[D&D] Imprisoning an epic level wizard.

[Uraniun235]

Here's a plot idea - what if the wizard broke his prison on day 1, but pretends to go along with it, and is now subtly magically directing the city towards a plan of his own?

As for it being dumb, well, sometimes people make really bad decisions when they're motivated by greed.

[Khaat]

If they find that bargain agreeable, it's not imprisonment and enslavement. The topic is imprisonment.

The topic stripped to its root is: "how do you keep a powerful guy around for dispensing plot hooks?" you shot my comments down for not fitting the specific language of the premise, then shoot me down for exercising a question about that language, and presenting what might be a richer back story not just for the prisoner but the campaign.

In your example both Vader and the Emperor agree that Luke is too dangerous to be allowed to live unless he joins them. They aren't plotting to keep him in a cage indefinitely, they're plotting to convert him or kill him. Your example supports my argument.

Yes, they want Luke dead or with them, but Luke doesn't die, and he doesn't join. We aren't talking about the catching, battling (Luke) part, we're talking about just the "killing the guy" part.

There's a story in how this guy came to be where he is, and simply "because he lost" isn't as romantic or adventurous as someone this powerful deserves, even if the players only ever piece together the real backstory after years of play. This guy (having reached epic levels) is a major piece of local history. He's the boogey-man misbehaving kids are threatened with. He's the reason the crops failed last year (even if he was never dueling a Guild strike-force anywhere near, and has been "locked away" for years.) He's the reason the king is still the king. He's the reason "illithid" is just an old wives' tale. He's the reason you tithe in church.

Again, the topic is imprisonment, says so in the title.

If the populace thinks he's a prisoner, if the Guild knows he won't be showing up to nuke their warrens, you might well use the term "imprisoned." No longer operating as-was is my suggestion. I'm digging for a deeper story. Without it, your solution "just kill him" stands as the best resolution, he can't be kept.

What does a saving throw have to do with anything? Those can be failed and geas, for example, doesn't off much of one.

You brought up the idea that charm-school spells would erase his will to do as he would. Odd, since you shot my "binding oath" hook down with the "hyper-intelligent, mega-powerful guy finds loopholes" argument. Just sayin'.

What does the difference between "folklore" and "history" have to do with the scenario? The DM is creating a world that has to seem to be plausible and be stuffed full of all kinds of magical wonder. He needs a plausible world and history, whatever sources he draws upon to create the fantastic parts.

The difference is "what people widely believe and what's really going on in my game world". I'm just saying the shouldn't need to be the same.

We're creating a plausible reason to keep a very dangerous individual as a captive. That's it.

Yep, me too. My solution is characterful, expands into the game world and history, and addresses the very same question, with just the small difference in that he is willfully under "house arrest" rather than lobotomized or dead.

Since my suggestions were story and character centered and not game mechanics centered I really don't see your point.

You offered a list of spells, i offered a different take on the back story, a "what if...?" Or i could be completely incorrect in attributing that list of spells to you. If so, i apologize.

and for the love of the Flying Spaghetti Monster please capitalize your sentences. From what I can you're suggesting a background where the crown and mages came into conflict and the crown won.

Actually, my suggestion was find a meta-game origin that acts as a balance for mages like there is for priests (who have gods). In Arthurian legend, mages just weren't common enough to collect into guilds. Merlin, the prototype, who could have overturned the feuding barons and united England easily himself, instead acted as an advisor to the true king. Merlin's apprentice, Morgan le Fay, also did not rise to conquer England herself, but backed her son, the rightful son of the king in his play. My version has that position reserved for mages in the social order: "plot hooks, inc."

Q: Why aren't mages and priests constantly in open conflict for domination of every fantasy world? (The power in-game is beyond any real-world equivalent, so real-world social models would collapse.)
A: "just because" (weak)
A: Backstory

If the mages forced into a magical binding and servitude that they resent and they're at the ops power level and they're doing the job because no one can do it better then you're back to a tiger by the tail scenario.

Which is why you either find a reason behind mages being such potentially world-shattering forces (they have a greater responsibility beyond themselves, to the crown and land) and resolve the issue diplomatically, or you let them square off against one another (and everyone else), destroying the kingdom over petty excuses (like taking the last piece of bacon at breakfast) without the power to stop them in the first place.

