I'm just checking for a common interpretation on this spell.
Clearly trying to get a character to attack it's allies prompts a new saving throw at +2.
What if the command is "come to my side and protect me from harm"? Which could come down to the character attacking it's allies, except that it is the allies that provoke the action. The command is actually passive until triggered.
What do people think? Still get a new saving throw, or the command is not against the character's nature?
The difference is that "attack your allies" means "use your most offensive spells/attacks" whereas "defend me" mean that people can still pull their punches into non-lethal forms. The mage casts Sleep and Hold Person rather than Fireball and Disintegrate. The fighter attacks with the flat of the blade to do subdual damage. That sort of thing.
Okay that helps. I think I'm going to with the approach that the command is: "come to my side and do your best to protect me from harm."
Then I'll leave it to the player to define their own nature and what is against it. I'm adding the bit about doing your best to step around the possibility that they'll pick their worst option on purpose to thwart the intent of the command and spell.
Thanks!
I think having a discussion with the player about keeping the spirit of the game intact is important.
There's another point, too. A player's only input (and therefore, only way to interact) with the game is through her character. Restricting / controlling that character - especially with something like dominate person has the potential to remove a lot of the fun a player feels. The most irritating and non-fun experiences I've had as a player have been when the DM takes over my character. I admit my initial impulse of handing the character sheet to the DM and leaving is childish, which is why I don't act on it. It's still my initial impulse.
In other words, this is an area with which to be cautious, and make sure what you're doing is acceptable (and fun) for your players.
MI
|
Restricting / controlling that character - especially with something like dominate person has the potential to remove a lot of the fun a player feels.
It depends on the player and the PC. I had a rogue PC in a game of mine from years past who had a particularly strong beef with the party paladin (no surprise there, right?). So when the rogue was enchanted to protect the bad guy he went overboard with attacking the paladin! This was a PC already upset with another PC and being a somewhat amoral rogue character felt it was entirely justified in taking out past transgressions (real or imagined) on the paladin.
So as I said, it depends on the player and the PC. :)
I find it a mark of maturity for PCs to understand that anything they can do can be done to them, and not get their panties in a bunch about it if it happens. This is why they have access to spells like Prot vs Evil and Dispel Magic.
I find it a mark of maturity for PCs to understand that anything they can do can be done to them, and not get their panties in a bunch about it if it happens. This is why they have access to spells like Prot vs Evil and Dispel Magic.
Not all gamers are mature. Even those that are may dislike this type of occurrence in-game. I, for example, dislike RPGs with rape scenes or toilet humor. I dislike those topics so much, in fact, that I would not find a game with those elements enjoyable. I don't think that means I'm immature (or conversely, that I am) - I think it's just what I don't (and do) enjoy in gaming.
I regret I was so insufficiently clear that I gave the mistaken impression of discussing maturity of players when I was discussing something completely different.
MI
I'm just checking for a common interpretation on this spell.
Clearly trying to get a character to attack it's allies prompts a new saving throw at +2.
What if the command is "come to my side and protect me from harm"? Which could come down to the character attacking it's allies, except that it is the allies that provoke the action. The command is actually passive until triggered.
What do people think? Still get a new saving throw, or the command is not against the character's nature?
Allies does not mean friends so I would go by how the group treats each to determine if they get an extra save or not. If the fighter(assuming he is dominated) is ordered to attack the rogue who has been annoying the fighter to no end, for whatever reason, then there might not be a save.
I find it a mark of maturity for PCs to understand that anything they can do can be done to them, and not get their panties in a bunch about it if it happens. This is why they have access to spells like Prot vs Evil and Dispel Magic.Not all gamers are mature. Even those that are may dislike this type of occurrence in-game. I, for example, dislike RPGs with rape scenes or toilet humor. I dislike those topics so much, in fact, that I would not find a game with those elements enjoyable. I don't think that means I'm immature (or conversely, that I am) - I think it's just what I don't (and do) enjoy in gaming.
I regret I was so insufficiently clear that I gave the mistaken impression of discussing maturity of players when I was discussing something completely different.
