dogs who warn their masters of danger and cats who are, truthfully, probably fae in their right. Wild animals might recognize glamour for what it is but depending on their relationship with the faerie in question might accept it just as the fae themselves do, or might simply avoid it as a fearful thing.

Again, my $.02 for whatever it's worth.

Although I do agree with the earlier post that said only the appearance of objects or creatures that already exist could be changed (as opposed to conjuring the appearance of things like bridges that aren't actually there out of thin air), I have to wonder if such limited effects are too subtle to be of much practical use in gameplay.

I think the obvious answer is that it really depends on your style of play. For me, goblins and faeries fit more into adventures which I'd almost classify as Horror rather than Sword and Sorcery. Not the blood n' guts kind of horror, but the old suspense stories. The kind of adventures that hearken back to that fear you had when you were a child, alone in a strange room at night, when the shadows turn a pile of clothes into a lurking monster and that tapping sound against the window might be Something trying to get in.

I've run a couple of faerie themed adventures which consisted mainly of getting lost in the woods and trying to find one's way out, while being taunted by a goblin's sing-song voice and jumping at shadows that are sometimes just illusions and other times actually hide something dangerous.

The key to the success of that kind of thing, of course, is having a gaming group interested in participating in those kind of stories.

I agree that it is not reality alteration, rather just a change in perception, but what I mean is that I think glamour is more substantive than a typical D&D illusion, which I generally imagine as being basically a hologram.

In my mind, a classic glamour would be that a knight is riding through the woods and comes upon a castle. He goes in and is greeted by the lady of the estate and her servants. He has a fine dinner (though not a very memorable one), he perhaps chats with some other folks (though none really stand out), and eventually ends up sleeping with the lady of the castle. When he wakes up, he is lying in an empty field. The castle is not there - it was never there (and twenty years later, an enchantress shows up with his bastard son).

The castle seemed perfectly genuine. The knight could go upstairs or down into the dungeons. He could taste the food, hear the music, and converse with the guests. But none of that was really there. In a story, we would kind of avoid the logical problems potentially arising in this. That is, the knight would never go upstairs and look out a window and see for miles, because he can't really go upstairs (because there are no stairs). In a game, where this is potentially unavoidable (what do you do if the player specifically wants to look out of an upper story window?), I think it is more in keeping with the nature of the glamour to allow that view than to say that there are no windows or something. Similarly, there's falling off a cliff into a pile of illusory feathers. Do you live or die? Well, in a story, you would never land in that pile of feathers. In a game, where it can happen, there needs to be an answer. I tend to think of an Arthurian style glamour as not being broken by contradiction. That is, ideally, we would totally avoid situations where the glamour would be physically tested or long-term consequences would ensue. Since we can't guarantee that in a game, I prefer the option of allowing limited long-term consequences over allowing people to fall through a glamour like a hologram.


But that's all a digression. For a goblin, with "minor illusions" only, I would base my allowance on the idea that goblins are trickster types and on having a minor effect on the world and people's perceptions. Fooling someone into thinking that a rock is gold? Sure. Making a lone person think water looks less deep than it is or see a will'o'wisp? Probably. But I would consider fooling a bunch of people into seeing a bridge where there is nothing to be a major illusion. I might allow Merlin to do something like that.

If glamour always works, then how do the players recognize it? Or, to put it another way, if the Goblin has Glamour 15, then it must have to use the skill for something or in opposition to something. Religion, Spiritual, and Awareness have been suggested as skills that could potentially counter glamour along with iron and stones with a hole in the middle. The problem is, if glamour always works, then how do you counter it by using the skills or items? Can they recognize glamour being used? Or are they unaware of it barring intervention by wandering holy men or magicians?

I do like the idea of Goblins setting up an ambush, with one creating a voice or similar lure and the others blending with the surroundings until the prey enters the killzone. Alternatively, luring a foe away from a safe path into a morass or similar natural deathtrap is a classic way to sidetrack the players. I originally thought that Goblins could shapeshift too, but Taliesin and Greg's clarifications make it far less likely that the Goblin would change itself into a family member, the player's lord, or a beautiful maiden.

If glamour always works, then how do the players recognize it? Or, to put it another way, if the Goblin has Glamour 15, then it must have to use the skill for something or in opposition to something. Religion, Spiritual, and Awareness have been suggested as skills that could potentially counter glamour along with iron and stones with a hole in the middle. The problem is, if glamour always works, then how do you counter it by using the skills or items? Can they recognize glamour being used? Or are they unaware of it barring intervention by wandering holy men or magicians?

Agreed. This is one of the things I'm trying to develop nswers for. I don't think unopposed rolls are workable — or, if one takes the position that "you can make anything workable" — I don't think the resolution method is desirable, for the reasons you site. Very unsatisfactory. There's a whole host (besides being undocumented) of issues around Glamour, which is why I posted this here.

I need to figure it out pretty quickly — we're playing tonight!



T.

If glamour always works, then how do the players recognize it? Or, to put it another way, if the Goblin has Glamour 15, then it must have to use the skill for something or in opposition to something. Religion, Spiritual, and Awareness have been suggested as skills that could potentially counter glamour along with iron and stones with a hole in the middle. The problem is, if glamour always works, then how do you counter it by using the skills or items? Can they recognize glamour being used? Or are they unaware of it barring intervention by wandering holy men or magicians?

The best way to counter glamour, or any magic really, is to anticipate it and prevent it. People have no natural defense against magic but historically a whole tradition of magicians, called Cunning Folk in late medieval England (IIRC), existed who did good business selling protective charms, cures and counter-curses.

So basically, if one expects or fears running into a faerie (or witch) one invests in a simple protective charm which is worn or carried. Traditionally, the charm must remain secret and hidden, and may not touch the earth, but having it protects you from curses and glamours... assuming your magician is stronger/more skilled than the witch or faerie in question. Mechanically, in the case discussed, I can see that as an opposed roll between a "skill rating" for the charm and the faerie's Glamour. Likewise, looking through a witchstone (a stone with natural hole in it) or using a special ointment (often made of clover and holy water) will let one see through Glamour.

