Dominate Person Question


Advice


I have a hypothetical question, based on the tactics of an NPC Wizard I created to go up against the players. This combat will take place aboard a sailing ship.

Dominate Person wrote:
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.

Say the group's archer is hit with Dominate Person. The Wizard issues the command "throw your bow overboard". On the next round, the Wizard sets a new command "go swim after it".

Does the first command count as "against the archer's nature"? I would think that if the bow had major rp-attachment with the archer, like it was his father's, or it was gifted to him by his hero, this argument could be made, but as long as it was just a bow (magical or otherwise) that he bought last week, he wouldn't get a new save to resist the order.

Does the second command count as self-destructive? I would think that as long as the archer has a rank in swim that it doesn't, but even if it has no ranks in swim, it would still only be on a case-by-case basis if it was considered self-destructive, like if they were amid a storm, or if the archer knew that they were sailing through shark-infested waters.

Any thoughts on these two questions would be appreciated. I just want to have a reference ready if this tactic comes to pass and the group wants to argue against my logic.


This is treading the waters of Semantics.

Because of the Line against their nature people are always ready to argue what is truly against one's nature. Be prepared for this.

I would go with the strictest definition of Against Nature.

Nature wrote:
the inherent character or basic constitution of a person or thing.

Most living beings have inherent characteristics. Like the will to live (self destructive orders is covered in that.) Alignment and how the character has behaved up to this point will define if that Bow makes up his world or if it is just a tool in his hands. A fighter is not a fighter because of the weapon in hand but because he fights to live in a harsh world. Leaving mid-battle may or may not be in his character. Some people take the attitude of Never give up, never surrender, never run from a fight. While others may not see a problem leaving their comrades (very roguish and selfish).

These interpretations it is up to the DM to just enforce that the character goes with it because you have not seen anything in his character that would suggest a love for his bow or the undying loyalty to the group to stay on the ship.

I feel your going to get a lot of mixed answers on this subject.


It would be safer to order -
"The ship is starting to sink! You must abandonin the ship as fast as possible and make for shore the best way you can."

Nothing there against their nature and it removes them from combat.
Bad thing about this, is unless someone in the party can stop the person from "running away", that person is completely out of the fight.


For throwing the bow overboard, it would have to be a very strong connection to even arguably get a save. It would have to be something critical to the character's backstory, and - most important - I would expect that the character will never under any circumstances discard this weapon ever in his entire adventuring career. I can only think of one time in all my years of GM'ing of anyone having that level of dedication to a weapon and actually followed through on it.

For the throwing yourself overboard, that's actually a very difficult one and would come down to a subjective analysis of the character's ability to swim versus the current water conditions. Risk on its own wouldn't be enough, and the chance of failure would need to be very high. In the same sense that going into combat with a dangerous foe isn't precluded by a domination spell, making skill checks against a dangerous situation isn't either. Where the line is drawn between a risky action and suicide is subjective.

Matt2VK wrote:
Bad thing about this, is unless someone in the party can stop the person from "running away", that person is completely out of the fight.

They've been hit by a Dominate Person spell. They're one more blown save away from turning on their own party members. Being removed from the fight isn't even close to the most severe outcome at all.


Thanks for the feedback on this question. "Against Nature" is indeed extremely tricky.


I would say that discarding your primary means of defending yourself counts as going against its nature. If this is an actual archer who has spent multiple feats on archer he would get a saving throw. On the other hand if this was just someone who has proficiency with all martial weapons and carries a bow as his ranged weapon than he would not get a saving throw.

The second command would be considered destructive if the archer would be in danger if he went after the bow. If the combat is taking place when the water is calm and the archer has a reasonable chance to swim it is not destructive. Be sure to account for any penalties to the roll. To an archer in full pate in rough water that would count as self-destructive, especially if they don’t have any bonus. On the other hand an archer will a good swim with no encumbrance in calm water would not consider it destructive or against his nature.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mysterious Stranger wrote:
I would say that discarding your primary means of defending yourself counts as going against its nature.

Disagree. Enter a tavern in a civilized town and you'd leave your bow in your room if that's the rules of the area. Because being disarmed isn't against your nature.

On the other hand, "murder this baby" is a command that there's basically zero context in which it'd be acceptable to most people. We'd require hours of convincing why that baby needed to be murdered. That's against the nature of most people. (Real people, mind you.)

The clause isn't there to get you out of doing things you don't want to do. It's to get you out of doing things you'd loathe doing. Things that if you do, they'll haunt you in your nightmares for life. "Set fire to your wife." "Cannibalize your best friend." For inherently greedy people, "give away your entire fortune." For inherently evil people, "resurrect the hero who slew your tribe".