MI
I find your segue from dominate person to a game involving rape and torture scenarios rather hyperbolic, but to each their own.
Thank you gentlemen, it's a valuable discussion.
For what it's worth, it was not my intention to brainstorm on "how to screw the players", though it could be taken that way.
I basically wanted a good understanding of the spell, before tomorrow's game. I have a bit of a rules lawyer in the group (not a terrible one, but he often doesn't realize he's doing it until I tell him to stop). I just didn't want to interrupt the game while I pondered the spell. I wanted to ponder tonight and be done with it.
I think Malachite Ice does make a good point. It can deprive the PC of fun.
However, so can confusion, cause fear, and even good ol' sunder. :) (Those are all three things the players have professed to dread, but I have no plans on removing from the game).
I'll see how things are going before getting tricky with the commands. I might just make it fairly straight-forward and let them make the second saving throw if the spell takes ahold. Though really, it would be nice for the BBEG if the dominated player came over and prevented flanking from the other side, at the very least.
No worries about toilet humor or personal violations of characters or players. Not my style. This will be a straight combat encounter.
I find your segue from dominate person to a game involving rape and torture scenarios rather hyperbolic, but to each their own.
And how. That's about the equivalent of bringing Hitler in to the argument somehow.
|
I find your segue from dominate person to a game involving rape and torture scenarios rather hyperbolic, but to each their own.And how. That's about the equivalent of bringing Hitler in to the argument somehow.
The sad thing is...dominate and charm seem to get a lot of milage from those who just love forcing those subjects onto the table, to the point that it's tainted the spells, particularly the former, in the eyes of some fairly or unfairly.
But that's not what the thread's about or why the subject was brought up to begin with so...mulligan?
Agreed on "defend me" not short circuiting on "I don't want to attack my friends". From their perspective, their old friends are wanting to hurt his new pal for some crazy reason. He has to stop them, and he can try in any number of ways that doesn't hurt them.
Having the defender working under subdual penalties may make them a bit less effective as defenders, but it still plays havoc on the enemy.
And now I'll actually try to add to the discussion...
In adjudicating Dominate, I tend to put a lot of weight on alignment. When you come right down to it, Dominate ten players and nine of them will come up with some reason why what they're being asked to do, no matter what it is, is somehow strongly against their nature.
And that's not to say that I won't factor it in when the particular command actually is, in terms of the character's previous RP -- but lacking that, I lean a lot on the character's alignment. As is, I think the game mechanically, and the Adventure Paths specifically as adventures, tends to penalize good (and to a lesser extend, lawful) characters and not offer them a lot in return. Giving them a much broader "that's really against my morals" clause at Dominate time doesn't make up that deficit, but it's something.
I find your segue from dominate person to a game involving rape and torture scenarios rather hyperbolic, but to each their own.
I consider dominate person a violation of one's personal integrity akin to rape, and usage of the spell probably Evil, and I so advise Good and Neutral aligned spellcasters.
Did you perhaps read 'toilet humor' as 'torture'? Otherwise, I'm not sure where that came from. Disagreeable and non-humorous as I find said humor, it's not torture.
And enough off-topic blathering by me.
MI
I consider dominate person a violation of one's personal integrity akin to rape, and usage of the spell probably Evil, ....
You do, but the game doesn't or it would have an evil tag placed on it. I think in situations where you are going outside the game's considerations that deeper explanation should be provided up front.
An example is that I think poison is not evil to use, even though the game disagrees. I see it as just another tool, no different than a dagger or fireball.
I find your segue from dominate person to a game involving rape and torture scenarios rather hyperbolic, but to each their own.I consider dominate person a violation of one's personal integrity akin to rape, and usage of the spell probably Evil, and I so advise Good and Neutral aligned spellcasters.
Did you perhaps read 'toilet humor' as 'torture'? Otherwise, I'm not sure where that came from. Disagreeable and non-humorous as I find said humor, it's not torture.
And enough off-topic blathering by me.
