Topic: Solutions to Absolution

[Winterknight]

I used this to great effect over 20 years ago, in one of the first RM campaigns I ran.  A demon sorcerer hit the two of the group's members with this spell, leaving the warrior to nursemaid them for a month.

I made them wait the 30 days.  I accelerated the time (didn't roleplay it day by day) naturally, and the fighter procured a wagon to keep them safe while they vegged out for a month.  The fighter fed and watered them while they lay there with glassy eyes, and mucked out their straw beds every couple days.  He didn't spend much time in the wagon himself, and by the end of the month, he did a bang-up job of RP'ing his crankiness.  The mage character kept going on about how well-rested he felt, after he woke up.  We spent maybe half an hour RP'ing the whole month of waiting, including a couple of sadistic checks by yours truly for random encounters, so it wasn't nearly as boring as it could have been.

It's one of those situations that the players still talk about, when I see those guys.  The fighter never let the other two live it down,  constantly reminding them how much they owed him for that month of tending.  In hindsight, I'm extremely glad I let it go down the way it did, it was a lot of fun for everyone.

[Old Man]

...
But all this talking about cancelling spells make me think that the solution is actually a lot easier! Absolution is a Force spell, and has a duration (1week/10 fail), so it  could be simply dispelled (with a Dispel Channeling), or not? 

I'd say no. The spell is cast and done. The effect lingers (missing soul) like the effect from a Shock Bolt (burns). It is like healing wounds -not- an ongoing effect.

In game-wise, the players could do a a) quest for a church to have the Lifegiving cast for them, b) search or quest for applicable herbs or c) wait.

My $0.02,
Old Man

[Fidoric]

Besides, it would make one of the most frightening spell around just a minor trouble... "Your soul has been blown away ? Wait for a couple of second, I cast my first level spell and there it is..."
IMO, we should keep in mind that this spell, even the first version, is a terrifying one, a direct attack upon someone's life essence. So cures to it should be equally difficult to find.

[Marc R]

Still need to go through the whole RR vs RR schenanigan. . .and who gets cancel channeling as a 1st level spell?

My problem with the Absolution = injury explaination, which means the spell first permenantly injures you by tearing out your soul, then heals you later by restoring it at the end of the duration, is that if you chose to define it that way. . . .referring back to the rule above on cancels. . . .is that during the seperated soul and body duration, the evil cleric says "Fine, I cancel it". . . .and now you're dead. . .or at least, the soul will not be coming back, since the second half effect hasn't gone off. . . .I prefer to think of the soul removal as the only effect, that since you're not dead, your soul naturally wants to return to the body, so as soon as the effect wears off you snap back. . .

The fact that it's "Soul moved out to wherever"-"duration"-"Soul returns". . . .means that your empty vessel body is laying there with a detectable, ongoing channeling effect on it. . .when the effect expires, your soul returns.

GM can make the call that a cancel channeling won't work, and require one of the curse removing spells, or not allow that either and require lifegiving, but I don't see any rules reason why cancel channeling wouldn't work.

[Fidoric]

My point exactly. It has more to do with the 'feeling' of this powerful spell than any game mechanics. IMHO, that's not right... But it's only humble opinion.
BTW, you're right, Cancel Channeling arrives at 2nd level on the Spell Defense open channeling list or 3rd level in Dispelling Ways (closed essence). But that doesn't change my "wrongness" feeling.

[Marc R]

May be a version issue, looking at my RMC Spell Law.

No cancel or dispell channeling on Spell defense

The "Cancel Channeling" on Dispelling ways 4th level has to be cast on self, before a channeling spell is cast on you, forcing the channeling spell to get through a LV vs LV rr to get through, then you make your RR. (It would work, but only to prevent an absolution, no way to apply it to an already cast one.)

Dispel Channeling sphere I at 7th level would counter a channeling spell it ran into, but that spell gets a +30 RR. good luck on the RR with absolution getting a +30 mod to the roll.

same with 16th level Dispel chan sphere.

