Seems legit. Though the caster being able to kind of read your mind if they focus on it might make some speedbumps that way. That being said, if someone was being malicious with it then plotting their death would probably be natural.Ok, so lets say the caster is asleep, and the weretiger wakes up in the night. The caster can't read thoughts unless he's conscious so the weretiger's hands aren't tied. Especially if the last command was "Act normally".
Isn't the caster in big trouble right at this moment? Chaotic neutrals lycanthropes can have fierce and uncontrollable bestial tempers.
Seems entirely plausible. Might be a good idea for the caster to give a command that involves not harming them but otherwise acting normally (maybe we could split the difference and say the Sense Motive DC would be 20 in this case :P). But I would definitely say it would be well within the barbarian's potential if the caster made such an opportunity possible.
Again, in my personal case, I'd probably not be murderous to the caster unless I was actually being harmed, even as a Neutral character (maybe even as an Evil character since being evil doesn't necessarily mean you're keen on killing lightly). Though I might try to get some method of getting the spell broken or warded against (perhaps a continuous protection from law ring if such a thing would be acceptable). But that's just my perspective. Neutral means a lot of things. One guy's Neutral would be hesitant to kill someone even if they were being oppressed a bit and another guy's Neutral would have the caster's noggin' on a chopping block for so much as casting hold person on 'em for a bit.
Also, one thing seems to be forgotten reference the weretiger murdering the caster... she didn't know what was going on, so she couldn't have done anything like that.
It'd be pretty obvious. There is a telepathic bond between you and your dominated person. They can hear you in their head barking orders.
It'd be pretty obvious. There is a telepathic bond between you and your dominated person. They can hear you in their head barking orders.
Really? It identifies you? Huh. How curious.
That's not in the spell description.
It's not in the enchantment description either (or the compulsion).
It's not part of will save descriptions (or general saving throw description either).
I mean you may know what my mental voice sounds like, but I don't know that I do (and I don't know that it sounds like my voice would sound to you - it may well sound like my voice sounds to me, which is provably quite different).
Besides that, there's the bluff v. sense motive skills. I mean, I can disguise my voice, right? What's to stop me from disguising my mental voice?
Now, all that said, it's been pointed out that dominate is being used incorrectly... but this is not necessarily the way it's being used incorrectly. I do welcome being proven wrong, here, but within the rules I'm not seeing it.
EDIT: to get the quote that I was responding to, considering I was ninja'd. :)
Your voice is in their head via telepathy. How can they NOT recognize your voice when they basically live with you?
Disguising your physical voice requires special motions in the throat to change how air passes over the vocal cords. How are you changing your brain to change your 'mental' voice?
I don't care how your bluff skill is, if I keep hear your yap telling me what to do and I get a moment of respite I'm coming after your ass.
How's it empty?
How's it empty?
I think he is making a point (and a good one) that sound waves are rather irrelevant to telepathy.
It's got to sound like something. I don't speak as an expert. I don't go around forming telepathic bonds to me but whenever I think of a passage of text or recalling a request it's always in some voice and if it was from someone talking to me it's in that person's voice.
No, PvP was not allowedYes it was. were-tiger's player even agreed to it.
After the third session, I explained to both her and the DM that, if her character messed up our next attempt... that my character would feel it necessary to resort to drastic measures, in order to preserve the good of the world ... She wasn't concerned, as she figured I meant open combat. She welcomed me to try, and that was the end of it... Honestly, the whole issue was in-character, and she wasn't mad at me for doing it (she actually agreed that it made sense for my character to do what he did) she was just pissed at the DM for letting it happen, because it meant that she lost the 'absolute control' over her character she focuses on so much.Emphasis is mine.
Except that the OP gave as a reason for why they didn’t just vote her PC out is that they were all needed & required. No one could removed from the group. Thus perhaps her weretiger could beat him up, but not kill him.
