Intelligent Items And Body Control

[Kaodi]

This came up in a thread I started in the Pathfinder forum, but I think it is appropriate here because the mechanic, of course, is straight from D&D.

Why is it that all intelligent items seem to have this ability to control their users at least around once every twenty days? Does this not take much of the fun out of intelligent items, and especially intelligent items that disagree with their wielders?

Certainly there is call for some magic items being able to take over their wielders in this way. That should probably be a specific ability though, and not a one size fits all add on to the rules. After all, intelligent items are often flavoured as not being merely artificial intelligence, but as being containers or prisons for powerful beings. And if that powerful being could dominate people when it is free, such as dragons, demons, powerful wizards, and such, there would certainly be justification for it being able to keep doing that. But otherwise, nuh-uh. I mean, how would you justify Lumiere being able to control Belle like a puppet just because he was turned into a candlestick?

A different strategy I was thinking of for putting control back in the hands of players, while still keeping intelligent items as devious, manipulative force, would be to just apply penalties for actions that go against the wishes of the item. So, as an example: if you are wielding a powerful elf-slaying weapon, and you go into battle against a party of drow and their spider companions, you might get a penalty on attacks made against any opponent who is not an elf until all the elves are dead. So you, as the player, do not have control of your characters actions taken out of your hands, but rather face a substantially worse chance of success when you do not go along with an items wishes.

In any case, as intelligent items are often in control of their own abilities, it seems like there is plenty of reason to treat them well, as you would any NPC who you wished to gain the aid of, rather than just giving them control of your character every time you rolled poorly on your Will save.

In addition to these points, while I imagine the intelligent item rules were inspired by Elric's sword, perhaps people more widely read in this area than I could go into some of the important historical stuff on intelligent items.

 

[Umbran]

I mean, how would you justify Lumiere being able to control Belle like a puppet just because he was turned into a candlestick?

Well, note that Lumiere is not merely an intelligent item, but an animate one, as well. He can act and impact the world of his own volition, without a host or intermediary.

The same cannot be said for most intelligent items.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

Coming from the 3.5 DMG perspective, I've personally never went with the idea that they can actually take control of the character's body.

The text in the book seems to imply that they can, but it's so vague and refers to specific instances, and provides absolutely no definition of limits on that power. By the book, there is nothing that says that the intelligent item who wins the roll can't just take over your character entirely and walk around wearing him like a suit.

But that sure isn't the way that the same chapter implies it actually happens. The text seems to hint that a dominant item only uses the minimum amount of compulsion necessary to contribute to his goals, while a dominant player can use any of an items powers at will.

I like to interpret it thusly: A dominant item cannot directly take control of a character. The item's ability to influence the actions of a player are limited by the items control over itself. So for instance the item can activate it's powers or not activate them whenever it wants, regardless of the will of the players. It can turn off it's magical properties, or even reverse bonuses (that +5 sword might start hitting with a -5 instead). And in a worse case scenario it can manifest minor physical control over its self, for instance, the sword "refusing to strike enemies" by causing an automatic miss on any attacks, or simply slipping from his grasp, or "forcing it's wielder into combat" by swinging in his grasp at the nearest creature (perhaps an opposed character Strength vs item Charisma roll is in order to see if the wielder can avoid having the sword drag his arm around like that).

Unless an intelligent item has some sort of actual possession ability, I don't think allowing an ill-defined, limitation-free ability, which, oddly enough, the items seem reluctant to make use of fully, is appropriate--even though that's really how the game implies it works.

 

[ComradeGnull]

I think you're reading a little more into the RAW than is intended- if you fail your save, the item doesn't 'control you', but rather declines to bend to your will. So essentially, if you make your save, you can make the item do whatever you want- employ powers, undertake actions that are contrary to its alignment or goals, etc. If you fail the save, the item doesn't immediately turn you into Gollum, but rather can refuse to employ powers, can deny you bonuses, and (only in the most extreme circumstances, where you're doing something totally contrary to the item's purpose and alignment) rarely force an action.

Personally, I would handle it as you are describing- if you fail your save, you start racking up penalties when you do things the item doesn't like. If you make the save, you can do whatever you like with the item. If the item keeps dominance for a while, it isn't running the PC for a whole session or something, but rather can keep stacking up bonuses or penalties in order to incentivise certain actions. On a day when you fail your save but don't do anything that conflicts particularly with the item's goals and alignment, there is probably very little effect.

The key, I think, is in treating the item like an NPC. An NPC has a generally disposition toward the PC, but an extreme action may cause a crisis in their relationship. If you have a hireling that is generally loyal, you don't need to roll Diplomacy every time you ask him to do his job. On the other hand, if you ask him to kill his family or something equally odious to his personal beliefs he might not comply, do a terrible job, or just decide he doesn't want to work for you any more.

The 'force an action' options are the equivalent of pushing a hireling so far that they turn on their employer. A NG shield bearer might grumble and do a crappy job if he thinks he is fighting for mercenaries instead of a noble cause; if you tell him to burn down a house full of orphans, he resists you with force.

The other obvious 'intelligent item' example is the Ring from LotR. The Ring never 'makes' Gollum or Bilbo or Frodo do anything in particular (though the psychological compulsion to possess it is close), but it really wants to be put on and used (because this helps reunite it with Sauron, which is its goal). Frodo gets weaker and sicker and the ring feels subjectively heavier the closer he gets to destroying the ring without using it (in game terms, stacking penalties the longer he is doing things that are in opposition to the ring's purpose).