Dominate and Pets.


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 63 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

This may have been covered, if so I apologize for the double post; I looked and didn't see anything that covered this.

I suppose simply stated the question is:
Would a dominated person who was given the command to attack think enough to tell his animal companion to attack as well?

To give you an example:
Our druid was dominated, he was told to kill the party. He proceeded to attack the party (as expected). However his Animal companion also attacked the party. Should it have?

Our party is fairly close so we aren't evil and just waiting for the chance to kill each other. I would even say we are friends.

Would the pet have stood around being confused bereted of orders. Its allegiance didn't change...I know it certainly wouldn't attack its master but I don't know that it would turn on the party either.

As I understand it the animal companion will do whatever its master tells it to but, would the dominated person have the presence of mind to give commands to the animal? It seems as though the dominator would have to tell him to have the animal attack.

I guess it would depend on how exactly dominate works…I always saw it as, “Oh look, I can’t seem to control my movements anymore.” It’s not a change of moral or perception it’s a loss of control. So you are going to follow instructions with the best of your abilities. However does your pet count as “your” abilities? Or because it is separate from you, would that be different command from the dominator to get it to attack. To command an animal since you would have to “think and decide” to a degree I am not sure you could do.

Thanks for any feed back!

Dark Archive

Sunrunnerii wrote:
I guess it would depend on how exactly dominate works…I always saw it as, “Oh look, I can’t seem to control my movements anymore.” It’s not a change of moral or perception it’s a loss of control. So you are going to follow instructions with the best of your abilities.

If the dominate magic just seized control of your limbs, it would probably be a Transmutation effect, not an Enchantment effect. If you were a helpless passenger of a possessing spirit, Necromancy (or Conjuration, perhaps) would fit the bill. But this is Enchantment and mind-affecting, so, for that time, the Druid isn't a helpless passenger, he's a willing and eager participant in your ruination.

He might *forget* to take that free action to order Pikachu to choose you, but not likely, and he couldn't passively resist the Enchantment by choosing not to attack with one of his more effective class abilities and more than a Wizard should be encouraged to draw a mundane dagger and stab at a foe, instead of using a spell or wand.

[Standard disclaimer] Add IMO to the end of any sentence that starts with a capital letter. [/standard disclaimer]

Contributor

I guess you could view this as a house rule and do as you wish, but in my game the dominated person has presence of mind. He can protect himself to his fullest ability and can attack to his fullest ability. He can freely think and use attacks of Op and charge, know which of his party were the magic users and pure fighters - so why wouldn't he use his animal to help out?

If you see your dominated person as more of an automaton/robot/zombie’ish then I guess the dominator would have to issue that order. I feel that type of control is more limited and therefore is more like the spell Command. Where every action is based on what the controlled has commanded.


Set wrote:
Sunrunnerii wrote:
I guess it would depend on how exactly dominate works…I always saw it as, “Oh look, I can’t seem to control my movements anymore.” It’s not a change of moral or perception it’s a loss of control. So you are going to follow instructions with the best of your abilities.

If the dominate magic just seized control of your limbs, it would probably be a Transmutation effect, not an Enchantment effect. If you were a helpless passenger of a possessing spirit, Necromancy (or Conjuration, perhaps) would fit the bill. But this is Enchantment and mind-affecting, so, for that time, the Druid isn't a helpless passenger, he's a willing and eager participant in your ruination.

He might *forget* to take that free action to order Pikachu to choose you, but not likely, and he couldn't passively resist the Enchantment by choosing not to attack with one of his more effective class abilities and more than a Wizard should be encouraged to draw a mundane dagger and stab at a foe, instead of using a spell or wand.

[Standard disclaimer] Add IMO to the end of any sentence that starts with a capital letter. [/standard disclaimer]

Dominate Person does not turn them into a willing participant. If you tell the dominated person to do something self-destructive or against their personality, they get another save to break free of the spell.

The dominated person will follow the letter of the command, but no necessarily the spirit of the command. So if a dominated druid was told kill your friends, they will attack their friends. If the dominated druid was told to command their pet to help them, they would.

Thus, IMO it would come down to does the person who dominated the druid know enough about the druid to know to tell them to command their pet?


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Well, rangers and druids need to give their animal companions commands in order for them to do anything. Otherwise they react to their environment as would normal non-domesticated animals would.

If the dominater had the presence of mind to tell the dominated druid/ranger to command his animal companion to attack his former allies, than that would work just fine (especially since it is generally obvious to the dominater when the ranger/druid commands the animal companion). Otherwise the animal in question follows its last order or, if a sufficient amount of time has passed since its last order, it will react to environmental stimuli as would a normal un-domesticated animal.


Dominate person as opposed to dominate animal

This seems to be a simple case of gaining a twofor, as in a two for one.

The evil creature needs to dominate the druid and animals seperately.

Druids do not command their pets!!!


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
KenderKin wrote:
Druids do not command their pets!!!

Uh, yeah they do. It's under the Handle Animal skill.

It's a free action instead of a move action since they are an animal companion (as opposed to a normal domesticated animal), but they still need to tell them what to do.


I still think that the animal has to be handled in order to get it to do anything like attack the party.

Druids do not dominate nor command the pets.

If a dominated druid commanded the pet to leap withhim into a fire, likely the pet is not going.......


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
KenderKin wrote:

I still think that the animal has to be handled in order to get it to do anything like attack the party.

Druids do not dominate nor command the pets.

If a dominated druid commanded the pet to leap withhim into a fire, likely the pet is not going.......

Um...I don't think we are disagreeing on anything.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Let me clarify my position on dominate. I know it isn't a physcial effect that controls them. They are still acting under their own movement but not their own will. (Like Indiana Jones and The Temple of Doom). But they are also not acting at full ability. All the creativity and improv that a person has would be suppressed those are personality traits. They are just "following orders".