Finally, in folk lore, a particularly clever, wise or holy individual may be able to recognize and see through glamour in their own right... hence Faerie Lore, Religion, Spiritual and/or Awareness rolls (opposed or not, as your preference) *if* one suspects glamour is being used may allow an individual to see through it.

Again, my $.02 for whatever it's worth.

Edit: Bringing protective charms when dealing with faeries is like bringing arms and armor when fighting Saxons. If you're prepared, you've got a fair chance. If, on the other hand, you get ambushed and don't have your gear, you're in a lot of trouble.

No, that definition in your opening paragraph is absolutely wrong
absolutely
It is a temporary reality
Glamour in the literature would never do what it does if it was this silly D&D "illusion"
That isw really, really important to remember
A Glamour fire will burn you, a Glamour spear will kill you, a glamour maiden will get pregnant

No, that definition in your opening paragraph is absolutely wrong

Thanks, Greg. That doesn't surprise me.


It is a temporary reality
Glamour in the literature would never do what it does if it was this silly D&D "illusion"
That isw really, really important to remember
A Glamour fire will burn you, a Glamour spear will kill you, a glamour maiden will get pregnant

Color me confused.

In the goblin description in the GPC, it says they have the Glamour faerie power, which is further described as a "minor illusion only." [emphasis mine]

When I asked you to clarify what this meant, you wrote:


A minor illusion is something small, like making one thing look like another—a rock look like a piece of cake. Or make a sound, like footsteps on leaves. Petty, non-harmful in-and-of-itself stuff.

So, which is it? Making one thing look like another (indistinguishable to me from the "silly D&D thing") or conjuring some force that can actually burn, kill, and bear your love-child? Does the goblin make the rock look like a piece of cake, or does he tranform the rock into a piece of cake? If I eat the cake, am I eating cake or rock — a rock that tastes like cake? Does it break my teeth? If so, am I aware of it? How long does the cake-form last? Five minutes? Till the cock crows? Are these effects inside the mind of the victim, or external (so that all present would perceive them)? If one impregnates a glamour maiden, does she give birth to a glamour child nine months later? Could someone else raise that child, or does it only exist in the mind of the father? In short — do glamours change reality (and transmute matter, or conjure it out of thin air) or is it all a mind-trick (an incredibly realistic illusion that can actually kill you). D&D has just such a spell too, IIRC.

If the clarification you originally provided is correct, should the power ascribed to goblins in the GPC not be called a Glamour? Maybe they have the "silly D&D illusion" power of making things look like other things and causing leaves to rustle while only faerie lords have Glamour? And how long can the little bugger sustain the sound of footsteps on leaves anyway?

If "a minor illusion is making one thing look like another", can it make an unbridged chasm look like a bridged chasm? If not, why not? Does it have to be more subtle? Making a rock look like a piece of cake is not very subtle...

I'm trying to understand the parameters. I can't get my head around something that's so undefined and self-contradicting. We have prescribed rules for everything else, why not this?


Best,


T.

Taliesin, I think the confusion is coming from the fact that you are using a LIMITATION to describe the FULL power.

If I had a fire demon with a skill 'Magic (fireballs only)' would you assume that ALL magic is fireballs only? No, of course not; you'd just that think that the fire demons have only fireball magic, while another magic types exist elsewhere.

So:
Unlimited Glamour = temporary reality which can also do illusions but so much more. This is the version that Faerie Lords and powerful sorceresses have. It is not a mind trick, everyone sees the Glamour and it is real for the duration. (4th edition had some contradictory things to say, but assuming Greg's previous post is correct, if you get a Glamour chasm opened beneath you, you will fall and die, and your crushed body will appear on the original field once the Glamour vanishes.)
Limited Glamour (minor illusions only) = minor illusions only, since it is limited. This is the version that goblins have. Minor tricks and simple illusions. I wouldn't allow an illusionary bridge crossing a chasm, since that is not minor in my opinion, but I might allow making a rickety one to look sturdier than it is.

I'm trying to understand the parameters. I can't get my around something that's so undefined and self-contradicting. We have prescribed rules for everything else, why not this?

Certainly not trying to speak for Greg, but for myself the answer is "because it's magic." The tone and feeling of Magic is mystery and wonder and terror. It has the logic of dreams and a child's imagination. Yes, it has rules, but those rules aren't necessarily clear or consistent... though the magician would say the inconstancy is because we don't really understand it (and if that frustrates you, consider that Newtonian Physics - which we still teach - is actually wrong under the model of Quantum Physics).

All of that said... let me try to offer you this as model that might help your thinking. Glamour is the substance of the Otherworld. A magical being may have the ability to manipulate Glamour and manifest it in this world. However, the strength/power of the being in question effects the amount of Glamour it can "move around." A goblin, in this context, is relatively weak being... it can manifest only a small amount of Glamour, the equivalent of a coat of paint. Thus, using the rotten log over a stream as a model, the goblin can "paint it" to look like a strong and sturdy log but it can't actually effect it beyond that. A faerie lord, on the other hand, can manifest a lot of glamour... enough to not merely make the log look strong but to actually "fill in the gaps" of the log's substance and so make it actually strong.

Does that help?

Taliesin, I think the confusion is coming from the fact that you are using a LIMITATION to describe the FULL power.

No, I do understand that, actually. Of course, I'm not using it that way—that's what the rules say. And without any additional context or explanation, one could easily assume that the full power of Glamour was a "major illusion." So one is left with the distinct impression that Glamour=illusion. Since a common definition of "illusion" is "a thing that is or is likely to be wrongly perceived or interpreted by the senses," or "a deceptive appearance or impression," one could be forgiven for not including spears (albeit temporary ones) that can kill you, much less a lady that can be impregnated, or illusory chasms you can fall into.

No one has yet to explain if the chasm is in the mind of the target and he dies because he believes he hits bottom — or if there is an actual (but temporary) chasm (thus oberservable and hazardous to others) that will actually crush your body (as you posit, above). One is manipulating the mind, one is manipulating reality and matter itself.

