ummmm.... hmmmm.....
ummm....
uuuhhhh.....
well...
AH! Ive got it.... no... no wait...
Tough call. TBH dominate and all the other mind control spells are a bit odd in that way. In my opinion, once the ally has become "friendly" with the groups' enemies, they are not necessarily "hostile" toward their previous allies until the command is given.
But once that command is given (and not resisted, since this usually provides another check) the dominated character should probably not be considered a "willing" target for any spells, beneficial or not. Perhaps if they have spellcraft and can identify the spell as a benefit to them, you could allow it. But I think that they would have to make the saving throw. At least that is how I would run it.
Ooh good question.
I would say the PC still has enough presence of mind to forego the save. The subject is obeying orders to take specific actions, but it's not like nobody is home.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm sort of with Grimmy. The PC doesn't necessarily have the presence of mind, but with Dominate, the PC is just being commanded like a marionette, not actually friendly to the Dominator like (s)he would be vs. Charm. As a result, the PC is acting for the enemy but is not actually for the enemy. Make sense?
Ooh good question.
I would say the PC still has enough presence of mind to forego the save. The subject is obeying orders to take specific actions, but it's not like nobody is home.
That is possible, but the danger there is saying something like: "the player accepts a hold person spell and chooses not to make their save" using the same logic.
If the person who cast the dominate orders the dominated character to attack his allies, then it is not unreasonable to say that the dominated character now acts in all ways like a hostile creature... taking AoOs when he can, resisting spells, etc.
One could draw a line and say that the character will still accept 'harmless' spells like protection from evil, though. I am just not sure that I would run it that way myself... seems like a pretty weak counter to a much higher level spell. I don't mind the immunity, but that is precisely because Prot Evil has to be cast preemptively.
Lord Malkov makes an excellent point. Maybe the dominated PC should just be considered hostile until such time as the spell is broken...
Yeah dominate has none of the language about shifting attitudes.
Maybe the caster of dominate could give a new command to "resist your cleric buddies spell" but he would need a move action to change the orders or give a new command as per the spell description.
I don't know, though, I never thought about this before. It gets convoluted pretty fast 0_o
Yes, they get a saving throw against Protection from Evil.
If a dominated creature can intentionally fail their save on protection from evil, then they must be capable of doing so to any spell. That's such a huge loophole that I'd expect the spell description to explicitly say it if that was the intention.
If you're my Shattered Star group you argue you can go about the orders you've been given in any manner you choose and can opt to simply poke them with your finger until they die from nonlethal damage. I look forward to them trying to dominate/charm my NPCs. :D
Yeah. This one, I fear, will fall on individual GMs to decide until such time as Paizo feels that it is a big enough issue to address directly. Sorry.
That said, there are going to be good arguments for both sides. If you decide on one or the other, stick to it! Do not be swayed mid-game because of a compelling argument without talking to your players (sorry, I'm assuming that you're the GM) and talking them through your decision to redact the ruling (and don't retro-act anything!).
Well it does say that a character ordered to attack something will do so to the best of their ability, using whatever resources they have... its not like commanding a caster to kill his allies means that he is going to hack at them with a dagger... he will cast spells.
The issue with Prot. Evil is that it is "harmless"... we can say pretty easily that accepting a Hold Person would be going against the order he took to kill his buddies.... but if one of his buddies tried to cast a Cure spell on him... would he really try to fight it off?
Heck... if an enemy cast a cure spell on me, thinking that I was undead due to a wonderful disguise, I am pretty sure I would accept it. The oddity here is: "How does the character know?"
I mean, with spellcraft they can figure it out, sure... but other than that, how can you tell that it is Harmless or beneficial? I think that the unwritten rule here is that PCs tell each other what they are going to do, or have an unspoken knowledge that they should accept spells from their friend the cleric. But what happens when that gets turned around?
It really is a tough thing to adjudicate.
I wonder if this has come up on the boards before?
I can see this spawning a friendly rules debate at the table that eats up half a session :)
Gotta love this game of ours, just when you think you've seen it all you get blindsided by the interaction between a couple of core spells.
he sure might. Especially if the dominated person in question is a fighter or martial class with no ranks in spellcraft. Does he know what the cleric is trying to cast on him? No. Does he know it's harmless? No. I'd definitely say resisting magic cast by your former allies is an implicit part of the dominate command.
I think it comes down to if a save is an action to be a rules debate. The spells says you control the actions of a creature. Saves are not actions.
Saving throws are passive, meaning that a character does not need to take an action to make a saving throw—they are made automatically.
As such, what saves are made or not are not under the GM's control going by a strict RAW reading.
