On the Mechanics of Domination Magic

[EDM Neo]

Mind control, in some form or another, has long been a staple of the fantasy genre. In D&D in particular, the most common cause of such is enchantment magic, or more specifically, Charm Person and Dominate Person (and their higher leveled Monster-affecting cousins).

For your reference, from

Enchantment

Enchantment spells affect the minds of others, influencing or controlling their behavior.

All enchantments are mind-affecting spells. Two types of enchantment spells grant you influence over a subject creature.

Charm
A charm spell changes how the subject views you, typically making it see you as a good friend.

Compulsion
A compulsion spell forces the subject to act in some manner or changes the way her mind works. Some compulsion spells determine the subject’s actions or the effects on the subject, some compulsion spells allow you to determine the subject’s actions when you cast the spell, and others give you ongoing control over the subject.

Charm Person

Enchantment (Charm) [Mind-Affecting]
Level: Brd 1, Sor/Wiz 1
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Target: One humanoid creature
Duration: 1 hour/level
Saving Throw: Will negates
Spell Resistance: Yes

This charm makes a humanoid creature regard you as its trusted friend and ally (treat the target’s attitude as friendly). If the creature is currently being threatened or attacked by you or your allies, however, it receives a +5 bonus on its saving throw.

The spell does not enable you to control the charmed person as if it were an automaton, but it perceives your words and actions in the most favorable way. You can try to give the subject orders, but you must win an opposed Charisma check to convince it to do anything it wouldn’t ordinarily do. (Retries are not allowed.) An affected creature never obeys suicidal or obviously harmful orders, but it might be convinced that something very dangerous is worth doing. Any act by you or your apparent allies that threatens the charmed person breaks the spell. You must speak the person’s language to communicate your commands, or else be good at pantomiming.

Dominate Person

Enchantment (Compulsion) [Mind-Affecting]
Level: Brd 4, Sor/Wiz 5
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 round
Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Target: One humanoid
Duration: One day/level
Saving Throw: Will negates
Spell Resistance: Yes

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.

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).

Changing your instructions or giving a dominated creature a new command is the equivalent of redirecting a spell, so it is a move action.

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.

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.

If you don’t spend at least 1 round concentrating on the spell each day, the subject receives a new saving throw to throw off the domination.

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 neither prevents the establishment of domination nor dispels it.

Sense Motive (Wis)

Sense Enchantment
You can tell that someone’s behavior is being influenced by an enchantment effect (by definition, a mind-affecting 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.

It's simple enough seeming, on the surface. Charm spells make people like you, domination spells let you control people. If you try to make someone do something that goes against their nature, they get a second chance to break free of your spell. If you tell someone to kill themselves, they flat out won't comply, as obviously self-destructive orders are not carried out.

When under the effects of domination, people are limited to carrying out their explicit orders, and to carrying out activities necessary for day to day survival, which can sometimes make it noticeable when someone has been afflicted with such a spell.

However, there are a few gray areas that aren't explicitly covered in the rules. Even within the things that are explicitly explained, there's plenty of room for interpretation, which can sometimes make things kind of messy. None of these are likely to come up in the course of normal play, but I recently -have- bumped into a few roleplaying situations where they arose, and was forced to improvise, or even just admit I had no idea what should happen.

And so, that's where you all come in! I was hoping to get some input from the community on a number of matters regarding domination magic. Below are a number of issues I've noticed in interpreting the way domination spells work, and some of my thoughts on them. Please feel free to comment, whether in agreement or dissent, or to raise your own issues.

• When someone is under the effects of a domination spell,"obviously self destructive orders" are not carried out under any circumstances, regardless of saving throws. What exactly does an "obviously self-destructive order" entail?
  
  Does this include only things that involve causing yourself obvious bodily harm, like stabbing yourself or jumping off a cliff? What about things that are less direct? For example, giving up a weapon when surrounded by enemies? Surrendering sensitive information? Would a dominated person abide by an order to commit a crime that would carry serious negative repercussions after their capture, up to and including execution?
  
  My own first inclination would be that the only explicitly barred acts are those that will obviously directly cause direct bodily harm. It would just limit the spell -way- too much to include everything that's somehow or another self-destructive. In most cases, succumbing to a domination spell at all will ultimately be destructive towards the target, and this should be obvious when the first order a dominated orc is given is "stop attacking us, attack those other orcs," but if it was considered obviously self destructive as is barred by the spell, nothing would happen at all.
  
  
  
  
• When a subject under the effects of a domination spell is "forced to take actions against its nature," they are entitled to a new saving throw at a +2 bonus to throw off the spell's effects. How strongly "against its nature" do these new orders need to be to entitle the subject to its extra save?
  
  In extreme cases, it's obvious. If you dominate a paladin and order them to massacre babies, that's so strongly, obviously opposed to their lawful good nature that they're almost definately allowed the new save. In less extreme cases, however, it's trickier. If the blatantly evil Red Wizard enchanter orders the paladin to do something as mundane as fetch him a glass of water, is this strongly enough against their nature that they'd be entitled to a second save?
  
  For most of my characters, it would be "against their nature" to do -anything- at the request of a hostile mage who put them under the effects of a domination spell, whether it was to attack their friends, to reveal sensitive information, or even just to walk out of town and leave the caster be. However, to claim such seems kind of like it might be an abuse of the spell's wording. If the intent was to allow "actions against [your] nature" to be stretched this far, they'd have just gone ahead and said that issuing any kind of order entitles the target to a new save.
  
  There can never be a hard and fast ruling on a subjective matter like this, but what do you suppose makes for a good guideline?
  
  
  
  
• How complete is the control exerted by a domination spell? As per the spell's description, "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." Control over someone's conscious actions is a given. For example, "smile" could be a valid, easily fulfilled order. The caster orders the subject to smile, and the subject smiles.
  
  There's no mention made, however, if this extends to matters that are within the subject's abilities, but that the subject doesn't necessarily have direct, conscious control over. For example, while an order to "smile" is easily fulfilled, what about one to "feel happy?" It's simple to feign such, certainly, but what I ponder is if the spell's intent is such as to allow an actual emotion to be forced.
  
  The same applies to other un/semi-conscious or physiological matters that the subject does not normally have conscious control over. If a subject is ordered to fall asleep, will they immediately fall into unconsciousness? If they are ordered to sweat, will they sweat? If ordered to speak about repressed memories, those which the mind does not consciously remember, but which aren't actually completely destroyed as with death amnesia, can the subject do so? What about other unconscious mental processes, such as regarding other emotions, or transferring information from short to long term memory? Etc, etc.
  
  
  
  
• How literally do subjects typically respond to orders? Again, no hard and fast rules on this one, but what would a good guideline be? To use an anecdotal example to help explain what it is I'm trying to ask, Rosaline recently dominated another PC, after I talked the process over with their player.
  
  Having not seen it before, I was happy enough to let it slide the first time as a clever way to squirm out of a domination, but they answered each of her questions in a completely literal fashion, willfully subverting their obvious intent. No matter how precisely she tried to word her queries so as to close the loopholes used to escape giving a straight answer, another one was always found, until she finally gave up in frustration.
  