KenderKin wrote:

I still think that the animal has to be handled in order to get it to do anything like attack the party.

Druids do not dominate nor command the pets.

If a dominated druid commanded the pet to leap withhim into a fire, likely the pet is not going.......

The druid's pet loyalty is to the druid. If the druid says attack the wizard the animal will do it. I could never make any of my dogs jump into a fire, but they would bite my friends if I wanted them to as an example.


Sunrunnerii wrote:

Let me clarify my position on dominate. I know it isn't a physcial effect that controls them. They are still acting under their own movement but not their own will. (Like Indiana Jones and The Temple of Doom). But they are also not acting at full ability. All the creativity and improv that a person has would be suppressed those are personality traits. They are just "following orders".

It does not take creativity to make common sense decisions, such as bring your pet to help you. Now if the dominated individual had to come up with some complex plan that might be an issue.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I am saying that the person wouldn't have common sense. They would have the dominator's sense. I don't think that a dominated person would have the sense to exploit weaknesses that a friend would know either. That part of the mind is still fighting the control.


wraithstrike wrote:
KenderKin wrote:

I still think that the animal has to be handled in order to get it to do anything like attack the party.

Druids do not dominate nor command the pets.

If a dominated druid commanded the pet to leap withhim into a fire, likely the pet is not going.......

The druid's pet loyalty is to the druid. If the druid says attack the wizard the animal will do it. I could never make any of my dogs jump into a fire, but they would bite my friends if I wanted them to as an example.

I could also see the animal stand there confused because the druid is attacking someone whom the druid taught the animal was a friend. If that animal has been around the other characters for any significant length of time, they are very likely going to be confused on what to do, and it would take a command from the druid to clear that confusion.


Sunrunnerii wrote:

I am saying that the person wouldn't have common sense. They would have the dominator's sense. I don't think that a dominated person would have the sense to exploit weaknesses that a friend would know either. That part of the mind is still fighting the control.

That is nice flavor, but nothing says anything about fighting for control. If that were the case they would take penalties to attack and damage for trying not to hit their friend, or at least not as hard(IMHO). I look at it as a form of instant brainwashing. The individual controlling you is in charge without question, or at least until he tells you to do something else against your nature. You still know you are a druid, and getting Fluffy to attack makes sure things get done faster. Even animals with an int of 1 know which attacks are most affective. Animals with an int of two know who to attack and who not to attack. Hyenas as an example don't go after lions one on one. It is not hard to figure out how to use strengths and weaknesses to your advantage. If they can carry on conversations they can still handle simple tactics. It is not like they really have to figure anything out. These are probably things they already know, and have probably already done, just because they are adventurers.

PS:I do think the conversation would be strange which is why the sense motive check reveals they are being affected by magic.


Charender wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
KenderKin wrote:

I still think that the animal has to be handled in order to get it to do anything like attack the party.

Druids do not dominate nor command the pets.

If a dominated druid commanded the pet to leap withhim into a fire, likely the pet is not going.......

The druid's pet loyalty is to the druid. If the druid says attack the wizard the animal will do it. I could never make any of my dogs jump into a fire, but they would bite my friends if I wanted them to as an example.
I could also see the animal stand there confused because the druid is attacking someone whom the druid taught the animal was a friend. If that animal has been around the other characters for any significant length of time, they are very likely going to be confused on what to do, and it would take a command from the druid to clear that confusion.

Then an opposed charisma check should at least come into play. If the person really was the druid's enemy then the confused animal just became a liability.

PS:The second sentence assumes the "friend" is a spy and this was just discovered. For the sake of the druid not killing a party member it sounds good, but the flip side is that if the is continually enforced the animal would not be useful at times. A smart DM might use disguise check and spells that alter appearance to keep the animal out of the fight at times.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

To me this says the control isn't complete. They just cannot stop themselves.
"Subjects resist this control, and any subject forced to take
actions against its nature receives a new saving throw with a
+2 bonus." Pathfinder CRB pg 274 in Dominate Person Spell.
(Oh I think animal int is usually 3, but that is off topic)
I am not saying you are wrong...because I can see your side of the argument. Just looking for the correct answer.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
wraithstrike wrote:


PS:The second sentence assumes the "friend" is a spy and this was just discovered. For the sake of the druid not killing a party member it sounds good, but the flip side is that if the is continually enforced the animal would not be useful at times. A smart DM might use disguise check and spells that alter appearance to keep the animal out of the fight at times.

I don't think that would be unreasonable reaction. But animals don't depend on just sight so it would have to be more than just an appearance. I mean if someone looking, smelling, and sounding showed up and told your dog to do something it probably would react as if it you had said it.


wraithstrike wrote:
Charender wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
KenderKin wrote:

I still think that the animal has to be handled in order to get it to do anything like attack the party.

Druids do not dominate nor command the pets.

If a dominated druid commanded the pet to leap withhim into a fire, likely the pet is not going.......

The druid's pet loyalty is to the druid. If the druid says attack the wizard the animal will do it. I could never make any of my dogs jump into a fire, but they would bite my friends if I wanted them to as an example.
I could also see the animal stand there confused because the druid is attacking someone whom the druid taught the animal was a friend. If that animal has been around the other characters for any significant length of time, they are very likely going to be confused on what to do, and it would take a command from the druid to clear that confusion.

Then an opposed charisma check should at least come into play. If the person really was the druid's enemy then the confused animal just became a liability.

PS:The second sentence assumes the "friend" is a spy and this was just discovered. For the sake of the druid not killing a party member it sounds good, but the flip side is that if the is continually enforced the animal would not be useful at times. A smart DM might use disguise check and spells that alter appearance to keep the animal out of the fight at times.

Not really. The animal would be confused on what to do, and thus would do nothing. If the druid actually commanded it to attack(free action), then it would attack without hesitation. That is what it was trained to do. most pets have an int of 2. Critical thinking just isn't their strong point.