MI
I think "akin to rape" depends on what's being done with the spell. Telling someone "I don't know who you are or what you're doing in my house, but you're going to sit there until the city watch arrives and then answer them truthfully" seems pretty much on the lawful and good end. Saying "I want you to take your little dog Toto and sacrifice it to my demonic masters! is more chaotic and evil.
They're both uses of force, but the first is using force for lawful and relatively reasonable ends--depending on what questions the city watch asks--whereas the second is using force for evil ends.
The spell is a tool, but a dangerous one, and should be used in the same circumstances that you might use, say, a crossbow. If you go into a shop and the clerk is being rude and unhelpful, it's somewhere on the chaotic and evil end of the spectrum to whip out your crossbow and demand better service. Just the same, you don't pop out Dominate Person when you get an unhelpful shop clerk unless you're a chaotic evil wizard who gets his jollies doing just that.
But if robbers come into the shop threatening everyone with death or at least bodily harm? Sure, pull out the crossbow and tell them to stick 'em up or use Dominate Person and command them to do the "I'm a little teapot" dance until the city watch arrives.
Okay, the last one might be treading away from good and lawful, but is really no different than casting Irresistible Dance or Hold Person.
I think "akin to rape" depends on what's being done with the spell. Telling someone "I don't know who you are or what you're doing in my house, but you're going to sit there until the city watch arrives and then answer them truthfully" seems pretty much on the lawful and good end. Saying "I want you to take your little dog Toto and sacrifice it to my demonic masters! is more chaotic and evil.
Horsefeathers. This is an ends justify the means argument, and what was under discussion is the morality of the means. Although the end certainly has impact ... the means must be judged on their own merits.
MI
That isn't "the ends justifies the means". it is "The spell is good or evil depending on whether you use it or good uses or evil uses".
Dominating a thief and telling them to give back the stolen item(s) and to sit and wait for the guards to arrive: good.
Dominating a thief and having him walk through an orphanage murdering all the children. : evil.
The spell isn't good or evil- the G/E comes from what you use the spell for.. the same is true for fireball, lightning bolt, and most of the spells.
The vast majority of spells lack alignment descriptors and thus only effect your alignment based on how you use the spells. Use them for good or use them for evil.
A sword isn't good or evil- its just a sword. The same is true here.
If you want to house-rule that Dominate is an "Evil" spell then let the players know up front. Preferably before they use a spellknown slot on it or bother buying it as a scroll.
Noting that this basically means you've taken a perfectly good spell and erased it from the GMG as far as the players are concerned. Don't forget to do the same to every single mind effecting enchantment in there too though (confusion, geas, friend to foe, etc..) as they all basically do the same thing: they rob the target of their ability to act as they wish. Just like Dominate.
-S
I think "akin to rape" depends on what's being done with the spell. Telling someone "I don't know who you are or what you're doing in my house, but you're going to sit there until the city watch arrives and then answer them truthfully" seems pretty much on the lawful and good end. Saying "I want you to take your little dog Toto and sacrifice it to my demonic masters! is more chaotic and evil.
Horsefeathers. This is an ends justify the means argument, and what was under discussion is the morality of the means. Although the end certainly has impact ... the means must be judged on their own merits.
MI
The question is, is "rape" an end or a means?
Depriving someone of free will is generally a bad thing, except when it isn't. You have an unruly mob bent on doing violence to property, other people, and possibly themselves. The wizard casts "Sleep." This deprives them of their free will. The alchemist tosses a grenade filled with "sleep" gas. Same effect. One's a spell, the other's a drug, both have the same effect.
Hold Person does the same thing. Ditto Hypnotic Pattern.
Dominate is the same sort of effect but with a larger range of options to choose from than "do nothing."
This is not to say that Dominate Person cannot be used to do horrible things, but the same can be said of a sword.
There are plenty of legitimate reasons to use force to constrain someone's will. The most obvious one is restraining a violent crazy person so they can't do harm to themselves or others. You generally hope the violence and craziness are transitory, in which case the person when they're in their right mind will thank you for restraining them when they were out of it. If they're permanently violent and crazy? Trickier, but you're still going to need to restrain them somehow, and if straight-jackets and drugs aren't evil, it's hard to make a case for enchantment/charm spells as evil either.