  Is this a subversion of the spell's intent? Again, I thought it was clever the first time, and so I don't hold any hard feelings over it against the player who pulled it, but it seems to me that it would make the spell more or less pointless if it could always be employed.

Whew, that was long. Thanks for reading, and I'll look forward to hearing your responses.

A quick reminder: while FRC is a full PvP server, it's typically strongly advised that you seek DM supervision before trying to use domination magic against another player character, or to at least talk it over with the other character's player. If it seems like it's not fun for both parties, you should probably reconsider. You'll avoid conflicts and ultimately have a much better time yourself if you try to always keep the other player's feelings in mind.

[Kelandros Armelis]

There are other means to make someone talk if in this case it is desired to make someone talk to gain information. Same with committing acts that are usually not commited by the person who is the intended target.
I personally see the domination as a last resort. If everything else fails, you go for the mind.

[Roseanna]

I will attempt to answer these from my opinion, and just like you I do not expect others to hold the same opinion I do.

Sept 28, 2010 1:37:24 GMT -5 EDM Neo said:

When someone is under the effects of a domination spell,"obviously self destructive orders" are not carried out under any circumstances, regardless of saving throws. What exactly does an "obviously self-destructive order" entail?

Does this include only things that involve causing yourself obvious bodily harm, like stabbing yourself or jumping off a cliff? What about things that are less direct? For example, giving up a weapon when surrounded by enemies? Surrendering sensitive information? Would a dominated person abide by an order to commit a crime that would carry serious negative repercussions after their capture, up to and including execution?

Stabbing yourself or jumping off a cliff, yes, as it'll result in immediate harm.

Giving over a weapon, no, as it does not generate an -immediate- threat to bodily harm. After all, so long as the domination spell is in effect, the person dominated -should- feel that they are with "the bestest of friends" and won't be harmed.

Surrendering sensitive information, depends on what it is. If they hold some allegiance to not reveal -anything- about what information is trying to be learned though the domination spell and it went 'against their nature' to reveal it outside of that one specific person, then I could see the spell failing. But, if the sensitive information is more 'common knowledge' among many people, I doubt that would go 'against nature'.

Committing an act that the dominated person -knows- will lead themselves to be executed? I would say yes, as that would result in a perceived 'immediate harm' situation. It may not be right now, but if the character would not commit such a crime or would be highly adverse to doing such a crime, it would be 'against their nature' to follow it even if they are not executed immediately.

Sept 28, 2010 1:37:24 GMT -5 EDM Neo said:

When a subject under the effects of a domination spell is "forced to take actions against its nature," they are entitled to a new saving throw at a +2 bonus to throw off the spell's effects. How strongly "against its nature" do these new orders need to be to entitle the subject to its extra save?

...In less extreme cases, however, it's trickier. If the blatantly evil Red Wizard enchanter orders the paladin to do something as mundane as fetch him a glass of water, is this strongly enough against their nature that they'd be entitled to a second save?

For this, I would say the same as I said in the beginning -- the person dominating the character would seem like "the bestest of friends" to the one being dominated, regardless if the person is wearing red robes or not.

I believe for the 'character's nature' to take effect, it must be an extreme reaction. Just "not liking Red Wizards" wouldn't be extreme enough, in my opinion. If the character had a very bad childhood experience where a Red Wizard killed their family members in front of them, and they've taken a vow to eradicate all Red Wizards from the world and have been working on that for all their lives -- that is the extremeness I that I refer to. It must be inherent in the character's nature to avoid -anything- relating to whatever is going on for the save to happen.

Sept 28, 2010 1:37:24 GMT -5 EDM Neo said:

How complete is the control exerted by a domination spell? As per the spell's description, "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." Control over someone's conscious actions is a given. For example, "smile" could be a valid, easily fulfilled order. The caster orders the subject to smile, and the subject smiles.

...For example, while an order to "smile" is easily fulfilled, what about one to "feel happy?" It's simple to feign such, certainly, but what I ponder is if the spell's intent is such as to allow an actual emotion to be forced.

The same applies to other un/semi-conscious or physiological matters that the subject does not normally have conscious control over. If a subject is ordered to fall asleep, will they immediately fall into unconsciousness? If they are ordered to sweat, will they sweat? If ordered to speak about repressed memories, those which the mind does not consciously remember, but which aren't actually completely destroyed as with death amnesia, can the subject do so? What about other unconscious mental processes, such as regarding other emotions, or transferring information from short to long term memory? Etc, etc.

I don't believe feelings can be controlled though a mind-domination spell. The person can be told to smile, as that's just a movement of the mouth, but to order someone to 'feel happy', no. In my opinion, I believe that under the spell people are more inclined to be more like automatons (which the charm spell actually refers to the subject becoming).

Therefore, someone can be told to lie down and look like they're sleeping, but not actually fall asleep. Repressed memories they cannot access themselves would not be revealed to the one dominating the character. Things they cannot remember (through death amnesia or otherwise) would not be learned either. This would require more in lines of consenting hypnosis, which is not what either of these spells achieve. The fact that the dominated character is fighting the effects to some degree reveals that it's not consenting.

Sept 28, 2010 1:37:24 GMT -5 EDM Neo said:

How literally do subjects typically respond to orders? Again, no hard and fast rules on this one, but what would a good guideline be?

...but they answered each of her questions in a completely literal fashion, willfully subverting their obvious intent. No matter how precisely she tried to word her queries so as to close the loopholes used to escape giving a straight answer, another one was always found, until she finally gave up in frustration.

Is this a subversion of the spell's intent?

Again, the spells reference automaton status of the dominated or charmed character. I would take it to mean like a Zombie -- unable to think for themselves and doing things quite literally.

The fact that the Domination spell even mentions "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)" -- meaning, they are being QUITE literal.

While you have a telepathic link to know what is going on in the Domination spell, the one being dominated does not know what's going on in the controller's mind, and therefore cannot know the demeanor or intention of the one who casted the spell.

Again, these are my opinions.

[EDM Neo]

Sept 28, 2010 9:01:43 GMT -5 Kelandros Armelis said:

There are other means to make someone talk if in this case it is desired to make someone talk to gain information. Same with committing acts that are usually not commited by the person who is the intended target.
I personally see the domination as a last resort. If everything else fails, you go for the mind.

For most people, it might be a last resort... for a non-good non-lawful character who's focused in enchantments, well, not necessarily. When considering a problem, "domination magic" is usually one of the first things Rosaline comes up with as a potential solution, but she typically ends up ruling it out because getting around the legal consequences would be a pain. ;p

Thanks for the input thus far, folks.

[Lokarn]

I would agree that the dominated person cannot know the actual intent of a question asked, and instead would be only able to answer literally.

I look at it as there has to be some negative connotations to be able to have complete control over another's mind, such as it limits their own control over their own mind. This in turn limits the ability to comprehend intent, and only allows literal understanding of what is asked.

You may need to stick to clear, concise directions, and questions in order to control them in the way desired.

[Micteu]

Neo, are you trying to open the floodgates? I can see this thread being nine pages long.

[fred]

Sept 28, 2010 11:57:11 GMT -5 Lokarn said:

I would agree that the dominated person cannot know the actual intent of a question asked, and instead would be only able to answer literally.