Like I said earlier, it comes down to how much does the dominator know about the party. If the dominator said "(You) Kill your friends" The driud will attack his friends to the best of his abilities while the pet stands there confused. If the dominator said "Kill your friend, and get your pet to help you", the druid would command his pet to attack as a free action then they would both go to town.


Sunrunnerii wrote:

To me this says the control isn't complete. They just cannot stop themselves.

"Subjects resist this control, and any subject forced to take
actions against its nature receives a new saving throw with a
+2 bonus." Pathfinder CRB pg 274 in Dominate Person Spell.
(Oh I think animal int is usually 3, but that is off topic)
I am not saying you are wrong...because I can see your side of the argument. Just looking for the correct answer.

Animal int is two and it would matter if it were 3. At 3 creatures can understand languages. It is the next level of learning.

The correct way by RAW says nothing about them becoming automatons. I can definitely see a DM doing it either way, but according to the rules it does not interfere makes them dumber. I think they still know what is going on, and they want to resist, but they can't. It is kind of like the movies where one person is about to kill the other(through mind control) then the person being attacked starts talking about all the good times they had(bad guys gives evil order), and the person breaks free(second saving throw), but before that saving throw came into play the person that was dominated was pretty efficient in his killing method. I wish I could think of a movie right now.


Sunrunnerii wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:


PS:The second sentence assumes the "friend" is a spy and this was just discovered. For the sake of the druid not killing a party member it sounds good, but the flip side is that if the is continually enforced the animal would not be useful at times. A smart DM might use disguise check and spells that alter appearance to keep the animal out of the fight at times.
I don't think that would be unreasonable reaction. But animals don't depend on just sight so it would have to be more than just an appearance. I mean if someone looking, smelling, and sounding showed up and told your dog to do something it probably would react as if it you had said it.

But the rules dont permit identification by smell. You only get a perception check. Common sense wise I agree, but we are in the rules forum.

If it was my game I would allow the smell to give a bonus to the perception check, assuming I held the animal back from attacking in the first place.

PS: I am not against flavor and the rules combining. I just don't like to do it when asking for rules interpretations.


Charender wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Charender wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
KenderKin wrote:

I still think that the animal has to be handled in order to get it to do anything like attack the party.

Druids do not dominate nor command the pets.

If a dominated druid commanded the pet to leap withhim into a fire, likely the pet is not going.......

The druid's pet loyalty is to the druid. If the druid says attack the wizard the animal will do it. I could never make any of my dogs jump into a fire, but they would bite my friends if I wanted them to as an example.
I could also see the animal stand there confused because the druid is attacking someone whom the druid taught the animal was a friend. If that animal has been around the other characters for any significant length of time, they are very likely going to be confused on what to do, and it would take a command from the druid to clear that confusion.

Then an opposed charisma check should at least come into play. If the person really was the druid's enemy then the confused animal just became a liability.

PS:The second sentence assumes the "friend" is a spy and this was just discovered. For the sake of the druid not killing a party member it sounds good, but the flip side is that if the is continually enforced the animal would not be useful at times. A smart DM might use disguise check and spells that alter appearance to keep the animal out of the fight at times.

Not really. The animal would be confused on what to do, and thus would do nothing. If the druid actually commanded it to attack(free action), then it would attack without hesitation. That is what it was trained to do. most pets have an int of 2. Critical thinking just isn't their strong point.

Like I said earlier, it comes down to how much does the dominator know about the party. If the dominator said "(You) Kill your friends" The driud will attack his friends to the best of his abilities while the pet stands there confused. If the dominator...

I think the druid would get the pet to help since that makes the kill easier. If a he told a wizard to kill his friends I am sure he would not have to say "kill them with your spells". The wizard knows the spells are his best bet, and the druid knows the animal helping him is his best option.

Scarab Sages

A general rule for animal companions, is that they shouldn't be played stupidly, or as automatons.

The animal would still have its own sense of self-preservation, and may have its own ideas on how best to interpret the order to attack a group of opponents.

So it may decide not to provoke a bunch of AoO from a target, especially if it's seen that person kill creatures much stronger than it is.
It may delay, then jump in for a flank, when his attention is diverted.

It may decide it would rather not bite that thing that's covered in disgusting slime, and go for something that tastes better.

It may decide not to commit suicide by attacking the unwounded alpha of the enemy pack, and instead pick off a wounded straggler that shows signs of tiring.

The DM always has the authority to overrule the actions of any non-PC.
If the master is simply relying on the free action to order it to attack the group, then it will use its own initiative, to decide how best to go about that.
If the master is getting technical (Go round him, yes, him, then two steps to the right, no, your other right, past the elf, no not him, he's a half-elf, can't you tell the difference, yet? Yes, past him, then go for the guy with the halberd. No, that's not a halberd, that's a glaive. A glaive. Yes, it is a silly name. No, I don't know why they call it that, but they do, OK? Him, with the halberd. Trip him!) then he's really going to have to expend his six seconds of concentration for the round.


wraithstrike wrote:


Lots of stuff back and forth....

I think the druid would get the pet to help since that makes the kill easier. If a he told a wizard to kill his friends I am sure he would not have to say "kill them with your spells". The wizard knows the spells are his best bet, and the druid knows the animal helping him is his best option.

Any druid in their right mind would automatically get their pet to help them....

but the druid is not in their right mind. They are engaged in a battle for control over their own will.

Spoiler:

Once you have given a dominated creature a command, it continues to attempt to carry out that command to the exclusion of all other activities except those necessary for day-to-day survival (such as sleeping, eating, and so forth). Because of this limited range of activity, a Sense Motive check against DC 15 (rather than DC 25) can determine that the subject's behavior is being influenced by an enchantment effect (see the Sense Motive skill description).