Tossing your weapon in a fight isn't brilliant, or smart, but it's not absolutely counter to any normal person's nature. "Put down the gun and nobody gets hurt." Okay.


Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Stealing from elsewhere, a command that would lead to fewer arguments but still effectively take the character out of combat would be something like "enemies may be approaching from above to harm your friends--scan the skies unceasingly to watch for danger!"


Discarding your weapon in combat would not be considered self-destructive, but would be considered against your nature. There is also a big difference between putting away your weapon and throwing over the side of a boat. In the tavern example you are not in combat, and you will later be able to retrieve your bow. Also in the tavern example you are not expecting to need the weapon.

Deliberately putting yourself at a disadvantage in combat is against most people’s nature. Self-preservation is a normal instinct all creatures have.

Also the bow may be more than a weapon. Most archers also use it to hunt which means you are throwing away your means of surviving. Even if you sell what you hunt it is still your means of making a living.


Mysterious Stranger wrote:

Discarding your weapon in combat would not be considered self-destructive, but would be considered against your nature.

I disagree completely. Discarding your weapon in combat is dangerous, but so is entering combat in the first place --- and you are explicitly empowered to order a creature to enter combat (to "fight"), even if you don't share a language with it. Furthermore, adventurers routinely act in ways that violate their self-preservation instinct.

A fighter who is willing to charge, sword in hand, to fight a dragon rather obviously doesn't consider "preserve my life" to be part of his nature. Therefore, he wouldn't refrain from dropping his sword (or his bow) simply because it was dangerous.

I agree with LB's formulation. Would the archer drop his bow under any circumstance whatsoever? Does he shower with it? Does he take it with him into a fancy restaurant? Would he insist on taking it with him instead of leaving it behind as a token of parley if he's trying to negotiate with a dangerous group of monsters? Would he refuse to enter the king's castle to get a rich reward, if the Royal Guard had a "no weapons" policy?

If the answer to any of those is "no," then dropping the bow isn't against his nature.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mysterious Stranger wrote:
Self-preservation is a normal instinct all creatures have.

Throwing away your weapon and surrendering is better for self-preservation than most things enemies do when they encounter the PCs...


Dasrak wrote:
For throwing the bow overboard, it would have to be a very strong connection to even arguably get a save. It would have to be something critical to the character's backstory, and - most important - I would expect that the character will never under any circumstances discard this weapon ever in his entire adventuring career. I can only think of one time in all my years of GM'ing of anyone having that level of dedication to a weapon and actually followed through on it.

The only circumstances that I can think of that would justify that kind of dedication would be some sort of holy/religious connection to the weapon. If Roland, the Paladin of Charlemagne, were holding the Spear of Longinus, that might qualify -- although even then, Roland would have to be a pretty damn religious person, the sort who would go willingly to martyrdom rather than renounce his faith, in order to get the save.

Similarly, a samurai who accepts that his sword is his soul might get a save.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
Dasrak wrote:
For throwing the bow overboard, it would have to be a very strong connection to even arguably get a save. It would have to be something critical to the character's backstory, and - most important - I would expect that the character will never under any circumstances discard this weapon ever in his entire adventuring career. I can only think of one time in all my years of GM'ing of anyone having that level of dedication to a weapon and actually followed through on it.

The only circumstances that I can think of that would justify that kind of dedication would be some sort of holy/religious connection to the weapon. If Roland, the Paladin of Charlemagne, were holding the Spear of Longinus, that might qualify -- although even then, Roland would have to be a pretty damn religious person, the sort who would go willingly to martyrdom rather than renounce his faith, in order to get the save.

Similarly, a samurai who accepts that his sword is his soul might get a save.

Likewise, a wizard would have to have a spell book that has been in his family for generations in order to get a save against retrieving it and tossing it in the fire.


Cuup wrote:

Say the group's archer is hit with Dominate Person. The Wizard issues the command "throw your bow overboard". On the next round, the Wizard sets a new command "go swim after it".

Does the first command count as "against the archer's nature"? I would think that if the bow had major rp-attachment with the archer, like it was his father's, or it was gifted to him by his hero, this argument could be made, but as long as it was just a bow (magical or otherwise) that he bought last week, he wouldn't get a new save to resist the order.

Look, I don't know about you but I'm not in the habit of getting rid of extremely expensive personal possession.

So against my nature? Abso-freaking-lutely!

Remember, a magic bow represents years worth of a non-Adventurers income. I would certainly say it's against the nature of most characters to destroy such a valuable item, even if it doesn't have a much personal meaning beyond that. Remember, throwing the bow overboard means you've lost the bow (virtually unrecoverable without magic), and it's probably been destroyed (certainly a non-magic bow would've been destroyed).