30th or 50th level dispells on this list would work.

I got no problem with the logic of "takes at least a 7th level spell to try breaking it, and still requires a RR biased +30, needs a 30th level spell to get a normal, unbiased RR to dispell it." based on core rules. . .if the GM wants to jack this spell up to an even more powerful level I also have no problem with that, but it's not exactly a weak spell as is.

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

Base Absolution spell is 14th level....

A 14th level spell having to beat the "Dispel" of a 7th level spell needs to roll a base of 33 or higher (before any BAR adjustments). Given that the defending spell gets +30, that means the Absolution needs a 3 or higher.

If we take into account that targets of an Absolution have a -20 modifier to their RRs, I would, personally, rule that an Absolution gains an additional +20 to its rolls to avoid being dispelled (for a total of a +50 adjustment).

In short, if a spell is harder to resist than normal, then it is going to be harder to dispel than normal as well.

Taking all of this into account, I would definitely say that a "Dispel Channeling" would work against an Absolution...   

[Marc R]

I put all that math in, then edited it out when I noticed all those spells refer back to the first one, which gives an exception to the usual spell level vs spell level "spell conflict" logic, by saying caster level vs caster level.

Odds still don't look too hot, even if it's 14th level priest vs 14th level priest. (Usually my villain high priest casting absolution is a party enemy, so generally will be higher level than the party anyhoo.)

Forgot about the -20, if the "RR mods also equal dispel mods" was made official, that would make the 14ts vs 14th level caster odds exactly 0 before you get to the 30th level dispel. Go for an open ended?

[Fidoric]

An error from me. I haven't palyed RM for some times and have been mislead by the 'cancel' term. Of course, to cancel a active spell after it has bben cast, it requires a Dispel Channeling and not a mere Cancel Channeling, a more potent spell, harder to learn and to cast. That answers my problem with a low level spell countering (or having a chance to) a high level one.
Somehow, I still don't like the dispelling answer to an absolution. Once again, I understand that it's OK with game mechanics but still doesn't feel right. Call it a personnal bias.
May be my problem is with the Absolution spell which has a duration. All that thread do not apply to Pure or Dark Absolution. Having such a powerful effect limited in time is perhaps what disturbs me. Cancelling a Pure Absolution will require a Lifegiving effect if I understand right. Would a Dispel Channeling spell cancel such a permanent effect or not ?
As to Dark Absolution, it seems hopelessly without any solution. But that's how it should be IMO.

[Marc R]

If I'm not mistaken, the pure severs the body from the soul permenantly, so there's no lingering effect to dispell. (i.e. it kills you, at least in terms of the body has no soul now.)

Dark Absolution destroys the soul, so nothing fixes that short of GM intervention. (There's no spell I can think of at least. perhaps one of the "over 50th level" spells from a companion?)

[Arioch]

First: Thank you all guys for your reply and suggestions!

Then, I'm getting a bit confused about dispelling...
My players have access to two ways of dispelling a spell:

- An Elementalist with Dispelling Ways, which has a "Dispel Channeling" at level 6 (RMFRP version of Spell Law)
- A Wizard, with "Dispel Magic" at level 3 of "Spell Bane"

What I don't understand is: why the Elementalist would have to use "Dispel Channeling Sphere", instead of
simply targetting the Absolution with "Dispel Channeling", which gives a huge +30 bonus to the other spell RR? The only reason that comes to my mind is that Absolution has been already cast, so it's not targettable, but it's still active (and thus subject to Dispel "Channeling Sphere"). Does it works this way? 
Then, on my version of Spell Law I read that the Absolution would use his caster level, not its own level, to resist the dispelling effect. I guess this is just because I use a different edition of Spell Law...

If we take into account that targets of an Absolution have a -20 modifier to their RRs, I would, personally, rule that an Absolution gains an additional +20 to its rolls to avoid being dispelled (for a total of a +50 adjustment).