I wouldn't consider commanding your pet to attack to be necessary for day-to-day survival. It also mentions that the DC to notice this compulsion lower because of the singlemindedness with wich the target executes their task.

If you dominated someone and told them to pee, they would, and they would not drop their pants first. They are being ruled by compulsion, and there is no room for them to use common sense.

Scarab Sages

wraithstrike wrote:
I think they still know what is going on, and they want to resist, but they can't. It is kind of like the movies where one person is about to kill the other(through mind control) then the person being attacked starts talking about all the good times they had(bad guys gives evil order), and the person breaks free(second saving throw), but before that saving throw came into play the person that was dominated was pretty efficient in his killing method. I wish I could think of a movie right now.

Isn't there a bit in 'Beneath The Planet of the Apes', when Taylor (Charlton Heston) is dominated by the mutant to kill Brent (James Fransiscus). Or is it the other way round? I forget... They wrestle inside a spiked cage (which was pretty damn horrible, when I was little kid!). The two guys don't have any banter, they just grunt and sweat at each other, but Nova (the cavegirl hottie) suddenly learns how to speak, and this shocks them both out of their fight, and they stick the mutant on a spike.

"Mr. Taylor, Mr. Brent, we are a peaceful people. We don't kill our enemies. We get our enemies to kill each other."


Charender wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:


Lots of stuff back and forth....

I think the druid would get the pet to help since that makes the kill easier. If a he told a wizard to kill his friends I am sure he would not have to say "kill them with your spells". The wizard knows the spells are his best bet, and the druid knows the animal helping him is his best option.

Any druid in their right mind would automatically get their pet to help them....

but the druid is not in their right mind. They are engaged in a battle for control over their own will.

** spoiler omitted **

I wouldn't consider commanding your pet to attack to be necessary for day-to-day survival. It also mentions that the DC to notice this compulsion lower because of the singlemindedness with wich the target executes their task.

If you dominated someone and told them to pee, they would, and they would not drop their pants first. They are being ruled by compulsion, and there is no room for them to use common sense.

Ordering the animal to attack would not be to an "other" activities. It is just as valid as stabbing or casting a spell when it comes to making an enemy dead. I am of the opinion that the animal companion is an extension of the druid however.

As an example someone who is dominated would not have the sense of mind to recruit others to his cause, but the animal is just as much a weapon as anything else the druid has. If the animal companion is just another creature would the druid allow it to starve to death, since feeding the companion is not necessary for the druid's survival?


wraithstrike wrote:
Charender wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:


Lots of stuff back and forth....

I think the druid would get the pet to help since that makes the kill easier. If a he told a wizard to kill his friends I am sure he would not have to say "kill them with your spells". The wizard knows the spells are his best bet, and the druid knows the animal helping him is his best option.

Any druid in their right mind would automatically get their pet to help them....

but the druid is not in their right mind. They are engaged in a battle for control over their own will.

** spoiler omitted **

I wouldn't consider commanding your pet to attack to be necessary for day-to-day survival. It also mentions that the DC to notice this compulsion lower because of the singlemindedness with wich the target executes their task.

If you dominated someone and told them to pee, they would, and they would not drop their pants first. They are being ruled by compulsion, and there is no room for them to use common sense.

Ordering the animal to attack would not be to an "other" activities. It is just as valid as stabbing or casting a spell when it comes to making an enemy dead. I am of the opinion that the animal companion is an extension of the druid however.

As an example someone who is dominated would not have the sense of mind to recruit others to his cause, but the animal is just as much a weapon as anything else the druid has. If the animal companion is just another creature would the druid allow it to starve to death, since feeding the companion is not necessary for the druid's survival?

Actually, I believe that a dominated druid would let their animal companion starve to death. Feeding it is not necessary for the druid's day-to-day survival.

Spoiler:

Here is the full text of the dominate person spell, key portions highlighted:
You can control the actions of any humanoid creature through a telepathic link that you establish with the subject's mind.

If you and the subject have a common language, you can generally force the subject to perform as you desire, within the limits of its abilities. If no common language exists, you can communicate only basic commands, such as "Come here," "Go there," "Fight," and "Stand still." You know what the subject is experiencing, but you do not receive direct sensory input from it, nor can it communicate with you telepathically.

Once you have given a dominated creature a command, it continues to attempt to carry out that command to the exclusion of all other activities except those necessary for day-to-day survival (such as sleeping, eating, and so forth). Because of this limited range of activity, a Sense Motive check against DC 15 (rather than DC 25) can determine that the subject's behavior is being influenced by an enchantment effect (see the Sense Motive skill description).

Changing your orders or giving a dominated creature a new command is a move action.

By concentrating fully on the spell (a standard action), you can receive full sensory input as interpreted by the mind of the subject, though it still can't communicate with you. You can't actually see through the subject's eyes, so it's not as good as being there yourself, but you still get a good idea of what's going on.

Subjects resist this control, and any subject forced to take actions against its nature receives a new saving throw with a +2 bonus. Obviously self-destructive orders are not carried out. Once control is established, the range at which it can be exercised is unlimited, as long as you and the subject are on the same plane. You need not see the subject to control it.

If you don't spend at least 1 round concentrating on the spell each day, the subject receives a new saving throw to throw off the domination.

Protection from evil or a similar spell can prevent you from exercising control or using the telepathic link while the subject is so warded, but such an effect does not automatically dispel it.

The druid is not a willing participant in the slaughter, they are doing everything in their power to resist the influence. They will find every loophole in the commands they are given and use it it to thwart the will of the person that dominated them. Thus if they were not told to command their pet, then they will not command their pet.

That is the strength and weakness of dominate person. The dominated person loses the ability to act on their own initiative. They will do exactly what they are told to do and nothing more.

The druid should have gotten another save at +2 when they were told to attack their friends.

If the druid saw that their companion was neglected and dying because they were busy doing something else they were ordered to do, it would qualify as being forced to take an action against their nature and would grant them another save at a +2.