Now, if you order the archer to go stow his bow below deck, or unstring the bow and re-string it, or any number of things that means they can't use the bow for a while would be valid without being at risk for "against your nature".

I think several of you in this thread who are saying destroying incredibly valuable items isn't against the nature of most people are not the kind of people I've familiar with. So let me ask you this? Will you give me your car? Or go set it on fire?

If your answer is no, it's because you're sane and it would be against your nature to destroy something that's so valuable to you.


Claxon wrote:
Cuup wrote:

Say the group's archer is hit with Dominate Person. The Wizard issues the command "throw your bow overboard". On the next round, the Wizard sets a new command "go swim after it".

Does the first command count as "against the archer's nature"? I would think that if the bow had major rp-attachment with the archer, like it was his father's, or it was gifted to him by his hero, this argument could be made, but as long as it was just a bow (magical or otherwise) that he bought last week, he wouldn't get a new save to resist the order.

Look, I don't know about you but I'm not in the habit of getting rid of extremely expensive personal possession.

So against my nature? Abso-freaking-lutely!

Remember, a magic bow represents years worth of a non-Adventurers income. I would certainly say it's against the nature of most characters to destroy such a valuable item, even if it doesn't have a much personal meaning beyond that. Remember, throwing the bow overboard means you've lost the bow (virtually unrecoverable without magic), and it's probably been destroyed (certainly a non-magic bow would've been destroyed).

Now, if you order the archer to go stow his bow below deck, or unstring the bow and re-string it, or any number of things that means they can't use the bow for a while would be valid without being at risk for "against your nature".

I think several of you in this thread who are saying destroying incredibly valuable items isn't against the nature of most people are not the kind of people I've familiar with. So let me ask you this? Will you give me your car? Or go set it on fire?

If your answer is no, it's because you're sane and it would be against your nature to destroy something that's so valuable to you.

Wait, so you don't think a 5th level spell - which is supposed to be "absolute control" - shouldn't be able to accomplish what would otherwise be a simple Disarm/Steal maneuver? The problem with interpreting "against your nature" is determining what level of context does the one dominated have. I believe in Ultimate Intrigue, there's a statement about context with Dominate spells that says a King publicly announcing damning information that puts his kingdom at risk of war would count as an "obviously destructive act". This is a lot of context for the King to perceive as an otherwise "mindless" slave. Meanwhile, if - out of combat - a Dominated archer were told "give me your bow" by the dominater, it would surely work. If instead the dominater gave the same order, but was standing in front of a giant wood chipper labeled "The Bow Eater", would the archer then receive another save? I would think not. Being told "throw your bow to the ground" would work, but for some reason, throw your bow overboard wouldn't? Does the archer understand the contextual difference?

I think the difference between the King and the Archer is subtle, but identifiable. The King has lived politics all his life. Politics is part of his nature. If the King was taught by his advisers and predecessors that war was good because it stimulated the economy, improved nationalism, and advanced technology, then making that public announcement might well be within his nature. If the King was instead taught that war was bad because it resulted in dead subjects, and ran the risk of losing territory, then it would be against his nature. Now, dominating the King in the latter example into doing things that would indirectly result in war is another thing, and here is where I think a lot of people get hung up on "against nature". It might be against the King's better judgement to appoint the Sorcerer Lich Necromancer as his top adviser, but doing so would have no immediate political failings, so it would NOT be against his nature. Judgement does not equal nature.

Back to the archer. He's made heavy feat and gp investments into his bow. It's aided him his entire career. The Archer is to his Bow as the King is to his Politics. So, being told to break/sunder his own bow is paramount to a King being told to declare war. Breaking his bow is against his judgement AND his nature. If his bow were destroyed in a more round-about way, however, like giving it to the man in front of the bow-eating wood chipper, or throwing it overboard would work. These things would be against his judgement, but NOT against his nature. Sure, water damage is a thing, but so is the Mending Cantrip, and magical weapons are super durable anyway - that bow would need to be underwater for hours, if not days, or weeks, before water damage was an issue.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Claxon wrote:

I think several of you in this thread who are saying destroying incredibly valuable items isn't against the nature of most people are not the kind of people I've familiar with. So let me ask you this? Will you give me your car? Or go set it on fire?

If your answer is no, it's because you're sane and it would be against your nature to destroy something that's so valuable to you.

I'm judging it by a different standard.

If I pointed a gun and said, "Set fire to your car or I'll kill you," would you do it? Most people would. Someone who really really loved his car might not.

If you allow people to refuse Dominate commands just because they're being told to do things they don't want to do, then Dominate doesn't work at all.

