Machiavelli's page

So, a character in my game is dominated (by its usage of dominate person) by a succubus now. I'm wondering, can dominate person be used to force them to accept a profane gift, what about forcing them to make a pact with the demon? Is there anything in the rules to prevent either of these cases?

My players managed to attack a favored worshiper of a deity of magic, while on a realm said deity created and continues to maintain influence on.

The players attempted to break and enter into an area owned by said worshiper, they got caught, some of them resorted to violence, but ended up through a sequence of events, getting away. But still, on a plane, created by this individual's deity, that deity should be irked and retaliate no? I even had a player say that they were actually really annoyed at the lack of hard consequences for their actions (though I don't know that they are all on the same page about this).

Now, the thing is I don't want to have the deity outright TPK the party, as that seems a very cheap shot, and makes less sense then it just having fun making their lives more difficult. However, this is a deity strongly associated with curses.

I'm coming up with ones that are all appropriate for what they did in this specific situation, including cursing the one whom attacked with not being able to harm anyone whom doesn't attack them first, making some of those whom broke in unable to enter anywhere without first getting permission (maybe I'll make really nasty or embarrassing things happen to them if they try).

There's one I'm stumped on, one whom would be viewed as guilty via association, but didn't really do anything on their own, they kinda just, well, hung out. They too the deity would want to punish however, but, I'm not sure how.

This is something of a rant I guess but I also am really wondering how others deal with these situations.

so... DMing (and playing really as well), means setting aside your day to game, and especially if you DM then also some planning ahead of time as well. If players don't show up, it means that you could have made other plans, and have been doing something else instead, or that you could have given the spot to another player whom maybe would be more reliable. Because of that, I get frustrated when people don't show up.

I'm not talking about people whom can't make game due to an emergency, or have planned a vacation and give me notice ahead of time (though, depending on the specifics, either of those might mean you should drop out of gaming, at least for a while).
What I'm referring to are folks whom just have something else that they'd prefer to do come up on the same day they said they'd game, and possibly with little (or even no) prior notice, so they go and do that instead. Now, they may come back, and game again the next week, but as soon as something else comes up, they are gone again.

I have group of what are very reliable players currently, but as we've tried to find an additional person to join the group... I'm finding a lot of folks whom fit the issue I described above.

I'm debating just how much of a chance I should give newbies to the group. Is it fair to tell someone to not come back if they flake out for just one game unless it's something work related or an emergency? Or is slightly more of a chance than that only fair?