Drugs are a good parallel. It's an oversimplification to say "Drugs are evil." What's more to the point is that drugs are hideously prone to abuse and some are so powerful that they should be used sparingly and only when lesser drugs have failed, and there should also be licensing and ethics reviews. Same thing with Dominate spells.
Yes, evil wizards, slavers, cruel tyrants and so on love Dominate even more than they love opium. This doesn't make opium evil. It still has legitimate medical uses. Similarly, Dominate has legitimate uses when other spells have failed. When some kid is levitating over the bed and vomiting pea soup, using Dominate Monster is a reasonable course of action, since even if you can't use it to get the demon to exit the body, you can have it hold still long enough that you can prepare your exorcism.
Depriving someone of free will is generally a bad thing, except when it isn't.
The question I was raising was whether or not dominate person was potentially inherently evil because of the way it works. That can be discussed, preferably in some other thread, and not by me.
The argument you used to defend it was an example of using the spell for a good purpose, which was not relevant.
MI
With goodies like dominate, suggestion and charm the primary purpose is to remove that character from the equation for a time.
I recommend any of the following:
Go back to town and fetch me a sammich lunch with a bottle of wine.
Take a bath in [insert nearest body of water that involves at least a short hike].
The toilet's down the hall, third door on the right. Go freshen up for me.
Might I suggest an invigorating stroll in the woods?
I suggest that you leave immediately.
Your concerns are valid. Might I suggest you make supper ready in the drawing room?
These kinds of suggestions/dominate commands have proven effective. The target is quickly removed from the tactical environment, requiring either one or more buddies also break off to bring the wayward sod back into play or that sod's buddies have to deal with the immediate threat.
With a VERY high dominate DC this is another matter of course. Then "defend me" or "guard my flank" commands are of greater value. Although BBEG's should be leery of inviting heroic types into shanking , er, flanking range...
Personally, I interpret a PC responding to a command of "defend me" with attacking to aid another's AC as a perfectly valid response to the command. Given the fact that the PC also has no chance to hurt his or her allies, it would also be the most likely and also fits from a roleplaying perspective. After a round or two, the BBEG would probably respond with "NO, ATTACK THEM YOU FOOL!" at which point it's an instant second saving throw.
.
..
...
....
.....
Stormtrooper: Let me see your identification.
Obi-Wan: [with a small wave of his hand] You don't need to see his identification.
Stormtrooper: We don't need to see his identification.
Obi-Wan: These aren't the droids you're looking for.
Stormtrooper: These aren't the droids we're looking for.
Obi-Wan: He can go about his business.
Stormtrooper: You can go about your business.
Obi-Wan: Move along.
Stormtrooper: Move along... move along.
::
Personally, I interpret a PC responding to a command of "defend me" with attacking to aid another's AC as a perfectly valid response to the command. Given the fact that the PC also has no chance to hurt his or her allies, it would also be the most likely and also fits from a roleplaying perspective. After a round or two, the BBEG would probably respond with "NO, ATTACK THEM YOU FOOL!" at which point it's an instant second saving throw.
+5 Holy, Keen, Defending
(+1 :P)
|
|
Akin to rape? Seriously?
OK let's expand upon this.
Baleful Polymorph? EVIL! a violation of someone's body against their will!
Interposing Hand? EVIL! Bad touching!
Summon Monster? EVIL! That's slavery!
Hold Monster? EVIL! Who are you to call someone a monster! Racial slur!
Word of Chaos? LAWFUL! A restriction of freedom of speech and freedom of expression!
There are plenty of save or suck spells in Pathfinder are you going to cut them all because it might spoil someone's enjoyment? Are you going to stop people being unconscious?
|
I think having a discussion with the player about keeping the spirit of the game intact is important.