A Paladin wouldn't normally obey a lich if the lich told him to lock himself in a cage. (He wouldn't normally obey an enemy in the first place. Would anyone?) But he would if he was Dominated. He might not murder an innocent for the lich, but he has to obey basic commands or the spell is just 'Charm Person' by another name.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Claxon wrote:
Cuup wrote:

Say the group's archer is hit with Dominate Person. The Wizard issues the command "throw your bow overboard". On the next round, the Wizard sets a new command "go swim after it".

Does the first command count as "against the archer's nature"? I would think that if the bow had major rp-attachment with the archer, like it was his father's, or it was gifted to him by his hero, this argument could be made, but as long as it was just a bow (magical or otherwise) that he bought last week, he wouldn't get a new save to resist the order.

Look, I don't know about you but I'm not in the habit of getting rid of extremely expensive personal possession.

I'm not in the habit of running out of the building naked, either. But if the building were on fire, I'd sure as hell do it. So it's not against my nature.

Similarly, if the building were on fire, would you leave your bow behind, or die trying to retrieve it from the wreckage?

Quote:


I think several of you in this thread who are saying destroying incredibly valuable items isn't against the nature of most people are not the kind of people I've familiar with. So let me ask you this? Will you give me your car? Or go set it on fire?

Depends on whether I'm compelled to or not, now, doesn't it?

"Claxon, I have here a court order demanding that you give Orfamay Quest your car. Will you give me the keys, please?"

"No, I won't."

"You realize, Claxon, that this is a court order. If you don't turn over the car, I will have to arrest you."

"I won't turn over the car."

"Very well, then."....

---- two hours later ----

"Counsellor, have you made it clear to Claxon that unless the car is turned over, he or she will be in contempt of court and jailed?"

"I have, your honor. Claxon still refuses to turn over the car."

---- two weeks later ----

"Counsellor, your client has now been imprisoned for two weeks. Is Claxon willing to turn over the car?"

"I'm afraid not, your honor."

---- two years later ----

"Counsellor?"

"I'm sorry, your honor, but Claxon is still unwilling to turn over the car."

---- ten years later ----

"Counsellor?"

"I'm sorry, your honor. As you know, my predecessor retired six months ago, and it's taken me some time to get up to speed on this case. I regret to tell you that Claxon still refuses to turn over the car, though. I submit that that, as in the Chadwick case, continued incarceration will do no good, and request release."

"Denied."

"Thank you, your honor."

The Chadwick case is interesting; I think it's believed to be the longest imprisonment for contempt of court in the history of the United States. Most people won't hold out nearly that long.

If you're not willing to hold out that long, you shouldn't get a save. "Don't want to" is entirely different than "against my nature."


Cuup wrote:

Wait, so you don't think a 5th level spell - which is supposed to be "absolute control" - shouldn't be able to accomplish what would otherwise be a simple Disarm/Steal maneuver? The problem with interpreting "against your nature" is determining what level of context does the one dominated have. I believe in Ultimate Intrigue, there's a statement about context with Dominate spells that says a King publicly announcing damning information that puts his kingdom at risk of war would count as an "obviously destructive act". This is a lot of context for the King to perceive as an otherwise "mindless" slave. Meanwhile, if - out of combat - a Dominated archer were told "give me your bow" by the dominater, it would surely work. If instead the dominater gave the same order, but was standing in front of a giant wood chipper labeled "The Bow Eater", would the archer then receive another save? I would think not. Being told "throw your bow to the ground" would work, but for some reason, throw your bow overboard wouldn't? Does the archer understand the contextual difference?

I think the difference between the King and the Archer is subtle, but identifiable. The King has lived politics all his life. Politics is part of his nature. If the King was taught by his advisers and predecessors that war was good because it stimulated the economy, improved nationalism, and advanced technology, then making that public announcement might well be within his nature. If the King was instead taught that war was bad because it resulted in dead subjects, and ran the risk of losing territory, then it would be against his nature. Now, dominating the King in the latter example into doing things that would indirectly result in war is another thing, and here is where I think a lot of people get hung up on "against nature". It might be against the King's better judgement to appoint the Sorcerer Lich Necromancer as his top adviser, but doing so would have no immediate political failings, so it would NOT be against his nature. Judgement does not equal nature.

Back to the archer. He's made heavy feat and gp investments into his bow. It's aided him his entire career. The Archer is to his Bow as the King is to his Politics. So, being told to break/sunder his own bow is paramount to a King being told to declare war. Breaking his bow is against his judgement AND his nature. If his bow were destroyed in a more round-about way, however, like giving it to the man in front of the bow-eating wood chipper, or throwing it overboard would work. These things would be against his judgement, but NOT against his nature. Sure, water damage is a thing, but so is the Mending Cantrip, and magical weapons are super durable anyway - that bow would need to be underwater for hours, if not days, or weeks, before water damage was an issue.

