Dominate Person, how does it work?

[Dairuga]

So, a person in question managed to dominate a person prior to combat starting (or on the very first turn), and since the only enemy was this one humanoid that was dominated, there was little need for a fight.

THen, the player commands the dominated creature to take off its items / clothing, and the DM declares that this is against the creature's nature, and that it recieves a new saving throw with a bonus.

So that begets the question, Does Dominate Person's new saving throw mean that the entire spell ends if the new saving throw succeeds, or does it mean that it refuses to do the action committed?

Now, obviously, the most logical conclusion would be that upon succeeding the second save, the entire spell ends and the creature is no longer dominated. But then again, in contrast to a Fascinate effect, for example, that explicitly states that any threats automatically breaks the fascination, the Dominate HUmanoid text only states:
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.

So what is the answer here? Would the saving throw prevent the creature from fulfilling the orders against its nature, or would it mean the spell breaks entirely?

[bobthe6th]

break the spell, as "a new saving throw" is the same as the first throw "will negates"

so yeah, but much like illusions, what allows this throw is mostly up to the DM

[legomaster00156]

So... it's against this creature's nature to get undressed and unarmed? Do they just clean themselves with their armor on? :smallconfused:

[137beth]

I don't think they take of their armor and clothing to clean themselves in front of a group of armed adventurers. Most creatures would wait for another time. Also, if the player told the dominated NPC to GIVE HIM his armor, that might fall under the category of giving powerful items to your enemies, which is against its nature:smallwink:

[bobthe6th]

which is why you use hold person/monster
then coude graz until the thing dies. then loot the body.

[Ravenica]

I'd agree with the DM ruling, the only person that the dominated creature will have a positive reaction to IS the caster, on the eve of hostilities, surrounded by people (save 1) who he/she/it may deem a threat I would resist an order to strip as well

[VGLordR2]

Wouldn't "taking orders from the enemy" be considered "against his nature"? Food for thought.

[Dairuga]

Wouldn't "taking orders from the enemy" be considered "against his nature"? Food for thought.

That is very true, but if we go by that reasoning, then every single order would be "Against his nature". I suppose there is a need to see the acts on a single, isolated basis, rather than put it in context, for the spell to even work.

"Attack enemies" is valid. But if the enemy tells you to attack random monsters, it would be enemies giving you commands, which would, by itself, be against most people's nature, and would invalidate the usage of the spell on the grounds that every single command could cause it to break, sadly.

But I suppose the question is to what degree one interprets this. If only severe cases give the enemy a reroll, or if it should break at every little thing that it would not want to do.

[moritheil]

Wouldn't "taking orders from the enemy" be considered "against his nature"? Food for thought.

Are we willing to assume that the dominate caster, for the purposes of that kind of mental math, counts as his master and not his enemy?

[Tokiko Mima]

So the Dominate pro tip here is this: change your dominated subjects perspective first, then you need only at most casually suggest things that are in line with that new avenue of reasoning.

E.g. you want want the dominated creature to drop their weapon. So you command them to believe that their weapon has transformed into a vicious snake, or spider. The action you want will occur organically.

Or supposing you want them to divulge damaging information on their former allies? Tell them to be convinced that those allies have turned against them, and that now the dominating caster is his only friend in a vast conspiracy that wants the dominated individual dead. Naturally though, the only way the caster can help is if she knows about the conspiracy...

Using this method, it is trivial to get your dominated subject to do whatever you want, and never go against it's nature. You literally use it's nature against it.

[TuggyNE]

So the Dominate pro tip here is this: change your dominated subjects perspective first, then you need only at most casually suggest things that are in line with that new avenue of reasoning.

E.g. you want want the dominated creature to drop their weapon. So you command them to believe that their weapon has transformed into a vicious snake, or spider. The action you want will occur organically.

Or supposing you want them to divulge damaging information on their former allies? Tell them to be convinced that those allies have turned against them, and that now the dominating caster is his only friend in a vast conspiracy that wants the dominated individual dead. Naturally though, the only way the caster can help is if she knows about the conspiracy...

Using this method, it is trivial to get your dominated subject to do whatever you want, and never go against it's nature. You literally use it's nature against it.

Can you actually command belief like this with dominate person? It's not mindrape after all, or programmed amnesia, and given the existence of those spells, I'm a little dubious that this method works reliably.