My making the druid into an NPC that it actively helping to kill his friend you are making the spell more powerful than it is intended to be.

Scarab Sages

I'd say the druid could order his pet to attack, but the animal gets to make up its own mind (via the DM).

How this plays out would depend a lot on what's gone down before.
Presumably, the druid has spent a lot of downtime, with the party, and the pet, and we assume he's had to step in on a few occasions, like when someone steps on its tail, or eats a hunk of meat it had been eying for itself.
He's had to repeat stuff like "No, down boy! Thog friend! Ookla not bite Thog!", until the animal gets the point.
Having the druid suddenly start shouting "Bite Thog! Thog not friend!" is probably rather confusing.
As such, it's quite believable for the animal to waste a round or two, going "Huh?" (or the animal equivalent).
"Yeah, right; this is a trick. It's a test, right? You know Thog friend. I know Thog friend. No bite Thog. I get it, OK? I bite Thog, you get angry, no scooby-snacks for Ookla. Ookla not stupid. Ookla not bite Thog."

After a few rounds of the druid screaming "Bite him! Bite Thog!", it might think "What? Really? Bite Thog? Oooookaaaay, but you better not be mad at Ookla, when Ookla do what you say."

This all assumes, of course, that the druid is with long-term party members, and not just recently hooked up with some relative strangers, for whom the pet feels no loyalty either way, or that Thog is not a jerk, who takes delight in teasing Ookla. In those cases, Ookla may just decide he's going to take a lump out of Thog without needing to be asked twice.


If you are coherent enough to find loopholes then you are smart enough to find the best way to kill your allies or ex-allies depending on how you look at it, and feed your companion.

When the person is dominated their will has been taken away. They will do as ordered to best of their ability like any good servant.

I do agree that a 2nd save is in order if ordered to attack your friends.

If dominate did not do what I am claiming it does then why not just cast charm person. If you order someone to do something against their will with charm person all you have to do is make an opposed charisma check, no 2nd save is even given.

Another question is if that is all dominate did then the caster would know it and he would simply say "kill them to the best of your abilities, don't hold back". When you say kill someone I think its safe to assume the intent known, and no extra verbage is needed.


Snorter wrote:

I'd say the druid could order his pet to attack, but the animal gets to make up its own mind (via the DM).

How this plays out would depend a lot on what's gone down before.
Presumably, the druid has spent a lot of downtime, with the party, and the pet, and we assume he's had to step in on a few occasions, like when someone steps on its tail, or eats a hunk of meat it had been eying for itself.
He's had to repeat stuff like "No, down boy! Thog friend! Ookla not bite Thog!", until the animal gets the point.
Having the druid suddenly start shouting "Bite Thog! Thog not friend!" is probably rather confusing.
As such, it's quite believable for the animal to waste a round or two, going "Huh?" (or the animal equivalent).
"Yeah, right; this is a trick. It's a test, right? You know Thog friend. I know Thog friend. No bite Thog. I get it, OK? I bite Thog, you get angry, no scooby-snacks for Ookla. Ookla not stupid. Ookla not bite Thog."

After a few rounds of the druid screaming "Bite him! Bite Thog!", it might think "What? Really? Bite Thog? Oooookaaaay, but you better not be mad at Ookla, when Ookla do what you say."

This all assumes, of course, that the druid is with long-term party members, and not just recently hooked up with some relative strangers, for whom the pet feels no loyalty either way, or that Thog is not a jerk, who takes delight in teasing Ookla. In those cases, Ookla may just decide he's going to take a lump out of Thog without needing to be asked twice.

This is kind of funny because I have a druid with a tiger for a pet, and I raised its Int to 3 so it can understand basic things. One of the players occasionally talks bad to it, and I told him you better hope he never gets dominated. I doubt he would get a 2nd save to avoid going after that particular PC.


wraithstrike wrote:

If you are coherent enough to find loopholes then you are smart enough to find the best way to kill your allies or ex-allies depending on how you look at it, and feed your companion.

When the person is dominated their will has been taken away. They will do as ordered to best of their ability like any good servant.

I do agree that a 2nd save is in order if ordered to attack your friends.

If dominate did not do what I am claiming it does then why not just cast charm person. If you order someone to do something against their will with charm person all you have to do is make an opposed charisma check, no 2nd save is even given.

Another question is if that is all dominate did then the caster would know it and he would simply say "kill them to the best of your abilities, don't hold back". When you say kill someone I think its safe to assume the intent known, and no extra verbage is needed.

Why not use charm person?

Lets see

Spoiler:

This charm makes a humanoid creature regard you as its trusted friend and ally (treat the target's attitude as friendly). If the creature is currently being threatened or attacked by you or your allies, however, it receives a +5 bonus on its saving throw.

The spell does not enable you to control the charmed person as if it were an automaton, but it perceives your words and actions in the most favorable way. You can try to give the subject orders, but you must win an opposed Charisma check to convince it to do anything it wouldn't ordinarily do. (Retries are not allowed.) An affected creature never obeys suicidal or obviously harmful orders, but it might be convinced that something very dangerous is worth doing. Any act by you or your apparent allies that threatens the charmed person breaks the spell. You must speak the person's language to communicate your commands, or else be good at pantomiming.

1. With charm person, you must maintain the illusion that you are friendly with the person you charm. If you do anything aggressive, the spell breaks.
2. Dominate person lets you control someone even if you have no common language.
3. Dominate person lets you make the person do ANYTHING. Charm person has some strict limits.
4. Charm is 1 hour/level. Dominate is 1 day/level.

If I charm someone then tell them to jump off a cliff, they will laugh at me and say no, that would be dangerous. If I dominate someone and order them to jump of a cliff, they will if they fail the save to resist the compulsion.

If I punch a charmed person in the face, the spell breaks. If I punch a dominated person in the face, they may get a save to break the spell.