No, I don't. But maybe because I don't see it as absolute control.

Also, it's not like the spell doesn't work at all. They get a chance at another save at a +2.

You're basically saying context doesn't matter at all, and I'm saying context matters hugely.

I don't think there is a way to resolve our disagreement and I in no way find your argument convincing.


I'd also add that "don't want to do" should not be dismissed so easily.

Do I want to go to the grocery? No, but it's certainly not against my nature. I go at least once a week because I need to.

So just because I don't want to do something, doesn't mean it's against my nature.

Also, just because something is against my nature doesn't mean I don't want to do it.

When I'm driving I often encounter people whose driving greatly upsets me and I frequently wish I could harm them physically but I refrain from doing so. While it would gratify me, it is not in my nature to harm others unless necessary to protect myself.


Claxon wrote:
But maybe because I don't see it as absolute control.
Dominate wrote:
have a commanding influence on; exercise control over.

It may not be absolute control but it is enough to force someone to do your will. They may get saves to resist certain actions which are more a DM call to just lay the law down on how they interpret the rules.

But a Majority of players do stretch it to try and defend against something they don't want to do. When a DM just wants an interesting Encounter for all the players and needs it to work for X reasons. Something a developer said one time is if your a DM and you want something...just do it.

SUre maybe he throws his bow overboard and loses it forever...but maybe he does not know in the treasure in that fight is a better bow or money enough to replace it. Players get hella defensive about short term and Lawyering their way out of things when sometimes the DM just needs a Little compliance to make things interesting for a bit. DMs do not like to have their teeth kicked in every encounter for months doing an adventure. They like to make things interesting for themselves too and watching a PC squirm for an encounter or two adds to the DM's fun and lets the other party members step up and shine.


Louise Bishop wrote:
Claxon wrote:
But maybe because I don't see it as absolute control.
Dominate wrote:
have a commanding influence on; exercise control over.
It may not be absolute control but it is enough to force someone to do your will.

I'd like to add to that the fact that it is a "compulsion" effect.

The definition of "compulsion" wrote:

1. the action or state of forcing or being forced to do something; constraint.

2. an irresistible urge to behave in a certain way, especially against one's conscious wishes.

The spell is supposed to be capable of "forcing [someone] to do something."


Taken to this thread's logical conclusion, nothing is actually against one's nature since there exists some punishment worse than the activity or some conceivable way of compelling someone to do something? Consequently, you would not receive a new saving throw for giving away all possessions, burning every class ability, retraining class levels into NPC class levels, setting fire to all you hold dear, and divulging every piece of information you possess?

Is that what we're saying the scope of this 5th level spell is?


Kitty Catoblepas wrote:
Taken to this thread's logical conclusion, nothing is actually against one's nature since there exists some punishment worse than the activity or some conceivable way of compelling someone to do something?

That's simply untrue. There are lots of documented instances where such punishments don't exist, and people have chosen death rather than to submit to authority. You can start with the Jewish martyrs in 1 and 2 Maccabees, proceed through St. Stephen and his successors under the Roman empire, continue through the Protestants burned at Oxford (Hugh Latimer, Nicholas Ridley and Thomas Cranmer), and run that all the way up to Michael Piaszczynski in the Sachsenhausen concentration camp. If you want non-Western religions, look at Thích Quảng Đức.

And lest you think that religious fervor is the only suitable motivator, consider political activists like Bobby Sands, who died after a 66-day hunger strike in protest of the British
treatment of Northern Ireland. Consider also the suffragette Mary Clarke, the Indian revolutionary Amarajeevi Sriramulu, or the Cuban dissident Pedro Luis Boitel, all of whom died as a result of hunger strikes. Tarek el-Tayeb Mohamed Bouazizi immolated himself as a protest against the confiscation of all his goods by the authority.

Is your archer willing to set fire to himself to protest his bow being taken away from him? No? Then sit down, shut up, and do as you're told.

Quote:
Consequently, you would not receive a new saving throw for giving away all possessions, burning every class ability, retraining class levels into NPC class levels, setting fire to all you hold dear, and divulging every piece of information you possess?

Oh, I'd bet that somewhere in that laundry list, most people have a line they wouldn't cross. The law maintains a polite fiction that people will do almost anything to save the life of another person, although that's obviously not true for the vast majority of adventurers. I like to think that I'd rather die than kill my partner or child, and I'll do you the courtesy of thinking the same of you. But retraining all my class levels? That's just money and time.

Quote:
Is that what we're saying the scope of this 5th level spell is?