But the caster of Dominate doesn't seem to be able to control any and all actions of the subject fluidly in response to new stimuli as they arise. He just issues a command, and that particular command is followed.
So it might depend on the wording of the command that had been given?
Buri, I'm not totally with you, but I like your take.
awp832, I can't say that I agree with "implicit," but I kind of do feel like resisting the spells of your assigned enemies would be a part of "kill your enemies, you know- your old friends!"
Still, it's hard for me to say. I maintain my stance that it will be up to the individual GM and that it should stay congruous throughout the campaign.
It's technically outside the purview of the spell, again, by a narrow, literal reading of RAW. I don't see how clever wording would help.
Oh, yeah. FAQ the original post if you want a dev to step in!
It's technically outside the purview of the spell, again, by a narrow, literal reading of RAW. I don't see how clever wording would help.
I think I'm understanding you, are you saying that where the text of Dominate Person refers to controlling the actions of the subject, it is only "actions" in the game mechanics sense that are being described? i.e. move actions, standard actions, etc?
I'm reading "actions" here in the broader colloquial sense.
PC is currently under the effects of dominate person (with a command to kill the party), party cleric casts prot evil on him, does the target save vs the prot evil?
If you are commanded via Dominate (not Charm) to kill someone, you're going to do your best to carry out that order, including avoiding/resisting any actions which might prevent you from being able to carry out that order. That's how I see it.
We've had a pretty enchantment heavy PC in our group and we had to outline in very basic, very broad terms how Charm and Dominate function... and what works for the PC's works for the villians as well.
Does anyone see why this bit is included at the end of Dominate Person?
Protection from evil or a similar spell can prevent you from exercising control or using the telepathic link while the subject is so warded, but such an effect does not automatically dispel it.
It is absent from Charm Person and Command.
I think I'm understanding you, are you saying that where the text of Dominate Person refers to controlling the actions of the subject, it is only "actions" in the game mechanics sense that are being described? i.e. move actions, standard actions, etc?
I'm reading "actions" here in the broader colloquial sense.
That's what I'm saying. I know what you're saying as well. Like I said, it's based on a very narrow, literal view of the rules as written.
I can see the basis for the broader term as well. Usually the first couple sentences of any spell are fluff text and can be ignored. The terms usage muddies it since actions have distinct, in-game meaning.
It would be cool if there was a convention of some kind for showing when a word was being used as a game term. Something with typeface maybe.
It's technically outside the purview of the spell, again, by a narrow, literal reading of RAW. I don't see how clever wording would help.I think I'm understanding you, are you saying that where the text of Dominate Person refers to controlling the actions of the subject, it is only "actions" in the game mechanics sense that are being described? i.e. move actions, standard actions, etc?
I'm reading "actions" here in the broader colloquial sense.
And that is where interpretation has to come into play.
The command of "attack this guy" does not include how or with what... that is determined by the thing attacking another thing... it just does what it normally does when killing an enemy unless you specify something other than its normal behavior. The same is pretty much true for summoned creatures... you give them a command, they go to work. Same is true for animal companions... the command is to attack.. you don't command your Big Cat pet to "Pounce claw claw bite rake rake grab if you can, remember to use your feats, power attack etc. etc."
The person being dominated is given a command. If you do not share a language, those commands have to be pretty basic... but they still work. You just can't say "go to the temple of blahblahblah and wait until the full moon... when it comes, you must kill the inhabitants and perform the ritual written on this piece of parchment."
Talking about "actions" as a game term is really stretching it. Then you will have a player saying that they choose not to avoid a debilitating attack with their crane style "because it isn't an action" or refusing to power attack etc. etc. and everything that isn't technically an "action".
Common sense really is better than the RAW... we are meant to fill in the blanks here and everywhere else. I know it is nice to have an irrefutable RAW answer, but this is very much a GM's call. The best I can come to, is that the dominated character becomes hostile, and since they are not in control of themselves, they can't make decisions to accept spells. So they default to the normal reaction they would have to an enemy... which is to resist a spell.
The real wrinkle here is that this is not an offensive spell... this is a harmless beneficial spell. And the default reaction to those is to accept them. The question is: "does a character know that a spell being cast on them is beneficial or harmless? Or is the commonplace acceptance of beneficial spells a function of the inter-party relationship?"
If they DO know that it is a beneficial or hostile spell, then they should be able to make or not make saves regardless of whether or not they are dominated. Healing is beneficial regardless of the source, for example, as are buffs. This sort of thing can happen with clerics who do not have selective channeling. But the question comes down to a srt of metagame foreknowledge about the effects of a spell or power.