In short, if a spell is harder to resist than normal, then it is going to be harder to dispel than normal as well.

I agree on this, it seems perfectly right! 

[Arioch]

If I'm not mistaken, the pure severs the body from the soul permenantly, so there's no lingering effect to dispell. (i.e. it kills you, at least in terms of the body has no soul now.)

Dark Absolution destroys the soul, so nothing fixes that short of GM intervention. (There's no spell I can think of at least. perhaps one of the "over 50th level" spells from a companion?)

Yes, I was talking only about the first Absolution, the one with a duration (I like to think that this spell rips the soul from the body and then prevents its return creating a sort of magical cage around it...).
The only way to cure an Absolution Pure is Lifegiving and for a Dark Absolution you can forget your character...

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

Both Absolutions work in the same manner. Target is put into a coma, and the soul travels to the afterlife (or the Soul Storage Facility or whatever).

The only difference between the two is that one has a duration and the other is permanent.

Also, if you don't like the dispelling option, then don't allow it. That option is for those who are lenient, as the spell clearly states that the soul can only be returned via lifegiving.

To me, that says that canceling or dispelling the spell won't restore the soul. Herbs and potions and spells that do lifegiving can, but nothing else.

however, I also tend to be slightly lenient in such matters, so I would personally allow such.

[mocking bird]

My problem with the Absolution = injury explaination, which means the spell first permenantly injures you by tearing out your soul, then heals you later by restoring it at the end of the duration, is that if you chose to define it that way. . . .referring back to the rule above on cancels. . . .is that during the seperated soul and body duration, the evil cleric says "Fine, I cancel it". . . .and now you're dead. . .or at least, the soul will not be coming back, since the second half effect hasn't gone off. . . .I prefer to think of the soul removal as the only effect, that since you're not dead, your soul naturally wants to return to the body, so as soon as the effect wears off you snap back. . .

Stun spell effects wear off and the character isn't really 'healed' of anything.  There isn't any secondary effect to be cancelled resulting in death.  Can you cancel stun spells?

Another way of looking at it is that the absolution spell 'poisons' the body for a while rather than putting in a cage, kicking out the soul and preventing its return.  This would also explain why lifegiving herbs and such would work.  Absolution pure corrupts the body permanently and dark absolution corrupts the body and the soul.

Thinking about this further having the spell kick out the soul and send it to the afterlife prematurely seems to be taking two deities into account - the one that granted the spell and the other that accepts the wayward soul.  Just having the soul float around for a while out gets rid of the second issue.

[Marc R]

suspect the latter was left vague on purpose to fit gameworld logic. . .it says "to wherever souls go". . .perhaps they go to the pub?

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

Perhaps they go to the Soul Storage Facility #9, which is run by Friend Computer.....

 

[Setorn]

Or Soul Storage Area 51.

[mocking bird]

Actually that did come up in game play.  The character was absolved and perfectly fine having an ale with his god until he felt the tug of lifegiving and his god said 'sorry but you've gotta go'.

But back to the question of 'where souls go' is that if they do not go to the Elysium Fields or wherever then the spell is much more limited in scope. 

[Fidoric]

Both Absolutions work in the same manner. Target is put into a coma, and the soul travels to the afterlife (or the Soul Storage Facility or whatever).

The only difference between the two is that one has a duration and the other is permanent.

I won't say that Razyr. That difference seems more profound to me. Let's say the soul is connected to the body via a 'silver rope', the Absolution tear the soul out of its vessel but doesn't damage the 'rope' beyond a mere straining.
OTOH, Pure Absolution severs the rope. The two spells don't seem to work the same way, unless you consider that Pure absolution is simply a mightier version of Absolution giving the soul a stronger shove, strong enough to cur the rope ?

[Marc R]

Dark absolution goes a step further, soul is destroyed. . .no afterlife at all, it's gone, done, destroyed, consumed, beyond reclaimation.