Yes, that's what the scope of this particular spell is. That's why it's called Dominate Person instead of Ask Person Pretty-Please.


Orfamay Quest wrote:

I'd like to add to that the fact that it is a "compulsion" effect.

The definition of "compulsion" wrote:

1. the action or state of forcing or being forced to do something; constraint.

2. an irresistible urge to behave in a certain way, especially against one's conscious wishes.

The spell is supposed to be capable of "forcing [someone] to do something."

I never said it didn't force someone to do something, I'm simply saying that at least some things give an extra save and a +2. It's not like the spell doesn't work (or at least have a chance at working).

You can tell the archer to throw his bow overboard, what I'm saying is the archer should get another save with a +2 bonus to avoid doing so.

I'm not saying it's obviously self destructive, which would preclude the character doing it all.

There are several things you could use dominate person to order someone to do that wouldn't really be candidates for "against nature". Such as go read a book, or go take a nap. You can get inventive with it, and these sorts of things don't get an extra save or the +2 bonus.

So the spell works, and it forces people to do things they don't want to.


I think that the circumstances need to be taken into account. The original poster did not really give enough information to determine the correct answer. Is the command taking place during combat, or out of combat? Is the archer a dedicated archer or only a casual archer? How much did the bow cost? All of these things can affect if something is against your nature.

For example if the archer is a melee focused character that is currently out of combat chances are that throwing an ordinary bow overboard is not against his nature. On the other hand a dedicated archer who is in a life and death struggle, and who’s only weapon is his magic bow probably would count as being against his nature.


I think that the circumstances need to be taken into account. The original poster did not really give enough information to determine the correct answer. Is the command taking place during combat, or out of combat? Is the archer a dedicated archer or only a casual archer? How much did the bow cost? All of these things can affect if something is against your nature.

For example if the archer is a melee focused character that is currently out of combat chances are that throwing an ordinary bow overboard is not against his nature. On the other hand a dedicated archer who is in a life and death struggle, and who’s only weapon is his magic bow probably would count as being against his nature. Telling the dedicated archer to drop the bow instead of throwing it overboard would probably work.

The whole argument is kind of silly because the easiest way to get what the original poster wanted would be to simply tell the archer to jump overboard and swim. Assuming that the archer can actually swim this is probably not against his nature.


No save for either of those for the purposes of this question and the information we have (we can always extrapolate or try and add in qualities, but we can come up with any results we want doing that.)

The archer would throw his bow overboard, no save, he already failed it against the dominate and this command is not against the nature for the example of this specific question with the information we have.

Are their situations where this would result in a second save at +2? Yes, if the bow were an integral, religious, or deeply personal (beyond just being valuable or hard to replace or even one-of-a-kind). Something like a family heirloom or a kensai's ancestral blade. Otherwise, if you for some reason deeply hate the god of the sea and consider anything to be thrown overboard to be a sacrifice and gift and you would never ever throw something overboard then you might be entitled to a save, but you'd better have been roleplaying this well beforehand and not just saying it when it happens.

As for jumping overboard after it, it goes beyond whether you have any ranks in Swim or whether it would just be dangerous (even people without ranks in Swim can swim in this game.) You would have to have a trait or quality that basically claims you can't swim (even if it grants a -5 penalty) or be terrified of water (or under a hydrophobia spell). Otherwise, if there was a maelstrom or whirlpool sucking everything down next to the ship, that might be considered certain-death enough.

So no save in regards to "Jump overboard" for purposes of this question with the information we've been giving regarding the water, character, and situation. I definitely wouldn't give someone a save for it if they tried to claim a save for throwing the bow overboard.
"Oh, so you claimed it was so valuable you'd never want to lose it, but now you're claiming you wouldn't swim after it before it gets too deep?"


See...I would say extra save for throwing the bow over, but no save for being ordered to jump overboard (unless they have some specific fear of water or something, like Luffy, and if so...why are they on the boat?)

I also would say the ordering the archer to give you (the caster) the weapon probably wouldn't qualify as against nature (though circumstances could easily change this, if for example it were obvious you were an enemy or obviously intended to destroy the bow). You could even order them to lay the weapon on the ground and walk away from it.


Claxon wrote:
See...I would say extra save for throwing the bow over, but no save for being ordered to jump overboard (unless they have some specific fear of water or something, like Luffy, and if so...why are they on the boat?)