There's another point, too. A player's only input (and therefore, only way to interact) with the game is through her character. Restricting / controlling that character - especially with something like dominate person has the potential to remove a lot of the fun a player feels. The most irritating and non-fun experiences I've had as a player have been when the DM takes over my character. I admit my initial impulse of handing the character sheet to the DM and leaving is childish, which is why I don't act on it. It's still my initial impulse.
In other words, this is an area with which to be cautious, and make sure what you're doing is acceptable (and fun) for your players.
MI
I think one of the most fun things I've seen is when one of our players was Magic Jar'd. Since the character was already a little chaotic, we just didn't notice, the DM let the player continue playing, he was just handed a note "Your now the CE lich, here are your spells, your objective is to blend in and wait until you have the chance to get close enough to some NPC and then strike"
Boy we didn't see that Wail of the Banshee coming.
Akin to rape? Seriously?
Yes. To expand, it's an example of potentially traumatic violence directed against the identity of the victim which need not cause physical trauma.
Baleful Polymorph? EVIL! a violation of someone's body against their will!
Interposing Hand? EVIL! Bad touching!
Summon Monster? EVIL! That's slavery!
Hold Monster? EVIL! Who are you to call someone a monster! Racial slur!
Word of Chaos? LAWFUL! A restriction of freedom of speech and freedom of expression!
Forced transformation? You don't think that's potentially evil?
The rest of your examples (with the exception of 'Summon Monster') are indeed as amusing as you no doubt intended them to be.
Look up Skip William's spell I Summon My Brothers from Malhavok Press (IIRC) for an example of how and why such conjuration magic might be inherently abusive and/or evil. Funny as all get-out it demonstrates the point quite well. Can't quite remember the title ... I'll add it when I remember.
MI
Akin to rape? Seriously?Yes. To expand, it's an example of potentially traumatic violence directed against the identity of the victim which need not cause physical trauma.
Baleful Polymorph? EVIL! a violation of someone's body against their will!
Interposing Hand? EVIL! Bad touching!
Summon Monster? EVIL! That's slavery!
Hold Monster? EVIL! Who are you to call someone a monster! Racial slur!
Word of Chaos? LAWFUL! A restriction of freedom of speech and freedom of expression!Forced transformation? You don't think that's potentially evil?
The rest of your examples (with the exception of 'Summon Monster') are indeed as amusing as you no doubt intended them to be.
Look up Skip William's spell I Summon My Brothers from Malhavok Press (IIRC) for an example of how and why such conjuration magic might be inherently abusive and/or evil. Funny as all get-out it demonstrates the point quite well. Can't quite remember the title ... I'll add it when I remember.
MI
Nope, not in D&D context. Maybe as a part of your personal code, but that is not what is up for debate. Everyone of us has our own personal values. If it is not labeled as evil in the game then the spell is not evil.
Developer
|
On the topic. In PFS I've had characters who would attack innocents, based on what I'd seen them do with faction missions. They were neutral, leaning evil. Had the vampire commanded them to kill someone outside the party, no save. The only reason I allowed a save was that the characters were Pathfinders, and pathfinders do not kill other pathfinders, heck that's nearly their only rule. (The society, not organized play, which has more rules). Look at how your characters behave to see who they will and will not harm.
Also, trust your characters to act properly. If they're good roleplayers they can handle the concept. When I charm a player, the only thing I tell them is "you just realized [x] is your best friend, act accordingly." I've always seen that they do, without my having to prompt them or force things. Maybe I've been lucky in players, but even those in society play, where the sample size is much larger and less self-selecting than a home group, I've found people who can handle these spells as players without my having to dictate their actions.
That's likely what Brotato meant by maturity.
Malachite, your opinion on the spells, however valid, does not really hold for this rules discussion. They are in the book. They are not evil in the book. Further, though loss of control and attacks on the identity could be traumatic in the real world, in game players seem to treat them as no worse than sword wounds - something to be avoided, but ultimately sumountable. Real life I would consider being stabbed a traumatic experience. Or being stabbed, left for dead, and being strip searched. This is not the real world, and issues of identity, free will, and deeper issues of morality are table by table. Your group is welcome to them, but don't drop the "rape" bomb on something like this.