Yup, I hear you Lord Malkov. I imagine this will see a lot of table variance where it is brought up. I can see GM's ruling decisively on this in either direction with perfect confidence. I can see others shrugging and calling for a vote, flipping a coin, or hand-waiving it to whatever seems to serve the story so they can get on with the game.
So, on a re-read of both Dominate Person and the rules for Enchantment (Compulsion) spells, I am inclined to rule in favor of the dominated PC being considered a hostile creature and thus "entitled" to a save vs. the Protection from Evil spell.
So, on a re-read of both Dominate Person and the rules for Enchantment (Compulsion) spells, I am inclined to rule in favor of the dominated PC being considered a hostile creature and thus "entitled" to a save vs. the Protection from Evil spell.
They are entitled, for sure... the question is... would any creature attempt to resist a clearly beneficial/harmless spell?
That is the saving throw issue that arises. The save is listed as will negates (harmless). So that is really the issue... would the player have a chance to resist buff spells from the person who cast dominate, like enlarge person etc.? Or would they accept them? Would they accept a healing spell from their (former) allies? Or would they resist it on principle?
If the character can be willing to accept a healing spell, then Prot Evil should be no problem either... it is a beneficial spell... their alignment hasn't changed or anything. And if that is the case, then why does that work? And should it always work, or should enemies be attempting to resist a cleric's un-selective channeled heal because they do not know if they can trust it?
By "entitled" I mean "must make." Since it is (harmless), I may allow a PC with Spellcraft and a successful roll to allow it to go through, but not otherwise. Even then, I think I may force a caster CHA vs. enchanted PC WIS to see if (s)he takes the spell willingly.
The (compulsion) bit is, I think, kind of clear on this kind of roll, despite my earlier indication that it was not.
What if the cleric says "Hey buddy, I know you're in there somewhere. I can tell some enchantment is making you attack us, but I'm casting a spell that will make the voices in your head go away, ok?"
Anyway, I'll have to go take a look at the Enchantment (compulsion) rules, I was only looking at the specific spell descriptions.
What if the cleric says "Hey buddy, I know you're in there somewhere. I can tell some enchantment is making you attack us, but I'm casting a spell that will make the voices in your head go away, ok?"
Anyway, I'll have to go take a look at the Enchantment (compulsion) rules, I was only looking at the specific spell descriptions.
If I were feeling generous and especially RP, I would allow an opposed CHA check (Dominate caster vs. Prot Evil caster) to allow this.
EDIT: (as a Standard action on the Prot Evil caster's part)
Abyssian I'm curious what you came across in your re-reading that sealed the deal for you. I don't see anything in the description of the sub-school that changes anything.
Compulsion: a compulsion spell forces the subject to act in some manner or changes the way its mind works. Some compulsion spells determine the subject's actions or the effects on the subject, others allow you to determine the subject's actions when you cast the spell, and still others give you ongoing control over the subject.
Abyssian I'm curious what you came across in your re-reading that sealed the deal for you. I don't see anything in the description of the sub-school that changes anything.
Compulsion: a compulsion spell forces the subject to act in some manner or changes the way its mind works. Some compulsion spells determine the subject's actions or the effects on the subject, others allow you to determine the subject's actions when you cast the spell, and still others give you ongoing control over the subject.
The bold is the reason. Don't get me wrong, my interpretation of the spell didn't include any kind of disposition to the caster until I read that. Now, I know that what I'm reading is only a small, unclear part of the excerpt, but I get the feeling that the intent is that the subject, upon failing the save, is genuinely a part of the caster's plans (to the best of his/her ability and knowledge).
I don't feel that my (new-found) stance is spelled out as "RAW," but I feel like it is inside of "RAI," and within reason.
What if the cleric says "Hey buddy, I know you're in there somewhere. I can tell some enchantment is making you attack us, but I'm casting a spell that will make the voices in your head go away, ok?"
Anyway, I'll have to go take a look at the Enchantment (compulsion) rules, I was only looking at the specific spell descriptions.
If I were feeling generous and especially RP, I would allow an opposed CHA check (Dominate caster vs. Prot Evil caster) to allow this.
EDIT: (as a Standard action on the Prot Evil caster's part)
Is it against the subjects nature to resist a beneficial spell from his ally? Because if he is being forced to take an action against his nature he gets a new saving throw anyway, at +2, the same bonus he would get on the save granted by PfE, albeit untyped as opposed to morale.
Did the original command given by the caster of dominate encompass resisting a harmless, beneficial spell? You can argue that it did, but you might have to examine the wording to argue that. If the orders already given don't cover such a case, maybe the subject is free to forego resisting his cleric buddy's magic.