Sure such things might be "unknowable" and "mysterious", as AlnothEadricson rightly points out — but that doesn't help me create a logically consistent and repeatable use of the spell. If I'm just supposed to make stuff up, with no parameters — well, that's very unsatisfactory.


Best,


T.

one could easily assume that the full power of Glamour was a "major illusion."

Which is incorrect assumption, as explained by 4h Edition and Greg here. Even so, it doesn't have anything to do with the Goblin Power, which is clearly limited to 'minor illusions only'. Since the words 'minor', 'illusions' and 'only' are in there, it is easy enough to GM, and the issue of full-power Glamour doesn't arise. Minor illusion chasm would not be anything else than an illusion and people would be able to just run across it, if they dared. Also, since it is 'minor illusions only', i would not even let a goblin to make a huge illusionary chasm appear in the first place.

Sure, you may find it unsatisfactory. Many other people (not me) might feel the same, which is why I think the Book of Magic has been mentioned to be in the works.

Certainly not trying to speak for Greg, but for myself the answer is "because it's magic." The tone and feeling of Magic is mystery and wonder and terror. It has the logic of dreams and a child's imagination. Yes, it has rules, but those rules aren't necessarily clear or consistent... though the magician would say the inconstancy is because we don't really understand it (and if that frustrates you, consider that Newtonian Physics - which we still teach - is actually wrong under the model of Quantum Physics).

Fair enough. Alas, games break down without rules that make them consistent and repeatable. And when the rules contradict each other and common definitions and shared experiences of words like "illusion" don't apply, it's tough to understand what is meant by common words like "minor." It's apparently completely subjective. I've been hoping to have a conversation where we could define and codify these things, but perhaps folks are content to leave them undefined.


All of that said... let me try to offer you this as model that might help your thinking. Glamour is the substance of the Otherworld. A magical being may have the ability to manipulate Glamour and manifest it in this world. However, the strength/power of the being in question effects the amount of Glamour it can "move around." A goblin, in this context, is relatively weak being... it can manifest only a small amount of Glamour, the equivalent of a coat of paint. Thus, using the rotten log over a stream as a model, the goblin can "paint it" to look like a strong and sturdy log but it can't actually effect it beyond that. A faerie lord, on the other hand, can manifest a lot of glamour... enough to not merely make the log look strong but to actually "fill in the gaps" of the log's substance and so make it actually strong.

Does that help?

It helps as far as it goes, thank you. But it doesn't explain how illusory sounds work. Greg said such sounds can be created, but can Glamoured objects or quasi-real things also be given an auditory component? What about speech? It doesn't explain if other senses are effected, or how long the log will remain looking sturdy, or if the goblin needs to maintain concentation on the effect (and how long it lasts if he doesn't), or if he needs a line of sight to glamourize the log, or what the area of effect of the Glamour is — can he make a huge oak tree look like a menacing "tree-monster", or can he only effect a branch? It doesn't explain if the effect is in the target's mind, or observable by everyone who can see the log (although your explanantion sounds like "glamour-matter" — temporary substance and mass even if it's only as thick as a coat of paint). It doesn't explain how the magic can be resisted or whether/how the appropriate charms and amulets protect against it, or what happens if the goblin fails (or crits or fumbles) his Glamour roll. It doesn't explain if he can create "faerie lights" (which, after all, is not a subtle alteration of the way something looks, but actually creating light from nothing), or if they can deliver heat. Is a goblin powerful enough to conjure a glamour-campfire? A burning torch? A lit match? A spark? A spark seems pretty "minor" to me, but if it can actually burn stuff (and is not merely in the observer's mind), it can set a forest fire with devastating consequences.

The answers to these questions make a huge difference on the possible outcome of any encounter with KAP goblins. They mean the difference between a minor nuisance and annoying inconvenience to a Total Party Killer. My understanding is faerie should be terrifying and a real menace — a force to reckoned with, and feared. I don't want even minor Glamours to be inconsequential — "Oh, you see a snake on the ground — or is it a snake?" — or comical. I want them to be fearsome. And to be fearsome, they need to have teeth. I'm trying to figure out how big and sharp those teeth are.

Of course, I could make all this stuff up myself, but I opened this disussion to explore the themes, build some consensus, and offer an informed description of what a "minor illusion" is and how it works. Alas—after three pages of good conversation, I don't feel a helluva lot closer to accomplishng that goal.

I had to cancel my game last night for other reasons, so I have another week to figure it out.

Thank you all for your insights; I really do appreciate the dialog. I can't accept that the subject matter is too mysterious or elusive to be codified, however. Other games do it.


Best,


T.

Of course, I could make all this stuff up myself, but I opened this disussion to explore the themes, build some consensus, and offer an informed description of what a "minor illusion" is and how it works. Alas—after three pages of good conversation, I don't feel a helluva lot closer to accomplishng that goal.

I'm not sure why you don't feel closer, because truthfully, I feel like you've gotten some good answers.


Thank you all for your insights; I really do appreciate the dialog. I can't accept that the subject matter is too mysterious or elusive to be codified, however. Other games do it.

Respectfully, I would disagree. Other games don't do it... or at least don't do it well... where "it" is defined as "presenting clear rules for magic which actually reflects magic as it appears in medieval folklore and Arthurian stories." Lots of games have magic rules, of varying quality, but even Ars Magica - which I've played for years and has a highly praised magic system - doesn't actually have magic rules which strongly reflect the magic in folklore.

This is actually a project I spent a chunk of my free time in the past year working on, for my own game (which is truthfully a hybrid of Ars Magica and Pendragon)... creating a set of magic rules which are both reflective of medieval folklore and work as a game mechanic.

So, to the point at hand, let me offer you this based on the ideas I have suggested so far...

Goblin Glamour (minor illusions only)
The goblin can use glamour to change the appearance of an object into that of another object of similar size and shape. The illusion affects all five senses. The goblin must be able to perceive the object, or have an Arcane Connection* to the object, in order to affect it. The illusion lasts until it is disproven or dispelled. Particularly holy or spiritual individuals can perceive the illusion for what it is (make a Spiritual roll opposed by the goblin's Glamour), and those with the proper lore can create protective charms to allow them to recognize glamour (Religion or Faerie Lore, opposed by Glamour).