I wasn't there for the answering-questions-literally episode, but my understanding is it went something like this.

Question: Answer my question truthfully. Did you eat any bacon today?

Answer: I ate cucumbers for breakfast, lollipops for lunch, and kumquats for dinner.

A truthful and literal answer would have been "yes" or "no". The answer given was, instead, a truthful statement that was not an answer to the question asked. A runaround. Notice that the answer does not tell us whether the person ate bacon today.

Not to misrepresent Neo, but I think he's wondering whether giving someone the runaround is something a person under domination would be capable of.

[ancientempathy]

Uh...

But what if they DID NOT eat bacon, and instead DID eat cucumbers for breakfast, lollipops for lunch, and kumquats for dinner.

Not only did they tell the truth, but they told more than what was even asked for? So they, in essence, said no, and went into truthful detail. This shouldn't be incorrect

And not to mention: What if a person straight can't remember?

Edit: It seems it'd be fault of the caster if they can't tell a roundabout response from a dead-truth response. Given the example above, a caster could infer it may be a roundabout response, but in reality it isn't.

Edit 2: OK, so then I realized I've more or less gone back to Mouses statement on this, in that why couldn't the controlled one just say "No?". If they give more detail than what was asked for, it seems this is a free-will action more than of someone under mental domination?

[darinder]

Here's another question that stemmed from an incident a couple of months back.

What is the accepted duration for the Charm/Dominate spells?

According to the game, they're generally specified as some variant of rounds/level (Dominate Monster is turns/level and Mass Charm is hours/level). But I was told that the 3x rules (sorry, don't know if the other player meant 3e or 3.5e) gave the duration for a dominate effect (I think it was Dominate Monster) used on a PC as seven days.

I don't have any of the 3x source materials but I assume the player was correct in his assertion as to duration (after all, how much can you type in a handful of NWN rounds?).

If domination magic looks like it might come into play, folks might want to discuss duration of effects as well as interpretation of such spells - just to halt any arguments before they start (my original interpretation saw a third player waste a dozen charges from an expensive wand).

EDIT: *Slaps self* Re-read the thread and this time took note of Neo's posted spell descriptions wrt "official" durations. Mind you, the question of how long they last IG is still relevant.

[Grozer]

Good discussion topic, Neo you really put some thought behind this. I am not sure I have the answers but after reading what your take on it all I think the two big considerations are 1) consequences and 2) actions.

Based on the spell description, the subject of the domination spell understands the consequences of their actions otherwise they would never be able to ignore "self-destructive" commands. So then my interpretation would be any action that the subject considers "self-destructive" will be ignored. Specific to some of the scenarios you listed out, I do not think a subject would commit a crime if ordered to do so. Well let me qualify that... some might. If the subject doesn't see the crime as self-destructive then they would if that makes sense. For example, some evil bad guy might not care if ordered to burn down a building since they may have done it before and don't have problems with the consequences.

I also think this carries over to a common use of mind domination in game and that is getting information. So if providing the information could result in dire consequences then I believe an argument exists where the subject might not comply. As an example, an evil villain has a group of loyalists dedicated to his efforts. They are each explicitly told revealing any information about the arrangement or assigned tasks would be met with a painful and gruesome punishment, perhaps even death. If dominated and asked specifically, giving out that information would clearly result in something akin to "self destruction". In my opinion, this is opposed to forcing a dominated subject to attack a monster, let's say. While that action also could result in self-destruction, it may not or the monster may be something the subject has faced successfully in the past.

As to the specific, "did you eat bacon?" example I would rely on what I said about consequences. If the question was really that mundane and inconsequential then I think I think it should have been answered simply yes or no. However since this probably wasnt the actual question if the answer had real consequences which created a level of fear in the subject's mind then it might be a valid answer to give the runaround. The runaround answers while not a direct answer as desired, they are truthful yet avoid the "self-destructive" consequences the subject might be fearful of.

As far as the second point I was going to suggest action has something to do with the answer, meaning physical actions can be ordered under the spell but not non-physical actions. However I can think of scenarios where this might not make sense as well.

I was also intrigued by something that came to mind as I read your post. With regard to "commanding" a dominated other un/semi-conscious or physiological matters, can the caster control the subject's memory? I do not see anything in the spell description suggesting the subject would fail to recall the events around the domination, but I have heard/seen situations where the caster "commanded" the subject to forget the domination occurred. To extend your original question, is that even possible? I lean towards no.

Not sure any of that has helped but definitely an interesting topic you laid out here.

[ancientempathy]

Sept 28, 2010 15:06:45 GMT -5 Grozer said:

Good discussion topic, Neo you really put some thought behind this. I am not sure I have the answers but after reading what your take on it all I think the two big considerations are 1) consequences and 2) actions.

Based on the spell description, the subject of the domination spell understands the consequences of their actions otherwise they would never be able to ignore "self-destructive" commands. So then my interpretation would be any action that the subject considers "self-destructive" will be ignored. Specific to some of the scenarios you listed out, I do not think a subject would commit a crime if ordered to do so. Well let me qualify that... some might. If the subject doesn't see the crime as self-destructive then they would if that makes sense. For example, some evil bad guy might not care if ordered to burn down a building since they may have done it before and don't have problems with the consequences.

I also think this carries over to a common use of mind domination in game and that is getting information. So if providing the information could result in dire consequences then I believe an argument exists where the subject might not comply. As an example, an evil villain has a group of loyalists dedicated to his efforts. They are each explicitly told revealing any information about the arrangement or assigned tasks would be met with a painful and gruesome punishment, perhaps even death. If dominated and asked specifically, giving out that information would clearly result in something akin to "self destruction". In my opinion, this is opposed to forcing a dominated subject to attack a monster, let's say. While that action also could result in self-destruction, it may not or the monster may be something the subject has faced successfully in the past.

As to the specific, "did you eat bacon?" example I would rely on what I said about consequences. If the question was really that mundane and inconsequential then I think I think it should have been answered simply yes or no. However since this probably wasnt the actual question if the answer had real consequences which created a level of fear in the subject's mind then it might be a valid answer to give the runaround. The runaround answers while not a direct answer as desired, they are truthful yet avoid the "self-destructive" consequences the subject might be fearful of.

As far as the second point I was going to suggest action has something to do with the answer, meaning physical actions can be ordered under the spell but not non-physical actions. However I can think of scenarios where this might not make sense as well.

I was also intrigued by something that came to mind as I read your post. With regard to "commanding" a dominated other un/semi-conscious or physiological matters, can the caster control the subject's memory? I do not see anything in the spell description suggesting the subject would fail to recall the events around the domination, but I have heard/seen situations where the caster "commanded" the subject to forget the domination occurred. To extend your original question, is that even possible? I lean towards no.

Not sure any of that has helped but definitely an interesting topic you laid out here.

Amazing response, and one I agree on entirely.

To help address the question: yes actually, there 'is' a spell that can erase memories, alter/input memories, and rework them. At least I think the spells dynamics are that. Off the top of my head I can't remember its name, but it is a 7th or 8th level spell, so its a powerful spell. One clearly not available in NwN.