And as far as her ‘agreeing” the Op has contradicted himself “Except her. She got horribly upset, claiming that she should be the only one who can control her character, and that if she wants to be chaotic then she should be allowed to.”
And you’re all also forgetting that the DM specifically encouraged her to play that sort of PC. “We all knew going in that she was going to be a problem. The DM explained that the point of the game was social issues, and allowed her character Specifically because he thought that she would pose an issue for the group.”
So the DM approved her ‘disruptive” PC, and so did the other players. Thus the player wasn’t being a “Richard”.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's got to sound like something. I don't speak as an expert. I don't go around forming telepathic bonds to me but whenever I think of a passage of text or recalling a request it's always in some voice and if it was from someone talking to me it's in that person's voice.
If you know who it is whose voice you should be hearing it as. If I read the text you're writing I'm processing your information but I doubt I'm actually hearing it in your voice. In fact, my experiences show more often than not my mental idea of your voice is nothing like the real audible voice. But if I've heard your voice then my mind can superimpose your voice or read it in a way that sounds like Mickey Mouse.
Basically unless part of that communication includes the desire to communicate identity, there is no reason to assume that the person receiving the telepathic message would sound like their own voices. Especially since you don't even need words to communicate certain things.
Whether or not she could have/should have known it was the Snakey guy Dominating her is pointless as:
1.She did know
2. Since they allowed a super-powerful houseruled version of the spell, there was nothing whatsoever she could do about it.
She wasn't allowed the normal chances to save.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's got to sound like something. I don't speak as an expert. I don't go around forming telepathic bonds to me but whenever I think of a passage of text or recalling a request it's always in some voice and if it was from someone talking to me it's in that person's voice.If you know who it is whose voice you should be hearing it as. If I read the text you're writing I'm processing your information but I doubt I'm actually hearing it in your voice. In fact, my experiences show more often than not my mental idea of your voice is nothing like the real audible voice. But if I've heard your voice then my mind can superimpose your voice or read it in a way that sounds like Mickey Mouse.
Basically unless part of that communication includes the desire to communicate identity, there is no reason to assume that the person receiving the telepathic message would sound like their own voices. Especially since you don't even need words to communicate certain things.
Also another interesting thing is the difference in voice. A person's physical voice changes over time. Their mental voice can as well. They can change it at will. I'm sure you can as well. I mean, just try thinking except instead think in the voice of Sean Connery from Dragonheart. Can you do it? I imagine you can!
This also opens up many beautiful possibilities when it comes to telepathic creatures. For example, a succubus has constant telepathy but can take any number of different forms. This could lead to a very interesting and perhaps unsettling display. Especially if the succubus had spoke in an ominous voice telepathically or attempted to pass the voice off as someone or something else (which would allow for Sense Motive I'm sure).
|
Point out to me were Dominate Person describes, in detail, what the order can be, and I'll take your sarcasm as a valid counter-argument, and not just mud slinging from someone who can't think of anything relevant to the conversation.Anyone else notice how the spell works exactly as best preserves the argument the person is making.
It's like...well magic.
I'm criticizing both sides at this point, as well as any one who was involved who is in any way surprised that the game as described didn't fall apart into conflict. I have no dog in this fight.
It would be nice for a change if people would argue for how they think the spell should work, rather than how it shows they are correct. And since I don't have a dog, let me take a swing.
Looking at the spell Dominate Person, it has verbal and somatic at close range so presumably the person being Dominated generally knows it is being cast. Which will make them mad.
Then we move to
"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."
Which pretty much says you are speaking to each other in a common language, unless you want it not to say that for your argument to be right...but it is telepathic, so make adjustments (see below) unless that doesn't fit your argument...
"If no common language exists, you can communicate only basic commands, such as “Come here,” “Go there,” “Fight,” and “Stand still.”"
Seems clear enough
""You know what the subject is experiencing, but you do not receive direct sensory input from it, nor can it communicate with you telepathically.""
A bit fuzzy on range and specifics, but no major problems that are relevent to this discussion.
"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)."
