|
Hi,
we had a situation yesterday where an enemy cast suggestion on the parties fighter in combat and suggested to "lay of your armor so we can have some fun".
The DM ruled that this is a reasonable suggestion (as the enemy was a beautyfull lady) and not harmfull.
The fighters player disagree and argumented that they were mid-fight and lay of his armor during fight isn't really reasonable.
Of course DM ruling trumps player, so the player gave in and his character basically lay of his fullplate during the complete fight while his party was slaughtered...
I think this was a mis-judgement by the DM as this would make suggestion a far to powerfull spell (as you don't have additional saves like at hold person or other "take out of combat"-spells).
How would you rule this?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Was the caster the only opponent in the combat, and if so, was she attacking the party? If the encounter was with just the caster and she had not attacked the party, it might be considered a reasonable suggestion. If on the other hand, there were more opponents that were actually fighting it would not be a reasonable suggestion. Likewise, if she had attacked the party first it would not be a reasonable suggestion.
The suggestion was not just that the fighter remove his armor. It was that the fighter and the caster have sex. Without the having sex removing the armor would not be a reasonable suggestion. Stripping her before he removed his armor would still fulfill the command of the suggestion and would be a lot more reasonable. So would tying her up first before they had sex. Suggestion does not mean you ignore any possible danger in fact danger negates the spell. The wording of the command that was given by the caster could easily backfire on her. If the fighter fails his save, he will “have fun with her”. He may not be able to stop himself.
|
|
Context:
The characters knew they will encounter a (Lesser)BBEG which is evil and they have to defeat her (to save the village/land). They knew that there were at least 4 enemies in the room (BBEG + 3 Succubi-thingies) and they assumed even some grunts.
The fight started when the paladin charged the BBEG and his steed attacked the succubi-thingies. The fighter then moved into melee with one of the succubi-thingy and the next thing that happens was the suggestion.
So the spell was cast while the fighting already started.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not a great ruling, but there are lots of ways to make a reasonable sounding Suggestion that effectively removes a PC from combat. If the demon had said, "Flee, lest we devour your very soul," then the rest of the party could still get slaughtered if they can't handle the battle without the Fighter.
That's why Will saves are so important.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I don't think the suggestion of "remove your armor" given the context of the combat was reasonable. The fighter knew they were there to fight, knew who the caster of suggestion was, and there were other enemies present. That's a big fat no.
However, as Matthew Downie notes, the caster have suggested "Leave now and do not return, lest we be forced to kill you". And the fighter failing their will save would have left.
Do note, I consider the above a reasonable suggestion but not a very reasonable suggestion such that it would impose a penalty on the will save, because the fighter is aware his friends will be at risk and would likely want to protect them and fight with them. But the magic of the compulsion spell overrides that and says "I should run" more loudly in his brain.
Was the fighter aware that she was a succubi, and what she can do. Having sex that is going to end up killing you is not a reasonable suggestion. If the fighter is aware of her nature, then the suggestion was remove your armor so I energy drain you.
The more I hear the more it seems the GM made a bad call.
|
I agree with the above posters. Removing your armor in the middle of combat is "obviously harmful".
If it was made before the start of combat it would have been reasonable (but if the fighter knows she is a Succuby-like creature that can drain his life even that becomes questionable).
A suggestion to "flee to save your life" is reasonable, and can be roleplayed with the fighter urging his friends into fleeing too. The suggestion effect would end as soon as the fighter leaves the immediate area of the battle, so it would last only a few rounds.
Thats why smart Succubi incorporate a Litheria Blossom into their dress and advertize this!
Makes "surrender you charming hero, we are always looking for recruits!" suggestions much less unreasonable!
If you are a Succubus unable to afford repeated 1,4K expendtitures, cheap knockoff versions that dont actually work but smell nice are also available!
For purposes of variation, having both a real and a fake flower present is much recommended! Just remember which is which!
Another one is "Flee to save your friends from your own blade! You can evidently not resist my suggestion, so you have no recourse if I were to dominate you!" this I would argue is actually very reasonable.
The suggestion effect would end as soon as the fighter leaves the immediate area of the battle, so it would last only a few rounds.
Disagree Diego, or at least the suggestion can be worded such that it is not the case. "Flee and do not return" is all that is required (IMO) to get the fighter to leave and not attempt to return until the spell effect ends.
I will point out that a suggestion in a final boss fight for Crimson Throne is basically "Go downstairs, search around until you find a very valuable gem, and just bring it to me." Reasonable is not "I would totally do this without you even planting the idea in my head," reasonable is "it makes sense that B follows A." An unreasonable suggestion might be "You're tired and don't want to finish your shift, go bash your head against the wall for the next five minutes." B doesn't solve A. In the OP's case, unless the character just isn't attracted to women, or has some specific celibacy featuring as part of their character, the A is implied, and B will definitely help A; there is even the implication "you will be spared so we can have said fun."