With charm person you can make suggestions and they will take the suggestion in the best possible light, but there are strict limits on what you can make the person do. Suggesting anything will require a charisma check.

With dominate person, there are no hard limits on what you can make someone do, but some things may give the person an extra save.

Even with a command like "Attack to the best of your abilities", there is a loophole on what constitutes your abilities versus your pets abilities.

Now, if you dominated a summoner, I think the pet would attack because the summoner pet is almost like an extension of the summoner's body, but the summoner would not automatically use their summon SLA to summon more monsters unless they were specifically told to.

If a wizard got dominated and told to attack their friends, they would draw a dagger/staff and start swinging. Dominated persons tend to be very literal in how they interpret their commands. the wizard would swing that staff to the best of their ability, but to actually decide to do something smarter than swing their staff would require an act of will, and they have no will of their own.


Charender wrote:


1. With charm person, you must maintain the illusion that you are friendly with the person you charm. If you do anything aggressive, the spell breaks.
2. Dominate person lets you control someone even if you have no common language.
3. Dominate person lets you make the person do ANYTHING. Charm person has some strict limits.
4. Charm is 1 hour/level. Dominate is 1 day/level.

If I charm someone then tell them to jump off a cliff, they will laugh at me and say no, that would be dangerous. If I dominate someone and order them to jump of a cliff, they will if they fail the save to resist the compulsion.

If I punch a charmed person in the face, the spell breaks. If I punch a dominated person in the face, they may get a save to break the spell.

With charm person you can make suggestions and they will take the suggestion in the best possible light, but there are strict limits on what you can make the person do. Suggesting anything will require a charisma check.

With dominate person, there are no hard limits on what you can make someone do, but some things may give the person an extra save.

Even with a command like "Attack to the best of your abilities", there is a loophole on what constitutes your abilities versus your pets abilities.

Now, if you dominated a summoner, I think the pet would attack because the summoner pet is almost like an extension of the summoner's body, but the summoner would not automatically use their summon SLA to summon more monsters unless they were specifically told to.

If a wizard got dominated and told to attack their friends, they would draw a dagger/staff and start swinging. Dominated persons tend to be very literal in how they interpret their commands. the wizard would swing that staff to the best of their ability, but to actually decide to do something smarter than swing their staff would require an act of will, and they have no will of their own.

Here is the entire spell

Spoiler:

This charm makes a humanoid creature regard you as its trusted friend and ally (treat the target's attitude as friendly). If the creature is currently being threatened or attacked by you or your allies, however, it receives a +5 bonus on its saving throw.

The spell does not enable you to control the charmed person as if it were an automaton, but it perceives your words and actions in the most favorable way. You can try to give the subject orders, but you must win an opposed Charisma check to convince it to do anything it wouldn't ordinarily do. (Retries are not allowed.) An affected creature never obeys suicidal or obviously harmful orders, but it might be convinced that something very dangerous is worth doing. Any act by you or your apparent allies that threatens the charmed person breaks the spell. You must speak the person's language to communicate your commands, or else be good at pantomiming.


Now I will admit I did not know about the +5 bonus, but once you get past that all it takes is an opposed charisma check to avoid the loss of tactics issue.

1. If the person is my friend I only have to be nice to them. If you are trying to get them to help you that should not be an issue.
2. Ok, so dominate has its places under your interpretation of it, but most creatures can understand common anyway, so it is mostly a moot issue.
3. I believe the area I bolded, combined with your interpretation of dominate go against that idea.
4. I was aware of that, but if my primary goal is to get of pesky PC's I only the spell to last for a few rounds most likely.

As far as "the best of my abilities" statement I am sure you know what I mean, and the druid has the ability to make his animal companion attack.

PS: I think that if the dominated person were capable of strategy related to its current command it would be mentioned. As the spell is written it is only limited with regards to things outside of its last command.

PS2:Thanks for remaining civil. I might disappear for an hour or 2, but I will be back.


wraithstrike wrote:

1. If the person is my friend I only have to be nice to them. If you are trying to get them to help you that should not be an issue.

Yeah, but if you are in the middle of a hot and heavy combat. BBEG with 5 archers, the BBEG charms a PC, and one of the archers unknowingly shoots the PC and breaks the spell.... Charm has very limited in combat uses.

Quote:


2. Ok, so dominate has its places under your interpretation of it, but most creatures can understand common anyway, so it is mostly a moot issue.

Control with dominate is limited with no common language. with charm it is impossible. Comes into play with fey and similar reclusive creatures.

Quote:


3. I believe the area I bolded, combined with your interpretation of dominate go against that idea.

Except for the next sentence.

"An affected creature never obeys suicidal or obviously harmful orders, but it might be convinced that something very dangerous is worth doing."
That makes for a very hard limit on the spell. If I am fighting alongside a group of fellow adventures, I know they are capable fighters. Turning around and attacking my party members qualifies as obviously suicidal.

If I charm the CN rogue and offer him money to turn on the party and help me kill them, then he probably will, but only because I made it worth his while and he believes that we can do it together.

If I charm a lawful cleric, I could try to convince him that I am an agent of the law and I am there to arrest his friends. I could probably convince him to stand aside while I deal with his friends. If the cleric knows of unlawful deeds that his party has committed, then I may be able to convince him to help me arrest them. If I break my word or do something that is out of line with my stated intentions, then I will have to do some more fast talking(another opposed charisma check) to keep the cleric on my side.

Either way, convincing a party member to turn on the party via charm is a complicated affair and will take much longer than a move action.

With dominate person, I tell you to hop up and down in one spot, and you do it. It take a move action and there is no test unless I tell you to do something against your nature.

Quote:


4. I was aware of that, but if my primary goal is to get of pesky PC's I only the spell to last for a few rounds most likely.

Charm is mostly for manipulation outside of combat. Dominate is the spell for turning the PC on his friends in the middle a fight.