[Tokiko Mima]

Can you actually command belief like this with dominate person? It's not mindrape after all, or programmed amnesia, and given the existence of those spells, I'm a little dubious that this method works reliably.

Those spells you mentioned are permanent effects, however. Dominate X spells do eventually wear off (though their duration is a bit crazy long, admittedly.) And they can be dispelled, and suppressed as well. Not to mention that dominate monster is a 9th level spell, as well.

It is an interesting question, though. Dominate allows you to, in general "force the subject to perform as you desire, within the limits of its abilities." If the subject has the ability to change it's mind about something, you should be able to use Dominate to command them to use that ability in the way you see fit.

It's more of a question of free will though: does anyone have the power to convince themselves of something different than what they have already been convinced of? Could you, for example, convince yourself that you are a human shaped rock despite all evidence of your senses, experience and logic? If you could not, then you might say you have no free will in this, you are unable to believe what you arbitarily want; you have to believe as you have been convinced to believe.

[candycorn]

I think that the order must be against a creature's nature, independent of social context.

If you order a dominated paladin to "subdue that thief!", it wouldn't be against the nature... Even if the thief was the party rogue, and the stolen item was the caster's spellbook.

If you order someone to disrobe, then disrobing, independent of context, must be against that creature's nature.

[Bakkan]

I think that the order must be against a creature's nature, independent of social context.

If you order a dominated paladin to "subdue that thief!", it wouldn't be against the nature... Even if the thief was the party rogue, and the stolen item was the caster's spellbook.

If you order someone to disrobe, then disrobing, independent of context, must be against that creature's nature.

But wouldn't that make a save almost never called for? If commanding disrobing doesn't allow a save because disrobing isn't against the target's nature, evidenced by the fact that the creature sometimes willfully disrobes, then would commanding the target to kill allow a save, if the target sometimes willfully kills?

[moritheil]

If the subject has the ability to change it's mind about something, you should be able to use Dominate to command them to use that ability in the way you see fit.

That's a pretty big "if." :smallconfused:

[Snowbluff]

Wouldn't "taking orders from the enemy" be considered "against his nature"? Food for thought.

NO, that's against his NURTURE, how he was brought up and how the current environment is affecting him. When you and the target of your dominate person could've been friends/colleagues in another environment, taking orders from you is not against his nature.

[TuggyNE]

I think that the order must be against a creature's nature, independent of social context.

If you order a dominated paladin to "subdue that thief!", it wouldn't be against the nature... Even if the thief was the party rogue, and the stolen item was the caster's spellbook.

There is no such thing as "independent of social context", since the idea of thievery is only valid in a social context.

What I think you mean is closer to "independent of the specific individuals in the current social context", although even that is a flawed measure; a bodyguard trained from birth to protect some specific person will undoubtedly find it against their nature to kill that person, and would receive a new save.

However, your specific example is probably correct. An LG paladin would definitely be against thievery, and would be fine with (non-lethal) subduing of thieves, and returning what was stolen.

[Slipperychicken]

The answer is: Ask your DM.


The stupidly, maddeningly vague question, which the rules go to no length to answer, or even provide guidelines for, is: "What does a creatures 'nature' entail?" Seriously, WotC screwed up hard on this one.

[candycorn]

But wouldn't that make a save almost never called for? If commanding disrobing doesn't allow a save because disrobing isn't against the target's nature, evidenced by the fact that the creature sometimes willfully disrobes, then would commanding the target to kill allow a save, if the target sometimes willfully kills?

An order to kill comes with a subject.

"Kill" has no meaning, because it does not identify WHAT is being killed. Just as the paladin order I provided included "Subdue" (an action) and "that thief" (the target), so too does a kill command. Also note, that the paladin order excluded killing. It's worded to favor leaving someone alive, and capturing someone who takes the property of another.... Both things that make a hard case for the paladin to dismiss as against nature.

My full belief on Dominate is:

(Would the command cause the creature to lose ethos based abilities?)
If yes, then against nature.

(does the command involve anything that the character has taken a very hard, in character, stand against doing?)
If yes, against nature.

(does the command directly violate a tenet of the character's alignment?)
If yes, against nature.

Otherwise, suck it up. You got your first save.

[Invader]

If the question is just if the spell ends if they make that second save then I'd say yes it ends. You tried pushing it past its limits and it broke so to speak.