It basically is the equivalent of saying "[x] is a Nazi" because you disagree with [x]. You tarnish the severity of rape by bringing it into this discussion. You lessen its impact and do us all a disservice.
I don't think being evil alone is enough. It depends on interaction with the party also. Even evil people have emotions, and can care deeply about people, but if you are outside of that inner circle then you are out of luck. There have been enough bad guys that wanted to kill someone because someone they cared about was killed/maimed/etc to support that.
|
Developer
|
I don't think being evil alone is enough. It depends on interaction with the party also. Even evil people have emotions, and can care deeply about people, but if you are outside of that inner circle then you are out of luck. There have been enough bad guys that wanted to kill someone because someone they cared about was killed/maimed/etc to support that.
I agree completely. I just used these characters as examples of someone who'd have no save against one attack command, but still got one from another, due entirely to behavior and relationships.
It's all about how they act in character, who they trust, like, dislike, and even whether they work behind an ally's back.
Also, trust your characters to act properly. If they're good roleplayers they can handle the concept. When I charm a player, the only thing I tell them is "you just realized [x] is your best friend, act accordingly." I've always seen that they do, without my having to prompt them or force things. Maybe I've been lucky in players, but even those in society play, where the sample size is much larger and less self-selecting than a home group, I've found people who can handle these spells as players without my having to dictate their actions.
That's likely what Brotato meant by maturity.
Score 1 for Alorha. That's exactly what I meant.
"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."
Dominate makes the victim your virtual hand puppet. There is no "let me twist your words like some vague 1st Edition Wish spell" or any wiggle room. You do what the caster wants and that is it.
I would not allow a player to weasel out of the spell by choosing to deal non-lethal damage, choosing the aid another action, or any other indirect methods unless that is the PC common strategy. The dominated fighter is going to power attack, the dominated rogue is going to sneak attack and the dominated wizard is going to cast disintegrate.
The caster with the 25 Int/Cha isn't going to leave any room for interpretation in their commands. This isn't their first time casting the spell, they are a serious expert, and they know how to use their spells to the fullest.
"Subjects resist this control, and any subject forced to take actions against its nature receives a new saving throw with a +2 bonus."
This is also a little vague, since most adventures kill people and take their stuff on a daily basis. I would say that only characters with strong moral codes such as paladins, or characters who have gone above and beyond to sacrifice themselves for the team would have a chance to save unless forced to commit unspeakable acts.
With that said, I feel that Dominate Person is probably the most overpowered spell in the game, and would still be a good spell if the duration was concentration +3 rounds.
"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."
Dominate makes the victim your virtual hand puppet. There is no "let me twist your words like some vague 1st Edition Wish spell" or any wiggle room. You do what the caster wants and that is it.
I would not allow a player to weasel out of the spell by choosing to deal non-lethal damage, choosing the aid another action, or any other indirect methods unless that is the PC common strategy. The dominated fighter is going to power attack, the dominated rogue is going to sneak attack and the dominated wizard is going to cast disintegrate.
The caster with the 25 Int/Cha isn't going to leave any room for interpretation in their commands. This isn't their first time casting the spell, they are a serious expert, and they know how to use their spells to the fullest.
"Subjects resist this control, and any subject forced to take actions against its nature receives a new saving throw with a +2 bonus."
This is also a little vague, since most adventures kill people and take their stuff on a daily basis. I would say that only characters with strong moral codes such as paladins, or characters who have gone above and beyond to sacrifice themselves for the team would have a chance to save unless forced to commit unspeakable acts. \With that said, I feel that Dominate Person is probably the most overpowered spell in the game, and would still be a good spell if the duration was concentration +3 rounds.
I do think the duration is too long. I would bump it up to about level 8 and have it and dominate monster be one spell. I would also drop the duration down to minutes or at least hours. In order to avoid making a creature into a puppet forever I would give the victim a +4 bonus against another dominate person spell cast by an enemy for the next X many days. I specified enemy because a smart party will have the team wizard/sorcerer cast it on a party member, and then dismiss it just to get the +4 bonus.
