Pinger or Retaliate enabler.

Huh. That was not what I expected when I saw the name. The word 'charm' in Magic often refers to a modal spell, such as Emerald Charm, Jund Charm or Izzet Charm. In fact, there are 45 modal spells, or 'charms' in the game of Magic. That suggests to me that you should come up with a different word...

By the way, I like the mechanic. It's not often that you see a reasonable excuse for tapping enchantments. Though, I got to admit, I don't understand why you decided creatures can't be double-charmed.

Is it a flavor reason? Because if it is, I'd argue that the very minor benefit your getting from flavor doesn't justify the loss of functionality. Is it because certain charms interact explosively if they end up on the same creature? Then I'd argue that, again, one or two cards isn't worth a mechanic's functionality. Better to make a different, and equally interesting card that works with the ability.

Enchantments don't tap for a reason though. They're similar enough to artifacts already.

you should come up with a different word...

English is not my native language, it's hard to find a neutral verb like Enchant (neither positive like Bless nor negative like Hex).

By the way, I like the mechanic.

Thanks.

I don't understand why you decided creatures can't be double-charmed.

Two main reasons and a third minor one:

1. I don't want to encourage voltron-like strategies, where the charmed creature doesn't matter, just the number of charms you control.

2. I want Charms to feel like a resource you have to manage carefully each turn, including the "subgame" of charming opposing creatures to prevent them from being charmed and/or charming your own creatures to protect them from other charms.

3. I'm looking for a mechanic to represent the influence of Brasilia's factions on its inhabitants, charms are a candidate.

I agree, it is hard to find a word for it. Sadly, "Aura" is quite a natural one, and the core rules already stole that.

It's kinda similar to Alex's "Geas" mechanic in tone, I think. Only those can't be moved at all, once applied.

This is a nice game on its own - use it on your own stuff as a small power up; or put it on an opponents thing to dissuade an attack.

You do need to find a good way to make these feel distinct from equipment. "only a single one" can be that differentiator; asd long as you phrase it as a positive (protect your stuff) rather than a negative (like equipment, but not as good)

The problem with the protection thing as currently shown here is that it is reactive - as long as you have a charm available; the opponent can't put things on your stuff, because you could put your charm on first.

I suggest possibly trying this without the :move ability. Just "Enchantment - Aura" and "Enchanted creature has protection from other Aura's"

Kauefr already has the charms moving as a sorcery, so you can't react to your opponent's charm by charming.

On names: 'Ensorcell' works. But that infers captivation, and if the effects are commonly smallish, then I wouldn't use it. 'Bewitch' works, but unfortunately includes the root word 'witch' which has its own baggage. 'Beguile' feels like you're confusing someone.

'Endow' maybe? It isn't a wrong word. I got to admit, though, that I don't like the sound of 'Blood Endowment'. 'Honor' also works, but not for negative effects like this one.

I like 'Favor'. It works if the ability is granted by something akin to royalty for the purposes of being a special sort of guardian. And the title 'Blood Favor' doesn't sound bad either.

And the title 'Blood Favor' doesn't sound bad either.

The card names are placeholders, for now. The thing i'm worried about is the mechanic's name. It must be a verb, as in "enchant target creature" or a short adjective, as in "becomes renowned".

I like 'Favor'.

Favor sounds very positive though, it's hard to picture a favor of freezing (doesn't untap) or a favor of taxing (must pay X to attack), or any other negative effect, really.