Speaking from my own stance now:

Clearly someone with death amnesia can't be made to remember something that simply isn't there. This would void the 30 minute memory loss clause we have in pvp. However, memory that has been severely repressed, can the spell be used for that?

Hypnotism is a practiced used on individuals to help recall very repressed memories. If the domination spell and its questioning could be used to provide hypnotic suggestions and advise to the one under control, for they to remember what the caster wishes...Then yes, I suppose it'd be possible. However, I think that'd be a stretch of the spell. In short, an expected response from someone dominated should be reflecting the "here and now". Not to mention if someone repressed the memory, maybe its because it was self-destructive in some way? Be it physical or psychological

[Lokarn]

I seem to remember a DM stating that when the spell ends, the person remembers that they were dominated. I want to say they also remember everything they did, but I am not sure about that.

To Mouse:

I completely dissagree with people who are dominated giving answers that do not actually answer the question asked.

This to me is not much different from being ordered to attack her enemies, and the dominated PC starts attacking something clearly not an enemy of the caster.

IF the answer to an asked question does have potential to be harmfull then the answer would be more akin to an emote of. *Makes no attempt to answer, possibly due to harmfull consequences*

We need to figure out if we are considering harmfull consequences due to revealing info, can be one of the commands that may be ignored.

[fred]

Sept 28, 2010 16:23:30 GMT -5 Lokarn said:

IF the answer to an asked question does have potential to be harmfull then the answer would be more akin to an emote of. *Makes no attempt to answer, possibly due to harmfull consequences*

We need to figure out if we are considering harmfull consequences due to revealing info, can be one of the commands that may be ignored.

Right, I think that's really the question. Of course, if the person asking the questions is hostile, as they often would be, answering the question will be potentially harmful to the person under the domination. So, what sort of responses are, or are not possible in this situation?

If we posit that the person answering will always answer completely and truthfully, I think we'd run into some problems, because, hey, I think I'll just hire Rose to dominate every evil person on the server and find out all their secrets and, oh yeah, let's get the keys to their guild halls while we're at it and charge in and burn 'em all down. That just seems stupid and un-fun.

On the other hand, if we say that the person answering just doesn't have to answer at all, then a domination is just pointless, and that doesn't seem right, either.

Not to focus on this particular aspect of domination, because Neo brings up some other questions, some of which I've run into lately also. For example, the self-destructive orders, or weird things like "fall asleep now and forget everything that's just happened". I'd like to know how those are handled in-game.

[EDM Neo]

Sept 28, 2010 12:16:26 GMT -5 Micteu said:

Neo, are you trying to open the floodgates? I can see this thread being nine pages long.

Yes, yes I am. UNLEASH THE WAVES OF POSTS!



...



Yeah, anyway. About to go to class, so don't really have time to type up full responses, but thanks for the reactions thus far, I'm looking forward to reading more.

darinder's question about spell durations is a very good one. My own inclination is that the ingame duration (on dominate person) is too short, and it should typically be roleplayed as longer, but just how much longer is more debatable.

Mouse basically pinned down what I meant to be asking.

[Spells]

With Alora I have always used multi use for the spells, for instance for charm person, I may use to just have them like me a lot to do something I want, or I may lay a spell so that they perceive something as something completely different (for instance make character A think that character B is someone other than who they actually are for a short time. Many times they may have a memory of doing something, but it may be hazy or not quite remembered as well as they may like (I have always just guessed that on the power of who cast the spell)

For domination I have always though of it as a direct control thing.
If someone dominated Elrean, and told her to tell them where so and so is, she would tell them because she is directly controlled by the individual, similar to hold person, where I have always seen it as the person held knows what is going on, they just can't do anything about it. Making them directly hurt themselves I have usually seen as a balancing reason, but for a RP reason behind it one could argue that it in someway has to do with how exactly a person is controlled would in some way counter magic being used.

As far as someone running around dominating/charming everyone, yes it is possible, just like it is possible for a necromancer to kill someone and raise there remains to do what they wish with them, but if you see evil person and you can dominate them, then you can kill them with other spells just as easily, if your trying to use them to get inside some temple's grounds or to have them do something, then that is mostly what the spell is for though RP wise it would still have to be watched, because a charmed person may not be as noticeable, but also has to have a lot more work done on them to get what the enchating person wants, and not get caught (charmed people are still the same most times, just with some added influences so I always though) and dominated people I would think would be noticeable different in how they act.

On a side note it may also be worth thinking about how skilled the charmer is in there area, maybe going off of how high the spell's DC would be for how exactly the differences in the person would be, Entori who is much more powerful, and fairly well studied specifically in enchantments (spell focuses feats if I OOCly understood what was said in IC) should be able to make a much better charm, then say Jamon who has nothing in the field, and focuses on making magical items and potions. It seems silly that the spells effects would be the same when the spell types are left so open ended.

Anyways that is my inexperienced two cents. I never played PnP so I can't speak for that overly much, but though I would give my understanding just from looking at NWNs.

[Deleted]

Sept 28, 2010 12:39:13 GMT -5 fred said:

Not to misrepresent Neo, but I think he's wondering whether giving someone the runaround is something a person under domination would be capable of.

I don't think they should be able to do this. If they feel they cannot answer a question because it will result in their death (assuming that argument for avoiding answering proves valid) then they shouldn't be able to prevaricate like that. Instead they should have some noticeably intense reaction ... like visibly recoiling and being unable to speak ... or whimpering that they cannot say that, etc.

[iangallowglas]

I don't see the domination spell forcing the character dominated to answer any questions at all. Control their physical actions, sure. But not make you answer specific questions. You could make them not talk, or talk continuously with no control over what they say, but the spell is not a magical truth serum. I also think this spell is easily abusable and should only be used with a DM involved. The same goes for charm person, although you could get a person to talk with that spell, but charm person still gives the character targeted the control over what he says, and IMO should only be used with DM involvement.

In my opinion, using the domination spell could never be considered a "good" act. Forcing someone or something to do something against their nature, to me, can never be a good thing, even if the person is rotten to the core and plan on killing everything in site. At best it's neutral, and IMO should cause a good aligned character that routinely uses the dominate spell (on people or monsters) to have an alignment shift towards neutral. Neutral and evil characters could use the spell at will with little in the way of consequences, although use of a dominate spell to murder people would be an evil act, and should shift the characters alignment to evil.

I personally wouldn't use charm or dominate spells on PC's and only on NPC's, even if my characters would be happy to do this on a regular basis. I think it should require the consent of both players to be used in a CvC situation, and only used with DM supervision. To me this spell just opens up to many problems and could easily lead to hard feeling between players, and meta-gaming issues. If I was playing an evil character and someone used this on me and said "now you have to tell me everything you know and everything your character is doing", I'd say not until a DM says I have to.

I suppose people might see that as a cop out, but without any official DM ruling, it's up to the interpretation of the people involved as to what this spell will yield, and one persons interpretation is just as good as the next persons in that instance and my interpretation is that the spell dominate would not force a character to answer questions, only perform actions. Your the puppet master, you can make my character dance, but you can't make him sing.

[ancientempathy]

I like what Ian said a lot.

You can control the actions of any humanoid creature through a telepathic link that you establish with the subject’s mind.