*Arcane Connection - an arcane connection typically is either a piece of the target (a lock of hair, a bit of bark from a tree, etc), or a valued possession of the target (a bit of clothing, a favorite tool). Some powerful magical creatures also have an arcane connection of objects related to their "aspect" (ex. the Fae Lady of Linley Wood has a connection to all the objects and creatures native to that small wood.)

... I'm not sure if that's what you're looking for, or not.

You obviously disagree...

No, I don't, actually. I'm asking questions, challenging assumptions, listening and trying to figure out sensible parameters. I'm happy with wherever they land—as long as they land!

In my very next game session, I'm going to establish the tenor of faerie-kind in my campaign for evermore. I get one shot at it. It's important. I want to make sure I'm including all the inputs, since nothing has been offered officially.

Lacking official rules, I'm very grateful for the chance for to bounce this around with you guys.

The only thing I can say is "minor" is in the eye of the beholder. I'm trying to eliminate that subjectivity as much as possible.

When Greg says Glamour-fire will burn you, we're to assume it won't burn anything else? I interpret this as there are actual burns on one's hands and whatever glamour-fire that caused those burns could burn other combusitbles as well. But if the fire won't burn other stuff, that implies it's in your head and you think you're being burned. If you think you're being burned, then your clothes won't emolate, right? By extension, if you only think you're being burned, why is it any harder to create an inferno than a spark? If you think you're being burned, theoretically no one else will see, or feel, the flames.

Unless you're telling me that all of these concept can inhabit the same space — glamored flames can be pereceived by everyone in the area — and everyone can be burned by them — but no one's clothes will catch fire, nor will the dry leaves under foot?

Sorry to be so pedantic, but I don't want to get caught flatfooted without having thought through the implications of all this, and how it "works." "That's just the way it is" — won't cut much mustard at my table — we're all of German descent!


Best,


T.

It helps as far as it goes, thank you. But it doesn't explain how illusory sounds work. Greg said such sounds can be created, but can Glamoured objects or quasi-real things also be given an auditory component? What about speech? It doesn't explain if other senses are effected, or how long the log will remain looking sturdy, or if the goblin needs to maintain concentation on the effect (and how long it lasts if he doesn't), or if he needs a line of sight to glamourize the log, or what the area of effect of the Glamour is — can he make a huge oak tree look like a menacing "tree-monster", or can he only effect a branch? It doesn't explain if the effect is in the target's mind, or observable by everyone who can see the log (although your explanantion sounds like "glamour-matter" — temporary substance and mass even if it's only as thick as a coat of paint). It doesn't explain how the magic can be resisted or whether/how the appropriate charms and amulets protect against it, or what happens if the goblin fails (or crits or fumbles) his Glamour roll. It doesn't explain if he can create "faerie lights" (which, after all, is not a subtle alteration of the way something looks, but actually creating light from nothing), or if they can deliver heat. Is a goblin powerful enough to conjure a glamour-campfire? A burning torch? A lit match? A spark? A spark seems pretty "minor" to me, but if it can actually burn stuff (and is not merely in the observer's mind), it can set a forest fire with devastating consequences.


My answers to some of your other questions... note these are specific to a Goblin Glamour (minor illusion) and, of course, only the way I would run it...
Illusionary sounds - I would treat a sound as an object, so a the goblin could use glamour to make an existing sound seem like another sounds of similar "size and shape"... so of similar volume and probably couldn't create actual understandable speech out of, say, rustling leaves.

Senses - glamour affects all five senses

Duration - typically until dispelled. Duration is actually not something you generally find in folklore, but when it does it's usually based on natural cycles or on something conditional - until sunrise, until the next full moon, a year and day, until seen in the clear light of day, until an honest man sit upon the Devil's Chair.

Range- As I did in my writeup, I would rule that the goblin must perceive his target or have a connection to it.

Area of effect - for a minor illusion, I would say something relatively small... not bigger than a man. Though, if I wanted something more nuanced, I would say the area effected would be inversely proportional to the degree of change - a large change to a small object, a small change to a larger one.

Real or in the mind - Glamour is "real" ... everyone can see it.

Protection - Protective charms, or exceptional holiness, or The Sight, can all allow one to see glamour for what it is. You would see what the illusion was, but you would also see that it is glamour and be able to see the reality underneath. This is the only case when I would cause the goblin to roll his glamour skill... as an opposed roll to the Spiritual/Religion/Faerie Lore/whatever of the protection. If the goblin fails or fumbles, the illusion is particularly easy to see through and the goblin is usually enraged by the ease by which a mere mortal bested him.

Faerie lights, IMO, would not fall under the heading "minor illusions" but be a separate category of glamour.

Fire, IMO, would also be beyond the scope of "minor illusions" because fire is a pretty hefty thing in supernatural circles. Also, as you rightly point out, it is a whole can of worms in it's own right... which is pretty much the same thing.

So there you go... again, my $.02, for whatever it's worth.

I'm not sure why you don't feel closer, because truthfully, I feel like you've gotten some good answers.

I have gotten some good answers, to be sure—but little consensus, I think. And there are still about a dozen questions that have not been addressed at all.


Respectfully, I would disagree. Other games don't do it... or at least don't do it well... where "it" is defined as "presenting clear rules for magic which actually reflects magic as it appears in medieval folklore and Arthurian stories." Lots of games have magic rules, of varying quality, but even Ars Magica - which I've played for years and has a highly praised magic system - doesn't actually have magic rules which strongly reflect the magic in folklore.

Perhaps not, but they can at least define the parameters of what major and minor illusions are. We're still having difficulty determining if a Glamour (Minor Illusion) is a figment of the target's imagination or a manipulation of the stuff of faerie to alter the reality of our world (that all can perceive).


This is actually a project I spent a chunk of my free time in the past year working on, for my own game (which is truthfully a hybrid of Ars Magica and Pendragon)... creating a set of magic rules which are both reflective of medieval folklore and work as a game mechanic.

I can tell you've been thinking a lot about it! Thanks again for the insights.