Which would seem to make multi-tasking activites hard, and likely kind of make the person act noticably odd, don't you think those who don't care one way or another about "winning"
"Changing your orders or giving a dominated creature a new command is a move action."
Pretty clear
"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."
Oh no, GM adjudication! (shiver)....
"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."
What is it's nature. Oh no, more GM fiat!
So it reads to me that you can give them an order, or if you fully concentrate you can take over. (standard to 'see' through them and move to give them a specific command)
So if you want them to do a specific thing, you can do it. But if you want to puppet master them, you need to largely give up your actions.
But I have no dog in the fight. I just think it is amazing anyone in the scenario was surprised it went badly....
Well, you make a point, but the OP’s story seems to be changing a lot as we criticize him. Or maybe ‘clarifying” , but I’d like to hear from the weretiger and DM.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, you make a point, but the OP’s story seems to be changing a lot as we criticize him. Or maybe ‘clarifying” , but I’d like to hear from the weretiger and DM.True. I'm just going off of the information given.
That is the best we can do afterall. :P
After reading this thread, I recently proposed a potentially-interesting idea that a character of mine (yet to be created) be hooked into a campaign by a charm-or-domination type effect.
The idea would be to have the effective commands pretty-much as the OP described, but it would be my character more or less permanently (refreshed) that way, for some duration of the campaign.
It actually sounds like a pretty cool game! I'm curious if it'll ever amount to anything. :)
|
I bet half the forum would want to knock out a player IRL that thinks playing a retarded character in a social campaign and refusing to change so the game is more fun for everyone as well.
Frankly, the CN player was being a bit of a jerk with the " i need to do something" all the time. However, given that I've seen some of that type of play, it can be handled out of game.
Frankly the OP was even more in the wrong. *I* wouldnt play at a table with a jerk like that. DOminating a player is no different then killing one's character in their sleep or other PVP items. I wouldnt play at a table with teh OP nor with a DM that allows that behavior.
Frankly the OP was even more in the wrong. *I* wouldnt play at a table with a jerk like that. DOminating a player is no different then killing one's character in their sleep or other PVP items. I wouldnt play at a table with teh OP nor with a DM that allows that behavior.While you might not like PvP Geno did state that their group does allow it. As such he did nothing wrong in that regard. There appear to be plenty of people who are making assumptions/judgement about Geno's actions based on their own opinion of how games should run (no PvP and so on) while ignoring stated rules/assumptions for that group.
I don't agree, just because your character can't piss on the street and lick the king doesn't mean her character is "dead". The campaign is "dead" the whole time you do something counter-productive on a massive scale. It's tanamont to having a pyromaniac who puts fire on the merchendise if the game's theme was "Selling silk". Sure you can stop him from putting s~@& on fire, but it's just as restraining as not being able to sell anything because it's cinders.
The only thing I've heard so far that leaves me with even an ounce of sympathy for the were tiger player is the house rule that you didn't have to spend an action to control her. Were I in her shoes I'd have screamed bloody murder at that ruling.
Other than that your table sounds like one where PvP is "toggled on" so to speak (mine generaly is as well). She knew that going in. Dominate is a valid tactic. If she's capable of it within the rules then she's free to seek vengance if she should choose.
*shrug* I don't see that there's much more to be said.
- Torger
P.S. This opinion is given based on the avalible information. Obviously there's another side here but unless we hear it this is what we've got to go on.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
How's it empty?I think he is making a point (and a good one) that sound waves are rather irrelevant to telepathy.
It is half a jest and half a real question.
To make and example, we have a guy with 6 strength , 6 constitution but 20 intelligence and 18 in wisdom and charisma that speak telepathically to you.
His mind voice sound will have the wheezing and feeble tone of his physical stats or reflect the strong force of his mind?
There is no rule about that so every GM is free to decide differently.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, you make a point, but the OP’s story seems to be changing a lot as we criticize him. Or maybe ‘clarifying” , but I’d like to hear from the weretiger and DM.