If the dominating caster wants to command him to resist the spell that's fine but it's going to be a move action he doesn't have available to him until his turn, when it's too late.
Changing your orders or giving a dominated creature a new command is a move action.
Abyssian I'm curious what you came across in your re-reading that sealed the deal for you. I don't see anything in the description of the sub-school that changes anything.
Compulsion: a compulsion spell forces the subject to act in some manner or changes the way its mind works. Some compulsion spells determine the subject's actions or the effects on the subject, others allow you to determine the subject's actions when you cast the spell, and still others give you ongoing control over the subject.The bold is the reason. Don't get me wrong, my interpretation of the spell didn't include any kind of disposition to the caster until I read that. Now, I know that what I'm reading is only a small, unclear part of the excerpt, but I get the feeling that the intent is that the subject, upon failing the save, is genuinely a part of the caster's plans (to the best of his/her ability and knowledge).
I don't feel that my (new-found) stance is spelled out as "RAW," but I feel like it is inside of "RAI," and within reason.
Sure, but to me the important word is the one right before your bolding began. "Or".
Grimmy, if these were your arguments and I was your PC, I would not be inclined to try to fight with you. I'm not, as a matter of fact, inclined to fight with you. Your points are strong and valid. I am playing off of the few words that I think mean something else.
I still stand strongly by my opinion that this will be a GM call on a campaign-by-campaign basis until a dev steps in and says otherwise.
OK, yes, but prior to "or" is "act in some manner." My call, for now, if it comes up, in my campaign, is as I've posted. If I find myself playing in your campaign, I will happily concede to your decision.
I'm not even sure I've made a decision :D
I just think it's an interesting question.
I know which way I'm leaning, but if I was playing in your game and you made my PC attempt a save against his cleric buddy's PfE I certainly wouldn't flip the table over or anything :)
And I agree completely, this has to be GM call all the way.
The way I run this:
If the dominated creature considers you hostile then it will resist any of your spells. That includes PFE.
What defines hostile is dependent upon the orders the dominated creature has received and what the situation is. However, combat is pretty clearly hostile.
With that said, if the dominated creature was told to be friends with you then you are not hostile and it will not resist your non-harmful spell.
This makes Magic Circle even better if you cast it on an ally and then move into range of the dominated creature. The dominated creature would get no save against the Magic Circle. Of course, then the question is whether or not ally is defined by a person in it's area of effect or by the person using the spell. But that may be another debate.
Grimmy, I'm glad that you are sticking by your guns. I'm also glad that you aren't entirely convinced either way. I think that both ways of looking at it are totally valid.
Gauss, your way is how, after relooking and rethinking, is pretty much how I see it. You, the dominated, are no longer "friendly" if commanded to attack/destroy/kill/imprison/maim your old friends.
It will still depend on the specific command, but the typical "kill your buddies" command will put you squarely in the "enemy" category. IMO
Abyssian I hope I didn't seem to be cornering you into defending your take.
I was just enjoying the conversation. Sometimes when I don't have the chance to be gaming, talking about gaming is the next best thing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not at all. I was serious about everything I said. If we ever get the pleasure of gaming together and you are the GM and this comes up, I know that you have thought about it. If vice versa, I think that you would agree that in my world, it works like I've said.
I genuinely enjoy arguing amicably with reasonable people. You seem to be one of them. I hope we can disagree on interpretation again in the future!
The way I run this:
If the dominated creature considers you hostile then it will resist any of your spells. That includes PFE.
What defines hostile is dependent upon the orders the dominated creature has received and what the situation is. However, combat is pretty clearly hostile.
With that said, if the dominated creature was told to be friends with you then you are not hostile and it will not resist your non-harmful spell.
This makes Magic Circle even better if you cast it on an ally and then move into range of the dominated creature. The dominated creature would get no save against the Magic Circle. Of course, then the question is whether or not ally is defined by a person in it's area of effect or by the person using the spell. But that may be another debate.
Sure. I think, however, that what this brought up for me was the nature of a harmless spell generally.... if some lunatic cleric attacked the party and each turn had a chance to do something nice or do something hostile.... he is still an enemy. He jumps out and casts some offensive magic, and a few rounds in decides to cast Mass Heal on himself and the whole party.
DO they automatically make saving throws to resist? Do they need a spellcraft check to know what he is doing? What about a PC wizard clipping another PC with a fireball the round after he casts haste? Does the PC just automatically fail his save thinking that the fireball is another beneficial spell? Is this covered by inter-party call-outs telling players what to resist or not? Is that disrupted by deafness? Confusion?