That's quoted from the Domination description, and if you were to take 'action' in a literal sense, wherein its pure physical manipulation: such as to run, jump, hike, and so forth; you really aren't given room to infer the spell can be used as a means to press onto the controlled person to acquire information.

Aren't there actual spells specific for this, infact?

Off and on, I've often considered the use of Domination for information as a bit of a stretch, but generally players are also good at negotiating things between each other. We all interpret differently, and maybe this is why DnD made such a spell so vague to help promote creative thinking.

[Grozer]

Sept 29, 2010 8:24:46 GMT -5 iangallowglas said:

I don't see the domination spell forcing the character dominated to answer any questions at all. Control their physical actions, sure. But not make you answer specific questions. You could make them not talk, or talk continuously with no control over what they say, but the spell is not a magical truth serum. I also think this spell is easily abusable and should only be used with a DM involved.

For a long while I used to feel the exact opposite but after reading Neo's long winded OP (kidding Neo) it really brought out a few things. The spell descriptions really do reference "action", of course they do not say specifically physical action versus non-physical, i.e. forcing someone to tell the truth. So its left open to interpretation I guess.

At the same time, if they sincerely intended domination to be a spell which completely controls the subject, forcing the subject to do "whatever" the caster intends, for example truthfully reveal the secrets of the realm (exaggerating of course) then doesn't this potentially allow any player to spoil just about any plot, story, campaign? I mean if it was really that simple to just mind control key NPCs and learn the secrets needed to complete a quest.... umm wouldn't that kind of ruin the whole basis of a plot? I could be way off but it seems to me if that's the case, Cormyr really should never be in "danger" ever again right? Considering the number of War Wizards at its disposal they could dominate every potential "criminal" type and foil any ill-conceived plots in the planning stages.

[The Supreme Watcher]

Grozer - Clarity. All the War Wizards in the world can cast all the domination spells they want, but if someone's prepared to counter it, they're boned. Furthermore, I don't think players should be penalized for having invested in a spell with valid RP uses. Come on - they could take Wail of the Banshee instead, then all the RP you get out of it is *dies*.

I think Domination can be used to question an individual, and I would not be averse to it. Honestly, if you're that worried that you're going to spill the beans on your guild, don't p.o. someone with Dominate. There are NO other options in NWN to accommodate this usage, and as this spell is limited to only the highest levels of casters, I think people should get SOME liberty with its usage.

I can see DM oversight being necessary to prevent some abuse, but I don't think this needs to be a 'can I do this?' thing. It should be an agreement between players: you don't be a dick, and I won't be a dick back. Sort of how I envision Detect Evil to be used in a player v. player situation.

Er... of note, I'm talking about Dominate Monster. Dominate Person is lower level, but it's ultimately far less useful and so I've omitted it in favor of Dominate Monster.

[EDM Neo]

I don't think that being able to force someone to answer questions is outside the scope of the spell, or that it's overpowered for the spell level. In PnP, it's normal for parties with casters to use magic to try to solve plots. Dominate Person is a level 5 spell, and so it can't be cast until level 9, and Dominate Monster is a level 9 spell, meaning it can't be cast until level 17. To cite some other spell effects of similar levels...

Speak with Dead is a level 3 cleric spell that lets you force a dead person to answer questions for you, with a will save to negate.

Contact Other Plane is a level 5 wizard/sorcerer that allows you to ask questions of powerful beings on other planes (including deities) and to have a fair chance of receiving true one word answers. An intelligence check is required to avoid repercussions for doing so, but it's not difficult to succeed at if you take the right precautions, and you can be reasonably certain that the answers you receive are true by casting it multiple times.

Commune is a level 5 cleric spell that lets them effectively do the same, only with their own deity, at the cost of a small amount of experience, and without the same risk that they'll be lied to or have the spell backfire.

Mindrape is a level 9 wizard/sorcerer spell from the Book of Vile Darkness. It, on a failed will save, instantly gives the caster full access to all of the victim's memories, and freedom to change them (and the subject's personality in general - alignment, etc) at will.

Wish is a level 9 sorcerer/wizard spell, Miracle is a level 9 cleric spell. I don't think I really need to go into detail about these, do I?

And even these aside, is "get a few questions answered on a failed will save, but allow an additional will save each time you ask a question that it'd go against the subject's nature to answer" really all that overpowering compared to "fail a saving throw (or two) and *die instantly*," or "fail a saving throw and *become a statue forever*," or "fail a saving throw and *go insane forever*?"

Fact of the matter is, PnP casters have many different means at their disposal to use magic to influence plots. This doesn't mean that plots are "instantly ruined," though, just that DMs need to adapt. There are plenty of ways to counter domination... and if the PCs managed to capture a key NPC, they have more ways than one to force information from them. Domination is probably the least messy, but it still requires a failed will save. Unless the plot-critical character is a paladin, there's no reason that, say, blackmail or torture wouldn't *eventually* yield the information you need. Or do our evil PCs rule out the possibility of torturing someone for information, because they might reveal plot critical stuff that the torturers weren't meant to hear yet?

If all of the plot crucial information is held by unprotected people with low will saves, and the person designing the plot knew that there was a fair chance casters would get involved, well, it's really their own fault then. If it's possible to easily dominate them, it's probably possible for level 9 characters to easily do dozens of other things to them as well. Bully them, kill them, etc.

In the case of PC-run plots, it's a little different, because there's no higher force that dictates what level people get involved... whereas with a DM run plot, if something's super-vulnerable to domination magic and a caster with dominate is involved, it's basically the DM's fault for not making it an appropriate challenge... but the high level vs low level thing really seems like it's best reserved for another topic, it's really an entirely separate issue.

The "is domination magic evil" thing is also best reserved for another topic, I think. Whether or not it's ICly wrong is less important to figure out now than what it's actually capable of doing.

[828stingstingneo]

I agree with Neoseanster with the first and second bullets. You have to use some common sense in interpreting the spell description so it doesn't become completely useless. Giving up a weapon is not inherently self-destructive. It'll just allow others to destroy you better. Being affected by someone who is using a dominate spell on you doesn't inherently count as doing something against your nature.

As far as bullet three, because of the word "actions" in the description of the dominate spell I would say you cannot affect how the subject feels. You can make him smile but not feel happy. You can try to make the subject sleep, but if the subject isn't tired I don't think it would work. I would interpret sleeping as within the limits of your abilities only if you're tired enough to sleep. Sweating is more of a reaction than an action. Likewise, I don't believe you can bring forth suppressed memories since remembering something is not an action.

After some thought I am also inclined to agree with Ian that it doesn't sound as though the spell should work as a truth serum. "You can control the actions of any humanoid creature through a telepathic link that you establish with the subject’s mind." To me, this means I can telepathically force someone through the action of speech to say either, "I ate bacon today," or, "I did not eat bacon today," but not to force the subject to mentally retrieve information (a non-action) to reveal to me in his own words whether or not he actually had bacon that day. Going further with this interpretation, I believe I'd be able to dominate someone to hand me his sword which I see him carrying. However, if I don't know about the darts hidden in his cloak, I can't dominate him into revealing them. I can have him stand still while I search for such things manually, however, or even get him to pat himself down. "You know what the subject is experiencing, but you do not receive direct sensory input from it," means to me that I will be aware when the subject experiences the darts' presence though I won't know exactly what they feel like. I guess I see domination as controlling the body up to the point that you can control your own body (as long as saves are failed) but not accessing or controlling the mind any more than knowing the subject's present experiences (as opposed to the knowledge he may have about various subjects including his past consumption of bacon). Sound good?