So, to the point at hand, let me offer you this based on the ideas I have suggested so far...

Goblin Glamour (minor illusions only)
The goblin can use glamour to change the appearance of an object into that of another object of similar size and shape. The illusion affects all five senses. The goblin must be able to perceive the object, or have an Arcane Connection* to the object, in order to affect it. The illusion lasts until it is disproven or dispelled. Particularly holy or spiritual individuals can perceive the illusion for what it is (make a Spiritual roll opposed by the goblin's Glamour), and those with the proper lore can create protective charms to allow them to recognize glamour (Religion or Faerie Lore, opposed by Glamour).

*Arcane Connection - an arcane connection typically is either a piece of the target (a lock of hair, a bit of bark from a tree, etc), or a valued possession of the target (a bit of clothing, a favorite tool). Some powerful magical creatures also have an arcane connection of objects related to their "aspect" (ex. the Fae Lady of Linley Wood has a connection to all the objects and creatures native to that small wood.)

... I'm not sure if that's what you're looking for, or not.

It is, thanks. Additional questions and explorations:

So it only applies to objects? Can a goblin change his apearance to, say, a little girl? Oh, wait — you include a lock of hair as an Arcane Connection, so I guess so.

So the goblin need not roll Glamour to create the effect in the first place, but the Glamour score is used to oppose the roll when someone tries to percieve it? Is the act of perceiving automatic (roll Spiritual upon encountering the glamoured thing), or must the character state he's trying to perceive a particular thing as being Glamoured?

Duration: It lasts until disproven or dispelled? How does one dispell it? A Religious roll with the appropriate ritual? So, to use your glamored-log example, the log looks sturdy to all, whether it's there an hour or a year? That seems hella powerful to me.

Movement: If a stick is Glamoured into a snake, can the snake move? If not, I'm having a hard time imagining how this particular application could be useful, other than to alert the players that something "fearie" is going on...

Does the goblin need to touch an object to glamourize it? You say "perceive" but does that mean he need only see it?

What about Glamours that don't involve the appearance of objects? If they can affect all the senses — and Greg says they can create the sound of footsteps on leaves — what are the parameters here? Any sound that the goblin has heard before? What about Light? Shadows? Heat? Ghastly reek? Can they create the sensation of wind on one's face? Shining eyes in the darkness? These are all minor effects, but not attached to glamoured objects or creatures. They are rather conjured out of thin air.

The sympathetic magic piece (Arcane Connection) seems a little out of place with faerie-kind to me, but admitedly I've not made as close a study of the genre's conventions as you obviously have.

Thanks again for contributing here. This feels like progress!


Best,


T.

It is, thanks. Additional questions and explorations:

So it only applies to objects? Can a goblin change his apearance to, say, a little girl? Oh, wait — you include a lock of hair as an Arcane Connection, so I guess so.

- I would say yes.

So the goblin need not roll Glamour to create the effect in the first place, but the Glamour score is used to oppose the roll when someone tries to percieve it? Is the act of perceiving automatic (roll Spiritual upon encountering the glamoured thing), or must the character state he's trying to perceive a particular thing as being Glamoured?

- I would rule that it requires a conscious act to "see through" Glamour.

Duration: It lasts until disproven or dispelled? How does one dispell it? A Religious roll with the appropriate ritual? So, to use your glamored-log example, the log looks sturdy to all, whether it's there an hour or a year? That seems hella powerful to me.

- Dispell, yes a Religious or Faerie Lore roll with the right ritual. One story holds that a saint dispelled the entire court of Gywn ap Nudd, Lord the Wild Hunt, with a prayer and some holy water... of course, he was a Saint! As for lasting an hour or a year, I think we only see that as "powerful" because we've become accustomed to D&D durations measured in minutes or seconds.

Movement: If a stick is Glamoured into a snake, can the snake move? If not, I'm having a hard time imagining how this particular application could be useful, other than to alert the players that something "fearie" is going on...

-Yes, I would say a stick/snake can move and act normally as a snake. As for how useful it is, remember the Babylon 5 version of the Battle of Camlan... The two sides met to parley. One knight saw a snake about to strike and drew his sword to slay it. The army saw only that a knight had drawn a sword and, taking it as an attack, charged, resulting terrible battle and much death and tragedy. In the right place, at the right time, even a minor illusion can topple a kingdom.

Does the goblin need to touch an object to glamourize it? You say "perceive" but does that mean he need only see it?

- I would say see, or hear.

What about Glamours that don't involve the appearance of objects? If they can affect all the senses — and Greg says they can create the sound of footsteps on leaves — what are the parameters here? Any sound that the goblin has heard before? What about Light? Shadows? Heat? Ghastly reek? Can they create the sensation of wind on one's face? Shining eyes in the darkness? These are all minor effects, but not attached to glamoured objects or creatures. They are rather conjured out of thin air.

-My definition of the power would say he can change sounds/smell/taste/feeling, not create them. That is part of my limitation "minor."

The sympathetic magic piece (Arcane Connection) seems a little out of place with faerie-kind to me, but admitedly I've not made as close a study of the genre's conventions as you obviously have.

-It provides a guideline which encompasses lore of faeries being able to affect things outside of their immediate area, which does occur in the lore.

Guys, I might have accidentally wiped out a couple of your posts (or maybe just one of Morien's). I'm trying to figure out what happened — I must have hit the "Edit Post" button (I have available as a Moederator). Trying to see if some of these are cached somewhere so I can resore them...

Sorry!


T.

One of the strong points of Pendragon is the fact that magic is firmly in the hands of the gamemaster (at least until 4th. I still think it is wrong that it got rules). Also it has no rules set in the system. So in essence magic has become a story telling tool for the gamemaster. For me that means the goblins can do what I want them to do to create an interesting story.

So the definitions of 'minor illusions' or 'glamour' is (at least for me) irrelevant. In essence it may be that the goblins they meet in the current adventure can do different things than the ones they met three sessions ago. It all depends on the role the goblins have in the story.

There is no defense against their magics, unless they are able to decipher the cryptic messages from magicians or witches who they have met. Although I may have them roll a religion or spirit/pious roll to see if the charms they have work or not.

