I am currently GMing a game of sort of new players. They have played Tabletops and have played through 3 books of Council of Thieves. They have just had a run in with their first succubus. The fighter had protection from evil, and the succubus casts dominate person. He failed his first roll succeeded on his second. The succubus got away. Now if you read protection from evil the dominate will still be in effect caster lvl days later, in this case 12 days.
So I am looking for some cruel things to do to the party to cause confusion and fun.
My current plan is to have the succubus pick up a potion of invisibility and convince the fighter to get naked (she has the hots for him). And then use her dominate for that day to try and get the Sorc to do some damage to people.
The more fun that can come of it the better. I am not looking to TPK, just mess with the party.
Uh... be careful with it? Players (me included) HATE have control removed from them. It's an easy way to lose friends. Look at your words:
"So I am looking for some cruel things to do to the party to cause confusion and fun."
Who is this going to be fun for? You, or the players? Because this is one of those cases where I'm sure they will have no fun.
While I do acknowledge that the moment POV stops working he will be dominated, it's VERY easy to spot (sense motive DC 15). Honestly, the only way I can see you getting away with it is if the fighter player isnt at the table saying "the GM isnt letting me play my character". And that's assuming the player (who SHOULD know that the moment POV falls the spell comes back) doesnt take measures to dispel the dominate.
This is why I dont allow Dominate person (and similar spells) in my games (when I GM), both for players & NPCs.
Edit: I just noticed that you also mentioned they are sorta new players. Well, this sems like the type of thing that MIGHT turn them off of TRPGs alltogether. Just might. So, for the love of Sarenrae, be careful.
You have a very fair point williamoak. But luckily for me, my players are in it for the fun not min maxing. I will be suggesting to the player what his character wants to do and I leave it to them to act on it in a role play fashion.
They have run into domination before, and laughed the whole way through. I never take the dice from my players, sometimes I let them roll my dice for kicks. I simply tell them what there character is feeling and enjoy the show. They tend to come up with the antics.
So ya I am not concerned that they will take it poorly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the fighter had protection from evil up when the succubus tried to dominate him, he was immune to that effect. What you are describing is when someone is dominated, and then a protection from evil was cast on them to suppress the domination effect.
If that was the case, then whoever cast the spell would be well aware that the protection would wear off long before the domination ended, and also the fighter would start acting like a dominated person. It would be very unusual for the party not to take steps to deal with the problem, if nothing else restraining their fighter friend.
Generally speaking, unless your group is expecting it and comfortable with it, I would avoid forcing sexual activity on a player character. Most players don't want to have a rape scene in their gaming.
You have a very fair point williamoak. But luckily for me, my players are in it for the fun not min maxing. I will be suggesting to the player what his character wants to do and I leave it to them to act on it in a role play fashion.
They have run into domination before, and laughed the whole way through. I never take the dice from my players, sometimes I let them roll my dice for kicks. I simply tell them what there character is feeling and enjoy the show. They tend to come up with the antics.
So ya I am not concerned that they will take it poorly.
Well, I'm surprised by this, but ok? I mean, regardless of min-maxing, a lot of people play TRPGs to have a modicum more control than in RL. Having that removed (IE, not being able to make their own decisions) would make most players I know (myself included) very frustrated. Maybe your players are more into the "acting" more than anything else, which is foreign to my experience at least. Still, the whole "OOC/IC" mindmess will seems more of a hastle than it's worth.
I guess the simplest thing you could do is just have the guy strip down and start trying to make love to everything. From people to chairs to animals. Although I second Dave Justus about the sex stuff. Better make him stick to trying to have sex with inanimate objects.
But it still leaves a sour taste in my mouth. I just dont like that spell used on players.
I didn't really intend for a debate on rape or sexual morality. I am sorry if anyone feels offended by my intentions.
I didn't really intend for a debate on rape or sexual morality. I am sorry if anyone feels offended by my intentions.
Protection from Evil will suppress Dominate Person if it is cast after the Dominate spell has been cast.
If you cast Protection from Evil before the Dominate takes place then it completely blocks it from ever taking place.
If the party wizard cast protection from evil in response to the Dominate spell he would also know that when it ends the other person would still be under the effect and would take reasonable actions to restrain the individual.
Second, the subject immediately receives another saving throw (if one was allowed to begin with) against any spells or effects that possess or exercise mental control over the creature (including enchantment [charm] effects and enchantment [compulsion] effects, such as charm person, command, and dominate person. This saving throw is made with a +2 morale bonus, using the same DC as the original effect. If successful, such effects are suppressed for the duration of this spell. The effects resume when the duration of this spell expires. While under the effects of this spell, the target is immune to any new attempts to possess or exercise mental control over the target. This spell does not expel a controlling life force (such as a ghost or spellcaster using magic jar), but it does prevent them from controlling the target. This second effect only functions against spells and effects created by evil creatures or objects, subject to GM discretion.
Yup Claxon and Dave Justus' remarks of the working of Protection from evil does put a fast stop to this. As I re-read the spell you are correct. Sounds good looks like my party live one more day with their clothes on.
Thanks for the heads up.
Also, if your players like the "acting" part of roleplaying a lot and enjoy these kind of things, my suggestion if they get dominated in the future would be to have the dominator give quite "loose" orders to the dominatee. That way the player can have fun and play with being with the bad guys for a while; a lot of the fun in playing a character that has been mentally altered is lost if the orders are stuff like "go over there. smash that guy with your sword." etc.
It says you are immune to attempts to exercise mental control. That's different from being immune to the spell. You still are under the effects of the spells, but the caster can't give you commands. Once the protection from evil runs out, you can be given commands again.
If it meant you were immune to the spell or effect, it would have said that.
Now were splitting hairs. I'm pretty sure it makes you immune to the effects of dominate person if you're already under the effect of Protection from Evil, but now I'll have to go and find some other evidence to substantiate this for you.
I can't find anything except official except for an old post by James Jacobs which sides with you (but be mindful James isn't on the rules development team) and a lot of general posters who conclude that you are in fact immune to Dominate Person if it PfE is cast first.
Assuming the PRD is accurate, Dominate Person ends with
"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."
Assuming the PRD is accurate, Dominate Person ends with
"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."
Right, thats saying if you cast PfE on somone after the fact that doing so doesn't dispel it. Dispel has a very specific meaning.
It doesn't really clarify what happens if you're target is already protected.
Sorry, I see the difference now.
I will admit now delving into this more, it seems increasingly ambiguous.
I'm not sure which way is correct.
|
Keep in mind that it's pretty easy to spot a dominated person with Sense Motive. The fact that a party member is dominated wouldn't likely go unnoticed for long.
"You can tell that someone's behavior is being influenced by an enchantment effect even if that person isn't aware of it. The usual DC is 25, but if the target is dominated (see dominate person), the DC is only 15 because of the limited range of the target's activities."
Might be worthwhile to roll with the idea the succubus is going to manage to dominate someone sooner or later and try and think of amusing scenarios, which is all I think 'dork needs at the moment...
|
If the succubus really has the hots for the fighter, have her play the slow con now that the dominate has been suppressed. Don't do anything right away, but have an attractive NPC show up and take an interest in the character. Have her bless the fighter with a profane gift while trying to turn him towards her goals. After enjoying the benefits of the profane gift for awhile, have a situation where the party and the succubus must fight again while the succubus in her alter self npc form. If the fighter sides with the party, have her turn back to true form and withdraw the gift.