Horsefeathers. This is an ends justify the means argument, and what was under discussion is the morality of the means. Although the end certainly has impact ... the means must be judged on their own merits.
MI
I honestly have no idea how anyone could stand to play any alignment but evil in a game you run.
Dominate makes the victim your virtual hand puppet. There is no "let me twist your words like some vague 1st Edition Wish spell" or any wiggle room. You do what the caster wants and that is it.I would not allow a player to weasel out of the spell by choosing to deal non-lethal damage, choosing the aid another action, or any other indirect methods unless that is the PC common strategy. The dominated fighter is going to power attack, the dominated rogue is going to sneak attack and the dominated wizard is going to cast disintegrate.
The caster with the 25 Int/Cha isn't going to leave any room for interpretation in their commands. This isn't their first time casting the spell, they are a serious expert, and they know how to use their spells to the fullest.
"Subjects resist this control, and any subject forced to take actions against its nature receives a new saving throw with a +2 bonus."This is also a little vague, since most adventures kill people and take their stuff on a daily basis. I would say that only characters with strong moral codes such as paladins, or characters who have gone above and beyond to sacrifice themselves for the team would have a chance to save unless forced to commit unspeakable acts.
With that said, I feel that Dominate Person is probably the most overpowered spell in the game, and would still be a good spell if the duration was concentration +3 rounds.
I don't disagree with a single thing you've said, Fergie. Except that you read too much into my intent. And your hypothetical example is too extreme for the actual situation I was facing.
Serpent's Skull Spoiler
Serpentfolk have dominate person as a daily use spell-like ability. The DC of the save is only 18. Yarzoth is a CR 6 encounter. The BBEG fighting against 3rd level characters.
But to the larger point, this is a rare instance when you have the spell being used at a much lower level than you might otherwise assume. So the assumption that the PCs are not going to make their save anyway is a premature conclusion.
So contrary to what you might think, I quite literally was asking to see how I could phrase a command so that I did not trigger a second saving throw. It would be a shame to dominate a character, only to have them make their next save (from attacking another PC), and so accomplish nothing. I wanted to get the most mileage out of the spell, while at the same time not being cheesy.
In the end, the player made their first save, and the whole point was moot. But that's okay, it was a good roll fair and square.
As for personal violations and the like, it's an interesting conversation.. but I was only using it terms of combat. It is relevant outside of combat, but I trusted the other PCs not to let it go that far.
With that said, I feel that Dominate Person is probably the most overpowered spell in the game, and would still be a good spell if the duration was concentration +3 rounds.
It's overpowered because you're ignoring the restrictions.
I'm Evil, but I'm not going to suddenly turn around and start killing my friends. If you order me to defend you, I'll do my level best to try to keep my friends from killing you; if you order me to kill my friends, I get a second saving throw. Only if I fail that second saving throw will I start using lethal force against my friends.
There's a very big difference between being willing to kill and rob strangers, and being willing to kill people you implicitly trust with your life. Having strong moral convictions only adds more on top of this.
I honestly have no idea how anyone could stand to play any alignment but evil in a game you run.Horsefeathers. This is an ends justify the means argument, and what was under discussion is the morality of the means. Although the end certainly has impact ... the means must be judged on their own merits.
MI
I suspect it's because I've been unclear about when I was discussing in-game or out-of-game moral implications. No matter how obvious I think it is (was), the vast majority of responders seem to think I'm talking about the other one, regardless of context. Clearly, my bad.
My original comment was (or at least was meant to be) that use of this kind of spell might violate the personal boundaries of players (and, although I think it's obvious, this refers to an out-of-game context). For this reason, a GM should know what her players are willing to tolerate. I did have a player who, had this happened to his character (any of his characters!) would have gone ballistic.
OUT OF GAME, I consider that sort of interference with another person immoral and reprehensible.
IN GAME, I consider it possibly an evil act, akin to poison use.
My response to Mr. Murphy was not meant as a defense of any proposition, mine or his, merely a comment that his argument failed to support the premise.
I hope that is helpful.