The best charm can do is make the player less effective in combat, because it will cause him to be unable to directly attack his new "friends". The charmed person now sees you as another member of the party, and would spend their time trying to break up the fight rather than aid one side over another. Imagine how the party cleric would react if the party fighter and party rogue were going at each other with blades draws, and that is pretty close to how it would play out.

For example, charming the healbot cleric before a fight could be hilarious because they would heal you as well as the rest of the party. The party members are still the cleric's friends, but the cleric now views you as a trusted ally as well. "Hey you are killing my new friend guys stop it...." *cure critical wounds on bad guy*


If a character is given the order "kill your friends" and is magically compelled (in whatever way) to follow that order, I would say that includes his animal companion. Not as a weapon, but as a target. What makes the animal companion any more exempt from danger than all of the druids other friends?

As to how intelligent the dominated character is, my thinking is not very. A rogue who was dominated to kill the rest of the party wouldn't have the option of waiting 8 hours and stabbing them in their sleep (unless specifically ordered to do so). I tend to treat dominate as roughly equivalent to a barbarian rage in terms of the mental condition of the victim. You can act intelligently, but you can't wait or do anything that requires concentration unless it's what you were specifically ordered to do. My reasoning is that the compulsion kicks in as soon as the order is given, and any delay for whatever reason (even if it's ultimately beneficial to the order) requires fighting the control, which is something you wouldn't do in order to accomplish the task better.


far_wanderer wrote:

If a character is given the order "kill your friends" and is magically compelled (in whatever way) to follow that order, I would say that includes his animal companion. Not as a weapon, but as a target. What makes the animal companion any more exempt from danger than all of the druids other friends?

As to how intelligent the dominated character is, my thinking is not very. A rogue who was dominated to kill the rest of the party wouldn't have the option of waiting 8 hours and stabbing them in their sleep (unless specifically ordered to do so). I tend to treat dominate as roughly equivalent to a barbarian rage in terms of the mental condition of the victim. You can act intelligently, but you can't wait or do anything that requires concentration unless it's what you were specifically ordered to do. My reasoning is that the compulsion kicks in as soon as the order is given, and any delay for whatever reason (even if it's ultimately beneficial to the order) requires fighting the control, which is something you wouldn't do in order to accomplish the task better.

A druid's pet is a separate creature from the druid, and thus the companion requires a free action to attack someone. Most of the time we hand wave this because it is a free action, but you have to initiate the pets attack by telling the pet to attack. Without that free action, the pet will most likely be very confused or maybe think its master is playing some kind of game.

A druid who is ordered to kill will attack without delay. Even taking a free action to order their pet to attack counts as some delay.


Animals aren't morons and aren't automatons. Neither are Eidolons. The druid can try to use the Attack trick to tell the animal to attack the people it's been protecting for the last 10 levels, but it will confuse the animal. Even the most highly-trained animal won't follow an order that is against its nature, and the nature of most of the common animal companions is social, where the pack protects the other members of the pack. Being told to attack the pack out of the blue is very much against the animal's nature.

It's even easier to defend against for Eidolons, familiars, and special mounts, as they're fairly intelligent in their own right and would spot such an order for what it is.


Charender wrote:
far_wanderer wrote:

If a character is given the order "kill your friends" and is magically compelled (in whatever way) to follow that order, I would say that includes his animal companion. Not as a weapon, but as a target. What makes the animal companion any more exempt from danger than all of the druids other friends?

As to how intelligent the dominated character is, my thinking is not very. A rogue who was dominated to kill the rest of the party wouldn't have the option of waiting 8 hours and stabbing them in their sleep (unless specifically ordered to do so). I tend to treat dominate as roughly equivalent to a barbarian rage in terms of the mental condition of the victim. You can act intelligently, but you can't wait or do anything that requires concentration unless it's what you were specifically ordered to do. My reasoning is that the compulsion kicks in as soon as the order is given, and any delay for whatever reason (even if it's ultimately beneficial to the order) requires fighting the control, which is something you wouldn't do in order to accomplish the task better.

A druid's pet is a separate creature from the druid, and thus the companion requires a free action to attack someone. Most of the time we hand wave this because it is a free action, but you have to initiate the pets attack by telling the pet to attack. Without that free action, the pet will most likely be very confused or maybe think its master is playing some kind of game.

A druid who is ordered to kill will attack without delay. Even taking a free action to order their pet to attack counts as some delay.

You can speak while attacking. You can even speak on another person's turn. It would not take up any time at all. Under your interpretation that there is no link between the animal and the druid I would agree that the druid would attack the animal companion. It might get attacked first since it is the closest target, most likely.

With the druid seeing an animal as a part of itself, or at least not a member of the party the druid should be instructing it to attack.
I do agree that the animal's relationship may cause it to at least pause before the act is carried through.

I know I am responding in the opposite order
1. I don't see the archers targeting a charmed opponent/ally. Even without spellcraft they should stay their hand against that PC.
2. Dominate is my first choice. I was just using your interpretation to see why I would ever use it if I can use charm person to get similiar results.
3.That definition of suicidal is a matter of opinion. It is not like you are fighting your former friends alone. Your new friends, and yes they are your friends, will be helping you. It might be a good idea to relocate before the attack in case they go for the kill instead of restraining you, like I see in most games.
4. That would be funny if the cleric healed everyone. Too bad my players keep making their will save. I do agree with the out of combat vs the in combat application though.


I would have no problem with having the druid command his companion to attack the other PCs. However, as the other PCs are most likely considered friends by the companion, I'd say the DCs for Handle Animal are higher by at least +5.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I never considered the druid attacking his own animal companion. That makes perfect sense considering the domination order to "kill all your friends."


Evil Genius wrote:
I would have no problem with having the druid command his companion to attack the other PCs. However, as the other PCs are most likely considered friends by the companion, I'd say the DCs for Handle Animal are higher by at least +5.