Because it's separating them from the water :)

I'm sorry, but I just don't see "but it was expensive - VERY expensive!" as a default reason to re-roll at a bonus. Look, this is exiting game mechanics, but I'd like to look at examples from other sources. It's still very early here in NY, so the only clear example I can think of right now is Disney's Aladdin, with Jafar's staff. Let's be perfectly honest with ourselves - if Aladdin took place in Golarian, Jafar's staff would at the very least contain a Dominate Person effect. At the same time, when Paizo wrote Dominate Person, I'd be shocked if they didn't have instances like this in mind when they included the re-roll if something's against your nature.

Jafar "dominates" the Sultan, telling the Sultan to give him the giant diamond ring. That diamond was like the size of a plum - a fortune all on its own! The Dominate effect fizzles, but the Sultan doesn't say "but it's so valuable!", he says "but it's been in the family for years!" It's a family heirloom. The Sultan spends half the movie crying over his daughter's refusal to get married, even including the line "I won't be around forever." Inheritance and Dowry are obviously of incredible importance to him.

We see the Dominate effect fizzle later, when Jafar tries to get the Sultan to order the princess to marry him. His daughter's happiness is also incredibly important to him, and the age difference is so obvious, that it would be against his nature to order such a marriage. Like I said, it's still very early, so I can't think of other examples of movies/books/TV shows that have what is basically "Dominate Person" with examples of it not working under specific conditions. Maybe someone can help me out? I'm pretty confident no one would be able to come up with one where the one being dominated fighting it off because "it was expensive".


I'm not going to accept movies not produced by Paizo of examples as how the spell should work.

If you can find examples from Paizo written products of an NPC using dominate then I'd be willing to consider them.


Not quite Dominate but I figure the same principle is at work here.

Suggestion has similar caveats as Dominate abeit less extreme (no obviously harmful acts). A Succubus can use her suggestion to lure victims into an act of passion (which incurs negative levels and is thus an obviously harmful act). In this situation it doesn't appear to matter if you know the creature is a Succubus and that kissing her will lead to your doom or are just a helpless dupe. Fail suggestion -> get kissing is the intended route for the monster.

You can make extrapolations from Dominate from there or just write off the Succubus as a rule aberration (Not like Paizo hasn't done gaffs like that before).


Claxon wrote:

I'm not going to accept movies not produced by Paizo of examples as how the spell should work.

If you can find examples from Paizo written products of an NPC using dominate then I'd be willing to consider them.

Oh, OK, but you can extrapolate on real-world what-if scenarios (where Dominate Person isn't real) that are unaffiliated with Paizo? We both know that there's not going to be a Paizo-written example of this exact scenario. We also both know that even if I found something sort of similar, you'd just point out all the differences and say it's not an accurate enough comparison to convince you that throwing away something expensive isn't against an average person's nature. Paizo intentionally made this set of variables vague. They also wrote them into a spell whose caveats and grey areas are based entirely on GM fiat and NOT game mechanics; a spell that can be found in literary and cinematic history time and time again. I'm inclined to say that you're being a bit stubborn to refuse to acknowledge these references and instead insist on assumptions of non-magical-real-world applications made by you.


Cuup wrote:
Paizo intentionally made this set of variables vague. They also wrote them into a spell whose caveats and gray areas are based entirely on GM fiat and NOT game mechanics;

Pretty much sums up Dominate and Suggestion spell lines, as well as a few other things out there.

If your DM just enforce what you're wanting.

But I did like the Aladdin analogy.


Claxon wrote:

I'm not going to accept movies not produced by Paizo of examples as how the spell should work.

If you can find examples from Paizo written products of an NPC using dominate then I'd be willing to consider them.

The background to Serpent's Skull has a prolonged instance of dominate person (avoiding concrete spoilers there), but unfortunately the victim flubbed any saves they got, and it isn't entirely clear which orders prompted saves and which didn't, apart from one specific instance.

Souls for Smuggler's Shiv:
The captain finally made his save to break the spell when ordered to deliberately steer his ship into an area with infamously deadly reefs and currents.


Tarik Blackhands wrote:

Not quite Dominate but I figure the same principle is at work here.

Suggestion has similar caveats as Dominate abeit less extreme (no obviously harmful acts). A Succubus can use her suggestion to lure victims into an act of passion (which incurs negative levels and is thus an obviously harmful act). In this situation it doesn't appear to matter if you know the creature is a Succubus and that kissing her will lead to your doom or are just a helpless dupe. Fail suggestion -> get kissing is the intended route for the monster.

You can make extrapolations from Dominate from there or just write off the Succubus as a rule aberration (Not like Paizo hasn't done gaffs like that before).

The problem is that Suggestion doesn't have the caveat of getting another save if it's against your nature. It only has the caveat that " some obviously harmful acts" will automatically negate the spell, note this isn't even required to be harmful to the suggested character, any harmful act would suffice. Which is confusing, because if you know the creature is a succubus it would be obviously harmful to engage in activities with it.