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The suggestion effect would end as soon as the fighter leaves the immediate area of the battle, so it would last only a few rounds.Disagree Diego, or at least the suggestion can be worded such that it is not the case. "Flee and do not return" is all that is required (IMO) to get the fighter to leave and not attempt to return until the spell effect ends.
My wording was "flee to save your life". That would end as soon as the fighter has fled. "Flee and do not return" will last the whole duration of the spell. There are plenty of ways to say it with slightly different outcomes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Try doing this to an npc and see how long the DM thinks it is "reasonable".
|
|
I would put it in context with Charm Person.
In Charm Person, you can cast it on someone “you are currently attacking” and convince them to do things “it wouldn’t ordinarily do” that are clearly “very dangerous” but not “obviously harmful.” Charm Person is a 1st level spell, Suggestion is higher; Charm Person has extra limitations on those situations, but still. And as it is drawing a clear difference between “very dangerous” vs. “obviously harmful”, I would interpret “obviously harmful” acts as ones that directly hurt yourself (“stab yourself in the foot”) vs. “very dangerous” being acts that leave yourself more vulnerable to attack.
As for “reasonable”, there’s no way to objectively determine that other than to say “GM discretion”, which goes back to the start. If you want to control your actions during combat, make your Will saves.
The target you or your allies are currently attacking gets a +5 to the save. And if the attack continues after the casting, Charm person is instantly negated.
I suspect there is a significant difference in the meaning we give to "convince it to do anything it wouldn’t ordinarily do."
In your comparison, you are disregarding how limited are the targets of Charm person spell when compared to Suggestion. Charm person works on humanoids, Suggestion on anyone that can understand you. Removing the type limitation from Charm person and turning it into Charm monster increase the spell level by two.
As others have said, Suggestion isn't Dominate.
The big limitations on Suggestion are that it has to be described in one or two sentences and the GM has to think it sounds reasonable. PCs of course are always going to feel that any course of action that doesn’t involve smiting enemies and protecting allies in the most efficient way possible is unreasonable. And from a certain interpretation of ‘unreasonable’, that’s true.
But again, that isn't the definition of "reasonable" that the game is going with. Reasonable just means "does the course of action suggested even make sense as a course of an action in general; would anyone take this course of action, not would I take this action."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's a lot of variability in what would be considered reasonable, but I would honestly look towards the US judicial system and what they consider as the definition of a "reasonable person" for what it could entail.
One definition of such is - "A fictitious person used as a comparative legal standard to represent an average person member of society and how he or she would think, sometimes formulated as a person of ordinary prudence exercising due care in like circumstances."
So, do you think an ordinary person would find it reasonable to take off their protection (knowing the enemy is a succubus like creature and all that entails) and proceed to be intimate with them? Probably not.
Is it reasonable for that same person, when told "run away and don't come back or we'll kill you" to comply? Almost certainly.
They largely accomplish the same goal, removing a individual from the fight but one is reasonable and the other is not, at least in my interpretation.
Oh a court case? I do love show trials! And I am an expert witness rather then the accused or *gasp* on jury duty? Even better!
Oooh, what an interesting question! Reasonableness of suggestion, for example, "dont dare asking the charming Succubus Sniper expert witness for her date of birth and thus her age" is a very reasonable suggestion Mr. Courtscribe!
Before I get the banhammer dropped on me for being in character in a rules question thread:
Here are imho completely reasonable suggestion if you want to play a Succubus intelligently. Key is to isolate the individual party members, 1 against 1, player characters are generally more open to arrangements, and can be more easily bested should voluntary recruitment efforts fail.
Please follow me alone, I need to show you a secret clandestinely
Is the setup for an effective and sensible ambush, or just for a 1on1 talk about how the gods never did anything for you but I got a profane +2 ability increase right here. Generally speaking, a direct bluff before using the suggestion can often add to the reasonableness of the suggestion.
Be suspicious of X, until we know wha strange magics are in his bag of holding Is a very useful suggestion to make a character suspicious of an NPC, or an NPC suspicious of a character! It works great on guard captains who are inclined to regard Adventurers with bags of holding as walking time bombs anyway!
Given the great abilities for telepathic communications, have a cohort within hearing but not visual range (and obviously within telepathic range), have that cohort make an unusual sound, and then wait for the parties reaction. If all of them go, pick out one and suggest This could be a distraction, better stay where you are!, which is emminently reasonable, if noone goes, pick one and suggest Someone may be in danger! You should investigate.
Should combat actually be joined, the suggestion to engage in unprotected intercourse with a Succubus is obviously harmful, unless the target knows it is protected by death ward or equivalents, or has absolutely no idea what a Succubus is.
As such, it frequently breaks the spell immidiatly.
Suggestions to surrender vary in their reasonableness. Surrendering to Chaotic evil entities that do not, although there are expections, adhere to conventions in terms of treating prisoners is a pretty hard sell in general. Depending on the situation of a combat, and the number of sides involved in it, there are situations where this is more reasonable then normally.
Suggestions to flee are highly useful and practical.