Thanks, Cornelius, I understand that playing style, and appreciate it. It doesn't work for me (I wish it did). I need bumpers to focus and guide my creativity. Once I understand the constraints and what's possible within them, particularly when they're designed to promote game balance, I can use that as a catalyst and a guideline for imagination. When the only guideline I have is "minor" — well, it spawns a hundred questions, as you've seen! It's paralyzing to me, not liberating.


T.

It is, thanks. Additional questions and explorations:

So it only applies to objects? Can a goblin change his apearance to, say, a little girl? Oh, wait — you include a lock of hair as an Arcane Connection, so I guess so.

- I would say yes.



So I assume this means the goblin can take on the appearnace a specific person — like one of the knight's missing friends — assuming the goblin has seen the friend (I'm also assuming this is a larger Hobgoblin, who also have the Glamour ability). And, if I understand the spirit of your argument, the knight's voice and gear are part of the illusion as well. Though perhaps, in the case of a close friend of associate, the beholder would perhpas get an Awareness roll to notice something abut the doppleganger is not quite right — which, if successful, triggers a Spiritual resistance roll?

T.

When Greg says Glamour-fire will burn you, we're to assume it won't burn anything else? I interpret this as there are actual burns on one's hands and whatever glamour-fire that caused those burns could burn other combusitbles as well. But if the fire won't burn other stuff, that implies it's in your head and you think you're being burned. If you think you're being burned, then your clothes won't emolate, right? By extension, if you only think you're being burned, why is it any harder to create an inferno than a spark? If you think you're being burned, theoretically no one else will see, or feel, the flames.


You are still getting hung up on the WRONG word. This is starting to get extremely frustrating.

Glamour is not equal to an illusion.

Greg is saying that Unlimited Glamour-Fire is as real as real fire. So yes, it will burn anything and everything a normal fire would burn and it would stay burned. Say I toss a Glamour Fireball at a bunch of dry leaves in a forest. That would cause a forest fire, even after the glamour fireball has vanished. Glamour in this instance is essentially just saying 'temporary and created by magic'. It doesn't mean 'illusion'.

Now, Limited Glamour (minor illusions only) IS 'minor illusions only'. You can't create a 'real' fireball with it, only the illusion of one. So while you could certainly threaten to cause a forest fire with it, it wouldn't do it. If you tossed it to my face, I'd probably try to dodge, but it would be like a blast of hot air from a hair dryer, not causing actual damage on a touch. If I was really sure that your fireball is just an illusion, I could easily hold my hand in there and just feel a bit of heat rather than my hand burning. Since it IS just an illusion.

This must be the half dozenth time I have said the same thing:

Glamour (unlimited) = as real as real can be, as long as the Glamour lasts.
Glamour (minor illusions only) = minor illusions only.

Neither one of these are happening in the knight's mind. Illusions are seen by everyone in the group. Glamour is as real as the real thing. A Glamorous Knight (that sounds David Bowie-ish, actually...) would be able to speak and move and joke and laugh and fight as if it were a real knight, only to wink out when the duration ends.

EDIT:
Note to self: Do not post when hungry, tired and headachy. Tends to bring out the Inner Bitch.

Sorry, Taliesin.
(Fed and medicated Morien is a mellow Morien. Something my players know well, which is why they used to bribe me with candy when we were playing face to face. :) )

No one has yet to explain if the chasm is in the mind of the target and he dies because he believes he hits bottom — or if there is an actual (but temporary) chasm (thus oberservable and hazardous to others) that will actually crush your body (as you posit, above). One is manipulating the mind, one is manipulating reality and matter itself.as

I thought I'd taken care of that
Let me be clear
It is an actual chasm, a hole in the ground that opens up. It will actually crush your body
I differ with Morien on one point: when the chasm closes it will bury the body with it
It is manipulating reality
It is not imaginary
It is real, just temporary


Sure such things might be "unknowable" and "mysterious", as AlnothEadricson rightly points out — but that doesn't help me create a logically consistent and repeatable use of the spell. If I'm just supposed to make stuff up, with no parameters — well, that's very unsatisfactory.

Yes, of course it is repeatable. It isn't really a spell at all, but a power that the goblins have
They need only think it into reality
Now, concerning minor powers, I'd say that they can make a chasm that is ankle deep, a river than it knee deep, a woman that is hollow inside and feels like it, a bowl of oatmeal but not a feast, a sword that will kill a man and disappears afterwards, a temporary facial change that is more or less like the original model, but won't fool a wife, a rainstorm that lasts a couple of minutes, a handful of gold that turns back into leaves when done, a flagon of drink, a pack of hounds barking, or one small ugly dog, a fence of wood but not of stone, change the color of someone's hair
I used "illusion" in the old definitions because no one knew what "glamour" meant

Someone with a full power, like Merlin, can make three people look like someone else, make a fire to burn down a house, dig a chasm deep enough to kill a fan falling into it

So I assume this means the goblin can take on the appearnace a specific person — like one of the knight's missing friends —

for a short time


assuming the goblin has seen the friend (I'm also assuming this is a larger Hobgoblin, who also have the Glamour ability).

hobgoblins have the same magical ability, minor illusions
hobgoblins and goblins are actually the same crature in slightly different forms


And, if I understand the spirit of your argument, the knight's voice and gear are part of the illusion as well.

Maybe, for a chort time; or longer time and only "mostly like his voice"


Though perhaps, in the case of a close friend of associate, the beholder would perhpas get an Awareness roll to notice something abut the doppleganger is not quite right — which, if successful, triggers a Spiritual resistance roll?

I know you will as "how long does it hold?"
It lasts as long as the gamemaster wants it to last to make a good story
It may fade quickly or slowly
It might just pop out of existence
it may reveal a scarecrow what was being used as a "model" or something to hang the illusion upon

So I assume this means the goblin can take on the appearnace a specific person — like one of the knight's missing friends — assuming the goblin has seen the friend (I'm also assuming this is a larger Hobgoblin, who also have the Glamour ability). And, if I understand the spirit of your argument, the knight's voice and gear are part of the illusion as well. Though perhaps, in the case of a close friend of associate, the beholder would perhpas get an Awareness roll to notice something abut the doppleganger is not quite right — which, if successful, triggers a Spiritual resistance roll?