Or maybe you are viewing it through your experience (as we all do) and adding and removing bit and pieces on that basis. I have read the same posts and got to a set of conclusions that are almost diametrically opposites to yours.
From my point of view several of your post glossed over things that the OP has already explained to attack him on what is your perception of the situation. Again from my point of view, you seem to forget the explanations and exaggerate the problems.
I have no doubt that you see the situation from the opposite point of view and think that we are taking the OP explanations without questioning them. Our different experiences at the gaming table color our perceptions of the OP posts. We can only try to be as objective as possible.
|
|
The only thing I've heard so far that leaves me with even an ounce of sympathy for the were tiger player is the house rule that you didn't have to spend an action to control her. Were I in her shoes I'd have screamed bloody murder at that ruling.
Other than that your table sounds like one where PvP is "toggled on" so to speak (mine generaly is as well). She knew that going in. Dominate is a valid tactic. If she's capable of it within the rules then she's free to seek vengance if she should choose.
*shrug* I don't see that there's much more to be said.
- Torger
P.S. This opinion is given based on the avalible information. Obviously there's another side here but unless we hear it this is what we've got to go on.
With the questionable command Geno gave he is not controlling her, he is giving her yes or not replies.
The command was: "you need a 'yes' or 'no' from me before you do anything." so saying "yes" or "no" is still maintaining the original command, not changing it.
On the other side of the coin, with that command she should not even be capable to walking around, buy a beer or speak with a passerby to ask questions. It wouldn't be a DC 15 sense motive to notice her odd behavior, it would be 5 at most.
A order on the lines of "Act normally but don't harm any of the party members" would have required Geno character to spend his move action in stopping her when she started acting disruptively but would have been hard to notice its effects on the person.
It would have been possible to issue more complex orders allowing her "semi-free" will most of the time but stopping her from damaging the diplomatic encounters. As the caster has an intelligence of 30, above that of any player or GM, Geno should have discussed with the GM and the weretiger player about the general guidelines of the command given to the weretiger and then have her play with a number of strictures on her actions, instead of having them on the other end of a on/off switch.
Probably the GM should have rolled a secret intelligence check with a DC dependent on the complexity of the orders to see the amount of loopholes present in the command with those loopholes allowing the weretiger to act freely or stopping her from doing anything in different situations.
Using dominate on another player character is rarely a good idea, but bringing a disruptive character to a game isn't a good idea to.
I see D&D as a cooperative game. When it become a antagonistic game most of the fun disappear.
With the questionable command Geno gave he is not controlling her, he is giving her yes or not replies.
The command was: "you need a 'yes' or 'no' from me before you do anything." so saying "yes" or "no" is still maintaining the original command, not changing it.
On the other side of the coin, with that command she should not even be capable to walking around, buy a beer or speak with a passerby to ask questions. It wouldn't be a DC 15 sense motive to notice her odd behavior, it would be 5 at most.
Point conceded. It sounds like there was some GM mismanagement of the sense motive DCs
A order on the lines of "Act normally but don't harm any of the party members" would have required Geno character to spend his move action in stopping her when she started acting disruptively but would have been hard to notice its effects on the person.
This is what I was talking about as far as the no actions required house rule. That part rubs me the wrong way as well. Again though, I'd call this a bad call on the DMs part.
Using dominate on another player character is rarely a good idea, but bringing a disruptive character to a game isn't a good idea to.
I see D&D as a cooperative game. When it become a antagonistic game most of the fun disappear.
It's certainly a blunt instrument in the battle of inter-party politics when often something with a little more finesse is called for. And yes, usualy ends badly.
Personaly though I think PvP gets a bad wrap. Mostly because of people who take it too personaly out of character. Some of the most enjoyable roleplaying experiances I've had have involved characters at odds with one another. Without the threat of actual escalation I don't think they would have been nearly as much fun. Some of them have ended badly (either for my character or someone elses) but it never gets personal out of character.
- Torger