[Imperial Overlord]

There's a story in how this guy came to be where he is, and simply "because he lost" isn't as romantic or adventurous as someone this powerful deserves, even if the players only ever piece together the real backstory after years of play. This guy (having reached epic levels) is a major piece of local history. He's the boogey-man misbehaving kids are threatened with. He's the reason the crops failed last year (even if he was never dueling a Guild strike-force anywhere near, and has been "locked away" for years.) He's the reason the king is still the king. He's the reason "illithid" is just an old wives' tale. He's the reason you tithe in church.

Not even remotely on topic. We know very little about Crom's world. Its history isn't ours to rewrite.

What does a saving throw have to do with anything? Those can be failed and geas, for example, doesn't off much of one.

You brought up the idea that charm-school spells would erase his will to do as he would. Odd, since you shot my "binding oath" hook down with the "hyper-intelligent, mega-powerful guy finds loopholes" argument. Just sayin'.

I said magical bindings are enslavement and might work for the short term, but wouldn't hold him forever. That was and remains my point. The precise game mechanics and the issue of saving throws was your red herring. You have not refuted my point.

What does the difference between "folklore" and "history" have to do with the scenario? The DM is creating a world that has to seem to be plausible and be stuffed full of all kinds of magical wonder. He needs a plausible world and history, whatever sources he draws upon to create the fantastic parts.

The difference is "what people widely believe and what's really going on in my game world". I'm just saying the shouldn't need to be the same.

Then you should have said that. You don't get bonus points for being cryptic.

We're creating a plausible reason to keep a very dangerous individual as a captive. That's it.

Yep, me too. My solution is characterful, expands into the game world and history, and addresses the very same question, with just the small difference in that he is willfully under "house arrest" rather than lobotomized or dead. [/quote]

Then he's not much of a prisoner. The question isn't how to redesign Crom's game world and NPCs, which our long term social and historical ideas may or may not be compatible with. The issue is believable motivations and mechanisms to hold someone of extraordinary and terrible power prisoner.

Since my suggestions were story and character centered and not game mechanics centered I really don't see your point.

You offered a list of spells, i offered a different take on the back story, a "what if...?" Or i could be completely incorrect in attributing that list of spells to you. If so, i apologize.

You brought up the idea that binding his will and forcing him to obey orders required him to agree to the binding of his own free will (I'll leave the thorny issue of what constitutes free will alone for the moment) based on the game mechanics of the binding oath spell. I rebutted that and provided examples.

Actually, my suggestion was find a meta-game origin that acts as a balance for mages like there is for priests (who have gods).

Totally unnecessary, but you can arrange your game worlds as you see fit. Clerics by definition serve gods. Mages by definition don't. Who they serve, if they serve, is a matter of individual choice influenced by social, cultural, economic, and political factors. Most conflict between clerics and mages on many home brew game worlds are poorly implemented analogies with Christian witch-hunts.

If the mages forced into a magical binding and servitude that they resent and they're at the ops power level and they're doing the job because no one can do it better then you're back to a tiger by the tail scenario.

Which is why you either find a reason behind mages being such potentially world-shattering forces (they have a greater responsibility beyond themselves, to the crown and land) and resolve the issue diplomatically, or you let them square off against one another (and everyone else), destroying the kingdom over petty excuses (like taking the last piece of bacon at breakfast) without the power to stop them in the first place.

Thats a load of assumptions right there, starting with mages of that power are even somewhat common. The issue is imprisoning an extraordinarily powerful mage, holding him, and having him as a dispenser of plot hooks. Creating whole social and historical back stories is world design and that's a different issue deserving of a separate thread.

[Khaat]

Creating whole social and historical back stories is world design and that's a different issue deserving of a separate thread.

This is really the issue and i concede the point, i am off-topic.

Thanks for your time!

[Alyrium Denryle]

Let me know if I am off-kilter here. But actually getting an epic level wizard in a position where he can be imprisoned and used to dispense advice is, flatly, almost not possible unless you yourself possess epic level magic. There is a plot hole there the size of a small african country.

Point being, you dont have to hold him against his will, doing so is not possible because you would have an fantastically hard time capturing him in the first place, thus the only reasonable alternative is that he is there willingly which precludes the cage.

You are basically trying to catch Alan Turing. But this is not the nice enigma cracking, lets himself get fucked by the british government when outed alan turning. This is an Alan Turing who has literally seen everything, and endured decades of people, demons, and other assorted beings trying to capture or kill him for various reasons. And this Alan Turing can level nations, and rend the fabric of reality with a thought.

Not going to work.

[CaptainChewbacca]

Spelljamming. Helm.

The great equalizer, or at least it'll give you a fighting chance. Its not impossible to catch an epic-level wizard without one, you just need an epic-level wizard that's on your side.