I think this is also reasonable.

Liberty's Edge

If you are dominated and ordered to attack your party, than that is exactly what you are going to do. And you are going to do it to the best of your ability (which would include ordering your animal companion to attack, along with any other tools and tricks you have at your disposal and would use normally against an enemy).

As far as what the animal companion would do? It would do exactly what its' master told it to do. I could see that this would ESPECIALLY be the case if the animal companions intelligence is 3 or less. They are animal after all.

This is what a player would expect if they dominated an enemy druid so why shouldn't a player expect this to be the case if the DM used this on a player. I'm not one for a player or a DM pulling punches (I absolutely despise it actually). If I win or lose I want to know that I did so by playing to the best of my ability against an opponent that played to the best of his/hers. I would go one step further in fact (if your player is trying to find a loop hole to NOT do the best they can or pull punches in a scenario such as this than the DM should call them on it and if it is a real problem than take control of their character during this time).


starchildren3317 wrote:
As far as what the animal companion would do? It would do exactly what its' master told it to do. I could see that this would ESPECIALLY be the case if the animal companions intelligence is 3 or less. They are animal after all.

So when is the last time your cat ever did exactly what you told it to do?

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

There was a 3x interpreation somewhere that gave an example of "Kill him with your most powerful spell" but you can't command "Kill him with a fireball!" if you don't know he has one. I don't know where I read it.

Just relying on the Pathfinder RPG we have...

Under Compulsion though it says: "Some compulsion spells determine the subject’s actions or the effects on the subject, others allow you to determine the subject’s actions when you cast the spell, and still others give you ongoing control over the subject."

It seems Dominate X is in the last catagory "You can control the actions of any humanoid creature through a telepathic link that you establish with the subject’s mind."

Given that the dominated target 'resist[s] this control' I'd say that the dominated target won't tell fluffy to attack unless told to, or given a broad enough command, "Attack your friends with everything to the best of your ability!" Heck, dominating the mage and telling him to 'kill your friends' might allow the resisting character to pelt his friends with acid splash. He is following the order, just not effectively.

Now a raging barbarian wouldn't likely drop his axe and try to beat his friends to death with a pillow, because he's not thinking to begin with.

Aside:

Spoiler:
To steal from Gargoyles, if a dominated character was told to 'act normal in every way, as if the dominate spell was not cast on you' would the sense motive still work? If the caveat was added 'until otherwise commanded' how about then?


Far_wanderer wrote:
If a character is given the order "kill your friends" and is magically compelled (in whatever way) to follow that order, I would say that includes his animal companion. Not as a weapon, but as a target. What makes the animal companion any more exempt from danger than all of the druids other friends?

I'd have to say that this would be my read on this as well. The druid doesn't view his companion as an extension of his will -- he's a *companion* (the name even says so). So, you turn the druid and say "kill your friends", then I would argue that Fluffy's about to bite it. (The eilodon might be somewhat different based on how Summoners work, but in this case, I'd say it's pretty clear). How the pet reacts to his bestest friend in the whole world turning on him is also pretty unclear because, as we've mentioned, it's got an int of 2 and isn't likely to understand the concept of magically dominated.


There are several ways to interpret this very situational outcome.

Here is my take on domination of the druid and the animal companion responses.

The dominated druid would attack the other PCs effectively becoming an NPC.

The animal companion would be confused by the events (and or commands) probably for a single round. Likely once melee occurs the animal would work to defend the druid (although still not understanding the situation). Defending the druid would likely be against both PCs and NPCs alike.....

If the animal/eliidon/mount did understand what was occuring likely the creature would trip said PC, grapple and subdue him.....

Liberty's Edge

Zurai wrote:
starchildren3317 wrote:
As far as what the animal companion would do? It would do exactly what its' master told it to do. I could see that this would ESPECIALLY be the case if the animal companions intelligence is 3 or less. They are animal after all.
So when is the last time your cat ever did exactly what you told it to do?

So when was the last time you put on a suit of full plate armor, entered the abyss on a crusade for your God, and got your head lopped off by a demon and then resurrected by a friend, after they collected your body and teleported you all back to earth?


Yesterday!

Liberty's Edge

Matthew Morris wrote:
Heck, dominating the mage and telling him to 'kill your friends' might allow the resisting character to pelt his friends with acid splash. He is following the order, just not effectively.

You see, this I disagree with. If you are going to kill someone, than you are going to get down to doing it, not beat around the bush. This should be the case dominated or not.


starchildren3317 wrote:
Zurai wrote:
starchildren3317 wrote:
As far as what the animal companion would do? It would do exactly what its' master told it to do. I could see that this would ESPECIALLY be the case if the animal companions intelligence is 3 or less. They are animal after all.
So when is the last time your cat ever did exactly what you told it to do?
So when was the last time you put on a suit of full plate armor, entered the abyss on a crusade for your God, and got your head lopped off by a demon and then resurrected by a friend, after they collected your body and teleported you all back to earth?

Irrelevant to my question. What animals will do has nothing to do with any of that. Please cease your straw men and answer the point, to wit, animals have an animal intelligence and thus will process commands through their intelligence. They are not robots or computer programs that follow orders to the letter regardless of conditions and ignoring extenuating circumstances. An Intelligence of 2 is not enough to understand Einstein, but it is enough to understand that an order to attack a pack-mate is unusual and out of character.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

Zurai wrote:
An Intelligence of 2 is not enough to understand Einstein, but it is enough to understand that an order to attack a pack-mate is unusual and out of character.

maybe I need to watch Animal Planet more, but don't some pack animals drive others out of their pack? I'm thinking if the companion sees the druid as their Alpha, then if the alpha says "Attack the mage." The int Animal will conclude that the mage is to be driven from the pack, abused as an Omega?

1 to 50 of 63 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Dominate and Pets. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.