[Grozer]

Sept 29, 2010 9:20:02 GMT -5 The Supreme Watcher said:

Grozer - Clarity. All the War Wizards in the world can cast all the domination spells they want, but if someone's prepared to counter it, they're boned. Furthermore, I don't think players should be penalized for having invested in a spell with valid RP uses. Come on - they could take Wail of the Banshee instead, then all the RP you get out of it is *dies*.

I think Domination can be used to question an individual, and I would not be averse to it. Honestly, if you're that worried that you're going to spill the beans on your guild, don't p.o. someone with Dominate. There are NO other options in NWN to accommodate this usage, and as this spell is limited to only the highest levels of casters, I think people should get SOME liberty with its usage.

While I may generally play an evil PC nearly all the time, my example as used above had absolutely nothing to do with my own play. I was more thinking about it from a DMs perspective. Lets see, as a DM I put all this effort into a super creative detailed plot with lots of twists and turns and with one spell everything is revealed. Seems a little powerful to me. You don't have to agree, I am not trying to win anyone over to my opinion. I honestly don't think the intent of the spell is this extreme.

The person is not mindless when they are held by a dominate spell, they are conscious as to what is going on or they could not even resist self=destructive orders or ignore orders if basic necessities of life need to be satisfied first, i.e. eat when hungry. So I do not believe the extent of the spell extends to draining the person of all secrets and information that they might not ever part with even under extreme circumstances. To me controlling "actions" is a physical action, the word implies some type of movement. Anyway I am just rambling.

Fortunately that liberty you are citing for casters is not a one-sided street. Just as the caster or for that matter any player, should be allowed liberties with the game in the spirit of fun for everyone, the subject is also allowed some liberties. So truthful answers that avoid the question to me is also a "liberty".

Sept 29, 2010 9:20:02 GMT -5 The Supreme Watcher said:

I can see DM oversight being necessary to prevent some abuse, but I don't think this needs to be a 'can I do this?' thing. It should be an agreement between players: you don't be a dick, and I won't be a dick back. Sort of how I envision Detect Evil to be used in a player v. player situation.

If you read closely I am not the one who suggested DM oversight of these scenarios, Ian did. Personally I have no problem working it out with a reasonable player ahead of time who allows liberties on both sides of the coin. In fact as I said I generally used to think dominate person allowed questioning and I have used it that way in game. However I am not so sure it was the right thing to do.

[Grozer]

Sept 29, 2010 8:24:46 GMT -5 iangallowglas said:

In my opinion, using the domination spell could never be considered a "good" act.

Actually not certain I agree with that, since dominating another person to me I see as more lawful vs chaotic not good vs evil. I could see a CG person using dominate as a means to an end. Then again for me it would be question of intent and what "actions" were ordered of the subject to determine the alignment of using the spell. But this if for a different topic.

[EDM Entori]

Sept 29, 2010 11:44:51 GMT -5 Grozer said:

Sept 29, 2010 9:20:02 GMT -5 The Supreme Watcher said:

Grozer - Clarity. All the War Wizards in the world can cast all the domination spells they want, but if someone's prepared to counter it, they're boned. Furthermore, I don't think players should be penalized for having invested in a spell with valid RP uses. Come on - they could take Wail of the Banshee instead, then all the RP you get out of it is *dies*.

I think Domination can be used to question an individual, and I would not be averse to it. Honestly, if you're that worried that you're going to spill the beans on your guild, don't p.o. someone with Dominate. There are NO other options in NWN to accommodate this usage, and as this spell is limited to only the highest levels of casters, I think people should get SOME liberty with its usage.

While I may generally play an evil PC nearly all the time, my example as used above had absolutely nothing to do with my own play. I was more thinking about it from a DMs perspective. Lets see, as a DM I put all this effort into a super creative detailed plot with lots of twists and turns and with one spell everything is revealed. Seems a little powerful to me. You don't have to agree, I am not trying to win anyone over to my opinion. I honestly don't think the intent of the spell is this extreme.

The person is not mindless when they are held by a dominate spell, they are conscious as to what is going on or they could not even resist self=destructive orders or ignore orders if basic necessities of life need to be satisfied first, i.e. eat when hungry. So I do not believe the extent of the spell extends to draining the person of all secrets and information that they might not ever part with even under extreme circumstances. To me controlling "actions" is a physical action, the word implies some type of movement. Anyway I am just rambling.

Fortunately that liberty you are citing for casters is not a one-sided street. Just as the caster or for that matter any player, should be allowed liberties with the game in the spirit of fun for everyone, the subject is also allowed some liberties. So truthful answers that avoid the question to me is also a "liberty".

Sept 29, 2010 9:20:02 GMT -5 The Supreme Watcher said:

I can see DM oversight being necessary to prevent some abuse, but I don't think this needs to be a 'can I do this?' thing. It should be an agreement between players: you don't be a dick, and I won't be a dick back. Sort of how I envision Detect Evil to be used in a player v. player situation.

If you read closely I am not the one who suggested DM oversight of these scenarios, Ian did. Personally I have no problem working it out with a reasonable player ahead of time who allows liberties on both sides of the coin. In fact as I said I generally used to think dominate person allowed questioning and I have used it that way in game. However I am not so sure it was the right thing to do.

(I qoute the above to be used below after my intial point)

these spells and their limits are mechanical, nothing that directly causes harm can be done, obviously you can make them fight for you and amongst other things.

----------

I disagree that dm's should have the right for "story line purposes" to ignore roles and checks and spells. I've had it happen before, and truely its highly annoying, there are ways for causing the story to arc in the way you wanted without having the people captured, reveal everything.

A dm can just have the character die from a geas, or something else.

spells of mind warding can prevent such spells as can items, and dms can create any item they wish on a npc.

As for using it vs a pc.

sure be a bit liberal but if you get dominated, well you lost the save, and you got yourself into a situation where it got used, roll with it.I think questioning under domination is a bit beyond the scope of the spell

it is not Zone of truth or any of those spells..

*LAST MYTHAL NOVEL SPOILERS BELOW*




in one scene, in the LAst Mythal series, such a spell was used, and the creature it was used on was not forced to speak, and every time he was he "resisted" (sounds like a roll to me) and failed, then he had to do an action forced.

I think multiple rolls after each answer is given would make sense.

Now sure this is creative fluff, but I akin our RP to the novels, "brining them to life".

sometimes though someones gotta loose.

[EDM Entori]

Sept 29, 2010 11:50:20 GMT -5 Grozer said:

Sept 29, 2010 8:24:46 GMT -5 iangallowglas said:

In my opinion, using the domination spell could never be considered a "good" act.

Actually not certain I agree with that, since dominating another person to me I see as more lawful vs chaotic not good vs evil. I could see a CG person using dominate as a means to an end. Then again for me it would be question of intent and what "actions" were ordered of the subject to determine the alignment of using the spell. But this if for a different topic.