I'd go along with that, but I would give a large Awareness bonus if the Hobgoblin tries to do pull something complicated off, since the speech pattern and mannerisms would likely be totally off. On the other hand, if the Knight rides in and sees his 'friend' beset by goblins and the 'friend' yells for help... well, then I might give a penalty to Awareness, if it makes sense.

I'd also note that mere Spiritual vs. Glamour is unlikely to work. Most knights have Spiritual 10. Glamour is 15. This means that prayers and such would work only about one third of the time, whereas my thinking is that it should be much more common than that, especially amongst Famously Pious people. This is even more the case with Faerie Lore and Religion, which most knights have at default levels. I would go with an unopposed roll.

I thought I'd taken care of that
It is an actual chasm, a hole in the ground that opens up. It will actually crush your body
I differ with Morien on one point: when the chasm closes it will bury the body with it


Might be, but my way leaves a nice ghastly body for the PKs to find and puzzle over. :)



I used "illusion" in the old definitions because no one knew what "glamour" meant


Ah, OK, so I got hung up on the wrong word, too.

Goblins don't have Glamour (minor illusions only), but Glamour (minor effects only).

Goblins don't have Glamour (minor illusions only), but Glamour (minor effects only).

Yep, that one words makes all the difference. I got hung up on the word "illusion" not only because that's the word used in the text, it's also reinforced in some of Greg's comments that referred to "changing the appearance of a thing". Don't hate me because I'm pedantic! It's an accident of birth, or a genetic flaw, or perhaps a bit of racial memory.

I'm going to concatenate all the pertinent bits in this thread into one robust description that we can chew on. Working on it now, will post shortly.


T.

I'd also note that mere Spiritual vs. Glamour is unlikely to work. Most knights have Spiritual 10. Glamour is 15. This means that prayers and such would work only about one third of the time, whereas my thinking is that it should be much more common than that, especially amongst Famously Pious people. This is even more the case with Faerie Lore and Religion, which most knights have at default levels. I would go with an unopposed roll.

But this disadvantage could offset with the appropriate charms and spiritual prep, which would yield bonuses...


T.

I thought I'd taken care of that
Now, concerning minor powers, I'd say that they can make a chasm that is ankle deep, a river than it knee deep, a woman that is hollow inside and feels like it, a bowl of oatmeal but not a feast, a sword that will kill a man and disappears afterwards, a temporary facial change that is more or less like the original model, but won't fool a wife, a rainstorm that lasts a couple of minutes, a handful of gold that turns back into leaves when done, a flagon of drink, a pack of hounds barking, or one small ugly dog, a fence of wood but not of stone, change the color of someone's hair

Okay, that's a prety different take from what others have been suggesting here. Your version is actually altering reality much more so than the others' which do not extend to a goblins ability to create an effect out of thin air, but merely alter the perception of something that is already there. Still trying to reconcile and synthesize all these thoughts into one coherent vision...

I thought I'd taken care of that
Now, concerning minor powers, I'd say that they can make a chasm that is ankle deep, a river than it knee deep, a rainstorm that lasts a couple of minutes...

Someone with a full power, like Merlin, can make three people look like someone else, make a fire to burn down a house, dig a chasm deep enough to kill a fan falling into it

If a minor power includes making a knee-deep river, how big is it? Furthermore, if a goblin can create real water in the form of rain, and a real river, and if Merlin can make a fire large enough to consume a house, then why can't goblins create a real spark or a burning match?


T.

Okay, that's a prety different take from what others have been suggesting here. Your version is actually altering reality much more so than the others' which do not extend to a goblins ability to create an effect out of thin air, but merely alter the perception of something that is already there. Still trying to reconcile and synthesize all these thoughts into one coherent vision...

I think the difference comes from changing the word "illusion" to "effect." Since he's The Boss, I don't argue the change of wording... and, with the change, I don't disagree with his suggested effects in the least. I would suggest that the minor illusions we've discussed before are, by in large, part of this broader category of "minor effects."

If a minor power includes making a knee-deep river, how big is it? Furthermore, if they can create real water in the form of real rain and a real river, and if Merlin can make a fire large enough to consume a house, then why can't goblins create a real spark or a burning match?

To be fair, Greg never said they couldn't. I did. :)

In my games, I wouldn't allow knee deep rivers or sparks as minor effects. I think both running water and fire carry too much magical "weight" to be minor effects. However, it's Greg's game and if he feels streams and fires are appropriate, then that's the word from the writer.

Okay, guys. Here's a first draft. It should in no way be taken as official. I offer it as a starting point, a platform we can chew on and refine. Note the single biggest problem that persists is some lingering confusion on how much is shaping reality and how much is shaping appearances. Some of Greg's latest comments are in conflict with our original thesis that glamour could not be conjure things out of thin air, but only alter the perception of that which already exists. I'm much more comfortable in the perception-only realm, as I've maintained, but Greg is the boss, so we may have to revisit some of our positions and adapt accordingly. The next biggest piece of doubt is how do charms, rituals and such help pierce glamours, and how do they work. I've tried to reconcile and refine much of the feedback, but now's a good time to refine those ideas, and make sure we're in alignment with Greg.


Goblin Glamour

Goblins use faery glamour — the magical, material essence of the Other World — to create temporary and minor effects capable of engaging all five of the senses in the Primary World. These effects are modest, and usually not harmful in and of themselves, but they actually alter the reality of the target’s environment, so that all who encounter the glamour experience the same altered reality. These experiences can lead to tragedy and even death, but this is usually a by-product of the glamour, or a result of the beholder’s reaction to the glamour, not the glamour itself.