If forced to do so, I generally suggest fleeing the city/the dungeon/the area, and have the second sentence be based on the observed characteristics of the target or on the situation of the combat Flee the city, before your are dominated to fight your friends! Is reasonable and effective as is
Quick, grab your fallen ally and flee the dungeon! Bring her to the healer in town! is also effective and reasonable.
After combat, Obey her and dont provoke her until rescue comes, rise up then! is a reasonable suggestion to temporarily pacify captives.
Note, this assumes a Succubus who knows what she is doing and stays calm under the pressure of combat, which typically arises after her cover has been blown. Given how demonstraively potent suggestions at will actually are, even if limited to reasonable and very reasonable ones, it is often appropriate to leave "outs" in the suggestions for the player character to finangle their way through.
For example, flee the dungeon could also be fullfilled by just fleeing the actual dungeon area (prisoner holding) of the "dungeon", given that this word is used improperly very frequently.
Characters need to succeed on Knowledge checks to identify monsters and it doesn't seem that anyone did, including the spell target.
I hate this rule, tbh. Because you can walk into a bar and technically don't know that the people in the bar are "humans, elves, a half-orc, and some gnomes" because technically you have to recall knowledge as an action.
I would say, given that the players had prior knowledge about their enemies (even if they don't know their full abilities) they would be able to recognize them and the threat they represent.
|
|
Characters need to succeed on Knowledge checks to identify monsters and it doesn't seem that anyone did, including the spell target.I hate this rule, tbh. Because you can walk into a bar and technically don't know that the people in the bar are "humans, elves, a half-orc, and some gnomes" because technically you have to recall knowledge as an action.
I would say, given that the players had prior knowledge about their enemies (even if they don't know their full abilities) they would be able to recognize them and the threat they represent.
Knowledge checks don't require an action unless you are consulting a library. It is what you recall from the top of your head.
Action: Usually none. In most cases, a Knowledge check doesn’t take an action (but see “Untrained,” below).
Recognizing "humans, elves, a half-orc, and some gnomes" has a DC of 5 (you recognize the type and subtype, not the classes). Someone with low intelligence and no knowledge can mistake a half-orc for a human with an olive complexion or think he is a member of some other, more exotic, race.
Halflings are often mistaken for children in books and tales.I question more seeing a dragon and not recognizing it, but a person with little knowledge and no prior experience can have a lot of problems recognizing if a creature is a wyvern, a drake, a dragon, or some kind of big lizard, but probably he would lump them all under dragon and be content with that.
Identifying a monsters abilities is more than just recognizing what it is. It gives you useful information about the creature. If the character has encountered a particular type of creature it would be a perception roll to recognize it not a knowledge check. So, assuming the character walking into a bar has encountered elves, half orcs and gnomes a simple perception roll will allow him to do recognize them for what they are. Even the perception roll may not be needed if it is out of combat or otherwise not a stressful situation. A successful knowledge skill would let the character remember a useful bit of information like the half orc can see in the dark, or the gnome has can use some illusion magic.
As to the whether the suggestion is reasonable, would you have sex with a woman you knew had aids no matter how beautiful she was? If the character recognized the succubus for what she is and knew anything about her it is the same thing.
Characters need to succeed on Knowledge checks to identify monsters and it doesn't seem that anyone did, including the spell target.I hate this rule, tbh. Because you can walk into a bar and technically don't know that the people in the bar are "humans, elves, a half-orc, and some gnomes" because technically you have to recall knowledge as an action.
I would say, given that the players had prior knowledge about their enemies (even if they don't know their full abilities) they would be able to recognize them and the threat they represent.
Knowledge checks don't require an action unless you are consulting a library. It is what you recall from the top of your head.
Sorry, I was thinking of PF2 rules under which Recall Knowledge is an action. Mea culpa.
As to the whether the suggestion is reasonable, would you have sex with a woman you knew had aids no matter how beautiful she was? If the character recognized the succubus for what she is and knew anything about her it is the same thing.
I don't know if I'd call a negative level or two quite as life threatening as aids, even in a world where even if I always fail diseases' fortitude saves, the friendly neighborhood cleric can just cast remove disease on me whenever my chronic infections get too bad or we encounter something like a mummy.
The succubus can drain one level per round. A round in Pathfinder is 6 seconds. That means it takes 1 minute to kill a 10th level character. When Aids first came out it took a year or two before it killed. With the current treatments for Aids you can expect to live for decades. So, the succubus is a lot more deadly than Aids. Don’t forget you have to make a will save after being drained or engage in another act of passion that triggers another drain, which requires another will save and keeps repeating until you make the save or die.
My question was not would your character have sex with a woman with Aids, it was would you have sex with a woman with Aids?
They *can* drain you as fast as 1 level a round (technically 2 if you fail the save to drain yourself and then she drains you herself), but it's still only one negative level "per act of passion" and considering said succubus has spent the time to suggest you, is she *really* not going to take her time and enjoy it?
She's even offering it as "fun". You think this immortal sex haver really wants to always speed-date a bunch of 1 minute quickshots? I'll take my chances with being the first keeper she's ever had... why was the party trying to stop her again?
Absolutely suggestion material.