I agree with Grozer here, but DM Hackmaster once pointed out

a Dominated person is considered a hostage, and in DND, when a person is "helpless" then harming a helpless person is an evil act I believe. or at least killing them is, now I've had a hard time wrapping my head around this aspect as it applies to all sorts of NWN spells, hold person, hold monster, bigbes, sleep, (list goes on).

but a dominated person is at your mercy, to then turn them to their deaths is evil.

Now to me this seems secondary to the other conditions that are good and evil.


to preemptive strike against a group of orcs who are about to attack your village is not evil.

if a Demon is laying waste to your allies, and then you dominate monster it, and turn it against your foes, well.. the scales to me still tip good, as it is a demon(hardly innocent) and you are saving lives.

like anything else though it is a balancing act to weather or not you'll hold good, take a few evil points, but you definitly won't get good points for it, so probably what I would call a "fence sitter act".

[EDM Neo]

I renamed this thread "On the Mechanics of Domination Magic," and made a new one entitled "On the Morality of Domination Magic," so that both conversations could continue without detracting from each other.

[ManyAsOne]

I just woke up, so I'm going to do my best to make sure I make some manner of sense here. I apologize if it comes out a garbled mess. Coffee's brewing as we speak.

* When someone is under the effects of a domination spell,"obviously self destructive orders" are not carried out under any circumstances, regardless of saving throws. What exactly does an "obviously self-destructive order" entail?

Does this include only things that involve causing yourself obvious bodily harm, like stabbing yourself or jumping off a cliff? What about things that are less direct? For example, giving up a weapon when surrounded by enemies? Surrendering sensitive information? Would a dominated person abide by an order to commit a crime that would carry serious negative repercussions after their capture, up to and including execution?

My own first inclination would be that the only explicitly barred acts are those that will obviously directly cause direct bodily harm. It would just limit the spell -way- too much to include everything that's somehow or another self-destructive. In most cases, succumbing to a domination spell at all will ultimately be destructive towards the target, and this should be obvious when the first order a dominated orc is given is "stop attacking us, attack those other orcs," but if it was considered obviously self destructive as is barred by the spell, nothing would happen at all.

Ah, good old mind-effecting magic. Okay, here's how I see it:

The definition of self-destructive isn't concrete. It varies based off of the situation, the command given, the threat it entails, and your DM. In terms of traditional pen-and-paper, this question is pretty easily solved by simply asking your DM. But, here on FRC, where a DM isn't always present or available, and opinions might change from one DM to another, there is indeed a gray area.

My own interpretation is that 'self-destructive' is anything that the individual does to themselves that would cause them direct harm. For example, if I were to dominate someone and asked them to jump into a pit of lava, the command simply wouldn't work. Direct harm to one's self isn't possible. Likewise, if I asked someone to drink a vial of poison, they wouldn't have to. They are taking an action that will cause them direct harm.

However, indirect harm as a result of a harmless action taken can be a bit more forgiving. For example, I'd say that ordering a goblin to surrender his weapon, even though that leaves him open to attack, is perfectly reasonable. The action itself isn't self-destructive. No harm will come to him in the act of laying his blade, cudgel, spear, what-have-you on the ground. The harm comes later, if you choose to then attack him. And I think the 'if' there is important, because it makes a distinction between a directly harmful act and an act that has the potential to cause indirect harm.

This is also why its possible to dominate someone and turn them on their allies (though this may grant a saving throw with a bonus to their saving throw if against their nature). Sure, leaping into battle can cause you harm, but it isn't assured. There's no direct harm to yourself in attacking someone. You aren't hurting yourself in swinging a sword and if you are a hardened adventurer, you've done it often enough to know that battle doesn't lead to self-destruction. The harm caused is indirect if they defend themselves and only if you, in turn, cannot defend yourself.

In cases where an individual is asked to surrender sensitive information, I'm of the mind that they must. There is no direct harm in speaking, hence and individual is forced to give up whatever information they're asked to, regardless of what their boss told them in terms of punishment for doing such. Their boss's threats are not a clear and present danger and the act of speaking information will not kill or harm the individual. The punishment the boss deals out later is an indirect result of their action taken.

Similarly, asking someone to commit a crime is permissible (though again, a bonus to their save may be warranted if its outside their nature to do so). They punishment for the crime is irrelevant, as the act of committing the crime doesn't directly harm the individual. There's no threat of harm or death in reaching into someone's coin-purse and pulling out a fistful of coins. Sure, in some lands this could result in all manner of horrible things, like jail time, the removal of the offending hand, or even someone being stoned to death in the town square (though you'd have to live somewhere pretty damned harsh to get executed for pickpocketing). But the point is that the punishment has nothing to do with the act requested of the dominated individual. No more harmful then being dominated and being forced to attack your allies (the most common usage of the spell). The act itself is not directly harmful, and hence permissible in the boundaries of the spell.

Again, this is just my own interpretation.

* When a subject under the effects of a domination spell is "forced to take actions against its nature," they are entitled to a new saving throw at a +2 bonus to throw off the spell's effects. How strongly "against its nature" do these new orders need to be to entitle the subject to its extra save?

In extreme cases, it's obvious. If you dominate a paladin and order them to massacre babies, that's so strongly, obviously opposed to their lawful good nature that they're almost definately allowed the new save. In less extreme cases, however, it's trickier. If the blatantly evil Red Wizard enchanter orders the paladin to do something as mundane as fetch him a glass of water, is this strongly enough against their nature that they'd be entitled to a second save?

For most of my characters, it would be "against their nature" to do -anything- at the request of a hostile mage who put them under the effects of a domination spell, whether it was to attack their friends, to reveal sensitive information, or even just to walk out of town and leave the caster be. However, to claim such seems kind of like it might be an abuse of the spell's wording. If the intent was to allow "actions against [your] nature" to be stretched this far, they'd have just gone ahead and said that issuing any kind of order entitles the target to a new save.

There can never be a hard and fast ruling on a subjective matter like this, but what do you suppose makes for a good guideline?

This, perhaps more-so than the first point, is another gray area. Largely because this not only hinges on the opinion of the DM, but may possible hinge on the attitude of a player's character as well.

Having that said, I think the caster's own disposition (in this case we'll go with the evil Red Wizard) has much less to do with it than the act being requested of the victim of the spell (the paladin). Sure, it is outside of the paladin's nature to do anything for the Red Wizard, but, as you stated, it borders on abuse of the spell's wording to call for a bonus to your save every time the Red Wizard asks for a glass of water.

'Nature', in this case, I would define as alignment and personal disposition as it relates to the command. Is the act of fetching a glass of water in any way a violation of the paladin's alignment, ethics, or moral code of conduct? I would say 'no'. The water isn't evil. There would be no harm brought about in bringing the glass of water, save perhaps the evil that is the parching of a wicked wizard's thirst (truly heinous, indeed). Acts that do not bring about a direct conflict in nature should be permissible without a saving throw.