Glamour may be used to change all perceivable aspects of an object or creature into that of another object or creature of similar size and shape. Thus, a goblin could assume the appearance of a little girl, but not a fox. Note he cannot assume the actual physical form of the girl — that requires the Shapechange faerie ability (which some few goblins possess). To assume the appearance of a specific girl requires the goblin to have had prior experience her, or be in possession of one of the girl’s personal effects (see Arcane Connection, below). The goblin can even transform his voice to sound like the girl’s. Note, however, that he cannot not assume the girl’s mannerisms, except perhaps as a gross parody of human behavior, nor can he speak her language (unless he could otherwise). In such cases, characters who knew the little girl would get an Awareness roll (at +5 for members of the community and +10 to family members) to oppose the goblins Glamour 15 which, if successful, would allow for an attempt to “see through” (and thus banish) the glamour via an opposed Spiritual roll vs. the goblin’s Awareness 15. A critical Awareness roll means the viewer not only pierces the veil of the glamour but perceives it, and recognizes it for what it is.

In each case, Goblin Glamour can only transmute that which can already be perceived by the target. It cannot therefore, create light, nor fire, nor any other elemental force out of thin air. Where light (and shadow) already exists, the goblin can use his glamour to manipulate them — e.g., splitting a single beam of sunlight into colored beams of splendor, or causing a winking reflection, or making a shadow appear to move or deepen.

Additional examples of Goblin Glamour include making an ankle-deep chasm, a river that is knee deep, a woman with hollow insides (and feels hollow), a bowl of edible porridge, a sword that can kill a man but that disappears afterwards, a temporary facial change that is more or less like the original model but won't fool a wife, a rainstorm that lasts a couple of minutes, a handful of gold that turns into leaves later, a flagon of drink, a pack of hounds barking, or one small ugly dog, a wooden fence (but not a stone one), or changing the color of someone's hair.


Audible Glamours

Similarly, goblins can alter sounds through the art of glamour, but not create them. The altered sound must be of similar general frequency and volume to the sound being altered. Thus the sighing of boughs in a forest can be transformed into sibilant whispers, or the sound of leaves crunching underfoot. An owl’s hoot can be turned into a spine-tingling omen of impending doom. A horn blast can be transmuted to the roar of a fearsome monster. Such effects can be unnerving, and may instigate a Valorous roll. Failure results in a Melancholy-like state (-5 on subsequent skill rolls) unless countered by an Oration or Singing roll, or by some other means to hearten all who would be unnerved by the dreadful sounds.


Area of Effect

Glamour can also alter small areas — so rocks in a pool can be perceived as gemstones or nuggets of gold, or stagnant, non-potable water could be made to appear (and smell) like clean, pure water. Water can be made to look more shallow than it really is, and a mire can be made to look like solid ground. Similarly, glamored objects can move within a prescribed but limited area, so a stick that is made to look like a serpent can slither and even strike at believers. The area so effected cannot move and is typically small — no bigger than a man. At the Gamester’s discretion, the area of effect would be inversely proportional to the degree of change — a dramatic change would be constrained to a smaller area, a subtle change to a larger one, perhaps 10 cubic feet. These guidelines can be used for determining what size objects can be glamoured.


Range

In order to weave a glamour about an object or creature, the goblin must be able to see (or at least hear) the subject, or have an Arcane Connection to it — typically either a “piece” of the subject (a lock of hair, a bit of bark from a tree, etc), or a valued possession of the subject (a bit of clothing, a favorite tool). Some powerful magical creatures also have an arcane connection of objects related to their "aspect" (ex. the Fae Lady of Linley Wood has a connection to all the objects and creatures native to that small wood.)


Duration

An illusion of glamour lasts until it expires or until “seen through” or dispelled, whichever comes first. Durations are usually based on natural cycles or on something conditional — until midnight, until cock’s crow, until sunrise, until the next full moon, etc., longer duration are possible, but should be reserved for powerful sorceresses and faerie lords.
Alternatively, the glamour lasts as long as the Gamemaster wants it to last in order to make a good story. It may fade quickly or slowly, it might just pop out of existence.


Piercing A Glamour

Finally, a particularly clever, wise or holy individuals (Spiritual 16+) may be able to recognize and see through glamour in their own right IF they suspect glamour is being used. Make an opposed roll of Faerie Lore, Religion, Spiritual and/or Awareness rolls (opposed or not, as your preference). In a group situation, one character piercing the veil of the glamour ends it for everyone, or at least gives them a +5 to shake it.

Other faeries can see glamour for what it is. Half-fae or mortals with The Sight can see through glamour more easily than most (+10 Awareness for this purpose) but should be very careful of revealing this talent. Faeries don't like people pointing out their illusions. The question asked by a glamoured fae lord to a mortal who sees him is "Which eye can you see me with?" followed by the forcible removal of that eye.

Domestic animals are as "blind" as humans — except for dogs who warn their masters of danger and cats who are, in truth, probably fae in their own right. Horses and wild animals might recognize glamour for what it is but, depending on their relationship with the faerie in question, might accept it just as the fae themselves do, or might simply avoid it as a fearful thing.


Protective Charms

The best way to counter glamour, is to anticipate it and prevent it. People have no natural defense against magic but village Wise Women (and Cunning Men), do a good trade in making and selling protective charms to allow the wearer to recognize glamour. Such charms — a bag of herbs, an iron nail, a hare’s foot — are worn or carried. The charm must remain secret and hidden, and may not touch the earth, but having it helps protect you from curses and glamours — assuming your magician is stronger/more skilled than the witch or faerie in question. One can wear carry multiple charms but only the one with the highest efficacy is considered.

To determine the charm’s efficacy compare the maker’s Religion (Pagan) or Faerie Lore skill to the goblin’s Glamour 15. If it is higher, the charm add a +5 bonus to any Spiritual roll to pierce the glamour. Christian symbols— crosses, rosaries, bells, candles and saint’s symbols — properly blessed, offer similar protections. Compare the Religion of the priest who blesses and sanctifies the item to determine its efficacy. The proper purification rituals and sacrifices, by Pagans or Christians, add an additional +5 to one’s Spiritual roll to dispel the glamour.

In addition to these wards, looking through a witchstone (a stone with natural hole in it) or using a special ointment (often made of clover and holy water) will let one see through a glamour. Access to such talismans requires someone with a Faerie Lore 15 or more.