Which merely means that the rules are inconsistently applied.


Cuup wrote:
Oh, OK, but you can extrapolate on real-world what-if scenarios (where Dominate Person isn't real) that are unaffiliated with Paizo? We both know that there's not going to be a Paizo-written example of this exact scenario. We also both know that even if I found something sort of similar, you'd just point out all the differences and say it's not an accurate enough comparison to convince you that throwing away something expensive isn't against an average person's nature. Paizo intentionally made this set of variables vague. They also wrote them into a spell whose caveats and grey areas are based entirely on GM fiat and NOT game mechanics; a spell that can be found in literary and cinematic history time and time again. I'm inclined to say that you're being a bit stubborn to refuse to acknowledge these references and instead insist on assumptions of non-magical-real-world applications made by you.

I was telling you what my interpretation of "against nature" means, there isn't a guidebook that tells us.

I found your Aladdin analogy to be less than useful since:
1) It's not produced by Paizo
2) Dominate Person wasn't written by Paizo
3) Dominate Person has been in it's current form since at least D&D 3.5, probably 3.0 as well
4) We don't know if the people who wrote Dominate Person had Aladdin in mind
5) We don't know what mechanics were in play

Etc, etc, etc.

You are right that "against nature" is incredibly vague. Which is why you can't prove you're right, nor can I. We each have on own interpretations. I think you're interpretation is wrong, and you think mine is wrong. I doubt very much either of us could find an argument that would convince the other to change our view.

So, unless either of us have some source that has credibility from 3.0, 3.5 or Pathfinder there is probably no use in further arguments.

And as Blahpers points out, even with examples provided by Paizo they don't necessarily explain enough to know when extra saves were warranted and when they weren't. Heck, in the example provided the case is likely that it was an obviously self-destructive act to purposely run his ship aground.

Ultimately you're going to do what you want, and I doubt my opinion is going to bother you. Though you may want to consider how your players will feel about it. Even if you think it is within the rules as your describe, it wont matter if your players don't agree and get upset about it.

My opinion is your better off avoiding this course of action (specifically throwing the bow overboard) and find some other action that players are less likely to object to ("go take a nap").


Fair enough, Claxon. My goal here was to crowd source some reactions to this scenario, hopefully getting some affirmatives that I was within the spell's interpretation, so I'd a point of reference in case any of the PC's tried to argue that throwing their weapon overboard was "against their nature". I believe I've got that now, even if we did go off the rails for a bit there.

I'm certainly not out to remove a player's most heavily invested piece of equipment with one fell swoop - it wouldn't be difficult to retrieve it. I saw this particular order as something exciting and unexpected from a Dominate spell.


Cuup wrote:

Fair enough, Claxon. My goal here was to crowd source some reactions to this scenario, hopefully getting some affirmatives that I was within the spell's interpretation, so I'd a point of reference in case any of the PC's tried to argue that throwing their weapon overboard was "against their nature". I believe I've got that now, even if we did go off the rails for a bit there.

I'm certainly not out to remove a player's most heavily invested piece of equipment with one fell swoop - it wouldn't be difficult to retrieve it. I saw this particular order as something exciting and unexpected from a Dominate spell.

If you still want to do it you can have the Wizard that does this Have a Scroll of Locate Object and a Shape spell to give them an underwater form that breathes water & Swims. Someone from the party can go retrieve it after the fight.

Or just have them go below deck and change bowstrings.

I feel your basically just trying to remove the archer from the fight anyways. Which I get it since archers basically are some of the best Anti caster martial characters. Since they can attempt an interrupt from hundreds of feet away.


Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
Matthew Downie wrote:
If I pointed a gun and said, "Set fire to your car or I'll kill you," would you do it? Most people would. Someone who really really loved his car might not.

Depends on what car. My pickup-truck ? Sure. The 1956 Corvette that I inherited from my father and restored? I think we're going to have a shootout.


Indeed it is very circumstantial and in this case the circumstances are vague and incomplete.

My rather dedicated archer crafted (via Item Creation) his own bow. He had it for literally years of game time playing multiple times a month.
His (my) response had he been Dominated as above would most likely been to toss the bow overboard. Why? He possessed several other weapons he was quite proficient with including the Bastard Sword (his deities weapon of preference), he had multiple ranks in Swim and Profession (Sailor), some very talented companions, and a strong belief he could have retrieved the Bow. He might briefly have wondered if the giant whirlpool could overcome the magic of the Pearl of the Sirines he also possessed before tossing it over :P

So yes the answer is going to vary a lot from campaign to campaign, GM to GM. Consistency is the response as a player I would look for first and foremost.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Dominate Person Question All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.