If, however, the Red Wizard were to ask the paladin to do something that's a bit more explicit, there could be a saving throw. For example, the controlled paladin watches the Red Wizard pen a writ that would result in the beating of ten Thayan slaves. The Red Wizard then asks his new thrall to deliver the writ to the slave-masters who will deliver the beating. Now, while not directly causing the harm himself, the paladin is now being asked to do something that will bring about the harm of others. In delivering the writ, ten slaves will be pummeled mercilessly.

I would say the above would grant a save, even though it isn't the paladin doing the beating. He knows the result of the writ's delivery and if he were to deliver it, he'd bring about said result. On the flip side of things, if the paladin was asked to deliver the writ with no knowledge of what it contains or the result would be, no bonus to the save should be granted, as delivering a scrap of paper isn't in conflict with the paladin's 'nature'. Regardless of the fact that the person asking it is a wicked Red Wizard.

Another way of looking at is it that the spell forces an individual to comply with the caster. Once the mind-effecting magic has taken hold, it is now considered in the paladin's nature to obey the caster's requests. The asking of mundane acts, regardless of the paladin's disposition to the caster, will not grant additional saves because it is now in the paladin's nature to comply. Its only when the caster makes a request that forces a moral choice that a save should be granted, and only if the request is in direct conflict of the choice the paladin would normally make.

* How complete is the control exerted by a domination spell? As per the spell's description, "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." Control over someone's conscious actions is a given. For example, "smile" could be a valid, easily fulfilled order. The caster orders the subject to smile, and the subject smiles.

There's no mention made, however, if this extends to matters that are within the subject's abilities, but that the subject doesn't necessarily have direct, conscious control over. For example, while an order to "smile" is easily fulfilled, what about one to "feel happy?" It's simple to feign such, certainly, but what I ponder is if the spell's intent is such as to allow an actual emotion to be forced.

The same applies to other un/semi-conscious or physiological matters that the subject does not normally have conscious control over. If a subject is ordered to fall asleep, will they immediately fall into unconsciousness? If they are ordered to sweat, will they sweat? If ordered to speak about repressed memories, those which the mind does not consciously remember, but which aren't actually completely destroyed as with death amnesia, can the subject do so? What about other unconscious mental processes, such as regarding other emotions, or transferring information from short to long term memory? Etc, etc.

I believe the orders given must be something the individual is capable of carrying out, spell or no. Its impossible to sweat on command (... I think?), and thus when asked to do so while under the effect of the spell, you're likely to have someone try their best, but fail horribly. If you order someone to fall asleep, again, they will try their best, but if they're fully rested, suffer from insomnia, in an area that's exceptionally noisy, or anything else that normally bars them from sleeping, they will have to lie down and try, but since they've little to no control over feeling tired, success will vary.

In regards to memories and the subconscious mind, again... I think anything the individual is not normally capable of will not work. The spell permits control over an individual, it does not grant the victim any new abilities, insights, or mental faculties. If someone suffers from amnesia, you cannot use the spell to recover those memories because the individual isn't capable of doing so themselves. Again, the spell doesn't grant the victim any manner of additional cognitive abilities, it simply compels them to obey orders to the best of their abilities.

As the spell puts it: "you can generally force the subject to perform as you desire, within the limits of its abilities". You can't force what isn't already there.

As a side note, I want to explicitly state that any means of trying to circumvent the PvP death-amnesia on FRC is not permitted unless a DM is doing it, and chances are if they are doing something along those lines, they're also talking to the rest of the Team beforehand.

* How literally do subjects typically respond to orders? Again, no hard and fast rules on this one, but what would a good guideline be? To use an anecdotal example to help explain what it is I'm trying to ask, Rosaline recently dominated another PC, after I talked the process over with their player.

Having not seen it before, I was happy enough to let it slide the first time as a clever way to squirm out of a domination, but they answered each of her questions in a completely literal fashion, willfully subverting their obvious intent. No matter how precisely she tried to word her queries so as to close the loopholes used to escape giving a straight answer, another one was always found, until she finally gave up in frustration.

Is this a subversion of the spell's intent? Again, I thought it was clever the first time, and so I don't hold any hard feelings over it against the player who pulled it, but it seems to me that it would make the spell more or less pointless if it could always be employed.

First and foremost, the person should be granted an additional saving throw with each question if its information they would normally never give up. Having that said, if they failed, its my own opinion that 'loop-holing' the spell is an absolute violation of the rules. If you're asked to give the location of your secret base and you fail your saving throw, you must tell the caster where it is. You aren't permitted to use your own will or judgment, because... well, you have no will of your own.

The spell states that the victim performs as the caster desires. If the caster desires clear, concise, and direct answers, that's what they should be getting. To this point, the book also states:

"You can control the actions of any humanoid creature through a telepathic link that you establish with the subject’s mind".

As a result its my opinion that there's simply no room for interpretation on the victim's part. If they share a language with the caster, they get a complete picture of what the caster wants and can't feign ignorance or try to find a loop-hole. They must answer the questions completely, directly, and without any attempt to subvert the spell. Again, they should be granted an additional save at a bonus if giving up the information is in conflict with their nature, but the simple fact is that the spell's wording is clear in this case and that the victim must comply completely if they've failed their saves.

I don't see the domination spell forcing the character dominated to answer any questions at all. Control their physical actions, sure. But not make you answer specific questions. You could make them not talk, or talk continuously with no control over what they say, but the spell is not a magical truth serum.

Finally, to this point, I have to disagree. When it comes to magical domination, by definition, the spell is 'mind-effecting', not 'body-effecting'. If you've failed your will saving throws and are interrogated by the caster, you are required to comply. Your will is no longer your own. They say jump, you say 'how high?'. They say "tell me where the plans to the death star are", you say "yes, Lord Vader" and do your absolute best to convey said information, since you are under the effects of a 'mind-effecting' spell.

And, yes, there are spells such as Zone of Truth that cover this, however there's no rule that states that what one spell covers, another spell must avoid. That's why Dominate Person is level 5 and Zone of Truth is only level 2. The spell grants complete control, whereas Zone of Truth's control is exceptionally limited.

Dominate Person states: "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." I just don't see much wiggle room there. I prefer the hard-lined approach, though. My opinion is that broad interpretation opens up for abuse. If the spell says you're forced to comply, you're forced to comply. If too much interpretation is permitted beyond the text, more and more loop-holes appear until you have a relatively useless spell.

Granted, I'm not a Blue-Box veteran, but I've played for a decade and generally speaking, that's always been the approach I've witnessed and taken for my own campaigns.

Anyhow, my two cents.

[canuckkane]

I am uncertain if this has been covered or not, but IF the dominated subject makes the save on information they would not normally divulge for any reason and fails to answer can the question be asked repeatedly forcing further rolls to save or is it simply they will never answer that question? What about rewording the question as well?

[Lokarn]

I have a some question(s), somewhat related to Canuck's.

Let's say the caster asks you to tell them where you hid the stolen goods.

Let's assume this is completely against your nature.

You now get a new will save.

Is the caster aware of you getting a new will save?

Does the caster know the result of the save? [without any help from the dominated person, IE they scream and attack, or whatever.]

And lastly, If you succede on one of the extra saves, does that then break the spell's hold on you?

Thanks

edited, as I asked more than one question