Lots of questions come up here... and I haven't really thought about them before.
I would also rule that the dominated PC would try to resist the PFE, but I am just not exactly sure why... it feels right, considering the effects, but when I think about a healing spell I just don't know any more...
Lord, your questions are very good ones. I think that it is fairly assumed, though, in most games, that when the wizard starts to cast his fireball, for instance, that he tells his friends to "take cover," or when he casts haste that he says "awwright, baby, Let's kick these guys' butts!" The party knows what's up.
It's when the harmless spells get to flying that, if cast on an "enemy," that they get weird. Should the (in this case dominated) PC save vs. haste if (s)he doesn't know what it is?
The answer, as I have posited? Yup. They count as enemies once controlled by enemies. Argue if you like. FAQ if you want me to change my mind.
This is a great topic. It forces you to think in fun way compared to most modern rules questions.
Something to think about. GM's have you ever called for a save, and when it's passed, you say something like "OK, after the ghoul bit you all your muscles started to cramp and you felt an awful rotting paralysis setting in, but you were able to shake it off." Ok maybe I should have used a spell example not a monster special ability, but you get the point right?
In other words, when Kili was getting healing magic cast on him by Tauriel in the new Hobbit movie, it's not like he was like "oh man I don't have ranks in spellcraft, this might be a shocking grasp instead of a remove poison, I better roll my save."
Lord_Malkov, if you are an enemy all spells and effects are assumed to be hostile. This is because there is no assumption that the guy that blasted you last round is going to heal you this round.
Two scenarios:
1) Hostile creature casts non-hostile spell.
If you identify the spell as a non-hostile spell you can choose (like always) to forgo your save.
If you fail to identify the spell as a non-hostile spell I see no reason why you would forgo your save. You should clearly save since you do not know what the spell is.
2) Non-hostile creature casts a hostile spell.
If you identify the spell as a hostile spell you can choose to save (like always).
If you do not identify the spell but it is clearly some hostile effect (such as fireball) you should be able to save.
Note: this FAQ seems to indicate you always get a save against hostile effects.
So, between the two scenarios players could game the system by always saying they forgo their saves and then if a hostile effect occurs they automatically get the save anyhow.
Personally, I think if you choose to accept the consequences (forgo your save) then you accept the consequences and have no save regardless of the indications of the above FAQ.
Lord_Malkov, if you are an enemy all spells and effects are assumed to be hostile. This is because there is no assumption that the guy that blasted you last round is going to heal you this round.
Two scenarios:
1) Hostile creature casts non-hostile spell.
If you identify the spell as a non-hostile spell you can choose (like always) to forgo your save.
If you fail to identify the spell as a non-hostile spell I see no reason why you would forgo your save. You should clearly save since you do not know what the spell is.2) Non-hostile creature casts a hostile spell.
If you identify the spell as a hostile spell you can choose to save (like always).
If you do not identify the spell but it is clearly some hostile effect (such as fireball) you should be able to save.
Note: this FAQ seems to indicate you always get a save against hostile effects.So, between the two scenarios players could game the system by always saying they forgo their saves and then if a hostile effect occurs they automatically get the save anyhow.
Personally, I think if you choose to accept the consequences (forgo your save) then you accept the consequences and have no save regardless of the indications of the above FAQ.
I think your interpretation is absolutely fair... and it is pretty much how I would rule as well.
I am just playing devil's advocate, because it does raise some odd thoughts about the metagame knowledge involved in resisting or not resisting a friendly spell when you don't have spellcraft and can't communicate (if you are deaf or something).
The dominated individual will do whatever he can to accomplish the orders given to him. Those orders are the very reason he is alive, the calling in life he has always waited for, his true destiny!! (Or so he thinks at the time)
What does this mean in the above example? Well, it all depends on exactly what the dominated guy knows.
Does he know he is dominated? If so, he will likely try to remain so until his orders are accomplished. Because if he gets undominated, he won't complete his orders. And he reeeeaaallly needs to do that.
Does he know what the cleric is casting? If he doesn't, assume it is hostile, because he is trying to kill the cleric. The cleric is going to try to stop him from completing his orders.
If he does know what it is, does he know it will help with the dominated thing? Because if he does, the cleric just became target #1. He can't let that dude free him from his dominate, or else he might not complete his orders. And he neeeeds to complete them.
He would respond to the situation exactly the same way someone would respond to a group of enemies they're trying to kill, and one of the enemies just tried to use a spell to magically change the way he is thinking. He isn't going to like, or appreciate it, if he knows what it is.