If the question is was the command really against the persons nature then I'd say no.

Ordering someone to take their clothes off isn't inherently against their nature. It might be out of character but I'd say unless the character is vehemently opposed to being nude or even semi nude then it's not against their nature.

IMO your DM didn't like that you bypassed the encounter so easily so he ruled in his own favor.

[ericgrau]

Following any command from anyone could be "against his nature" because he doesn't like being controlled. I don't believe this is the spell intent at all. It means something he is strongly opposed to, morally or otherwise. Usually (but not always) that means attacking his allies, overtly smearing his religion or other deep beliefs, a monster like a kobold being asked to serve a strongly hated foe like a gnome on hand and foot, etc.

The cliché is the cartoon character who was hypnotized but then he's asked to hurt his beloved while the whole time the beloved says "You're better than this, don't do it." Then bam, new save.

[candycorn]

I can go along with that, with one exception:

Allies isn't enough. It needs to be someone with whom the character has a deep personal bond. A drinking buddy wouldn't warrant it. The love of your life, or the man you owe a life debt to, something like that.

[Slipperychicken]

"Nature" has to mean behaviors/taboos very deeply ingrained in the creature's mind for a large portion of its life, partly to avoid silliness like "My character's nature is to do what she wants, so I get another save".

Maybe a good benchmark would be: "What would your character do, if credibly offered (i.e. the character trusts and believes the claim) all of his/her wildest dreams/riches/lovers, dead and living/aspirations in return, with none of the negative personal/material consequences inherent in the act (i.e. wouldn't be caught for robbing a bank, bullet wounds would heal, loved ones wouldn't abandon it)?". If the character would, after adequate consideration, choose not to do it, the act is against its nature.

"The measure of a man's character is what he would do if he knew he never would be found out."

[TuggyNE]

"Nature" has to mean behaviors/taboos very deeply ingrained in the creature's mind for a large portion of its life, partly to avoid silliness like "My character's nature is to do what she wants, so I get another save".

Though to be fair, a CG Paladin of Freedom may get something like this.

[Slipperychicken]

Though to be fair, a CG Paladin of Freedom may get something like this.

Then, it might be a good idea to check it against a benchmark like the one I proposed. After all, Paladins do break their vows now and then...

[Andezzar]

Though to be fair, a CG Paladin of Freedom may get something like this.Those characters might be the easiest to manipulate. Just tell them what you want done is what they want. Then it will never violate their nature.

[Tokiko Mima]

Those characters might be the easiest to manipulate. Just tell them what you want done is what they want. Then it will never violate their nature.

Man is naught but a slippery morass of conflicting desires, sins, and virtues each competing with each other; all convinced that they exclusively form one cohesive mind. People tend to percieve they are using their heads, but their bodies always go first.

[Bouregard]

So, a person in question managed to dominate a person prior to combat starting (or on the very first turn), and since the only enemy was this one humanoid that was dominated, there was little need for a fight.

THen, the player commands the dominated creature to take off its items / clothing, and the DM declares that this is against the creature's nature, and that it recieves a new saving throw with a bonus.

So that begets the question, Does Dominate Person's new saving throw mean that the entire spell ends if the new saving throw succeeds, or does it mean that it refuses to do the action committed?

Now, obviously, the most logical conclusion would be that upon succeeding the second save, the entire spell ends and the creature is no longer dominated. But then again, in contrast to a Fascinate effect, for example, that explicitly states that any threats automatically breaks the fascination, the Dominate HUmanoid text only states:

So what is the answer here? Would the saving throw prevent the creature from fulfilling the orders against its nature, or would it mean the spell breaks entirely?


The DM said it allows a save so it allows a save. I personally would not grant saving throw for this action... but it depends on the context.


To word it more DMproof. Hand the dominated creature some mundane cloths (some rags from a commoner for example) and command her to change into the new set of cloths.



I think Dominate should allow more then suggestion. Only life threatening or particulary horrible acts against the person should require a saving throw.

Say if you have a fire elemental and dominate it to take a shower in that waterfall over there = saving thow

Dominating a paladin and ordering him to butcher a village = saving throw


I prefer the "Would you prefer to die instead?"-Check. If the dominated person would rather die then do it = allow saving throw.

[Slipperychicken]

To word it more DMproof.

Lies. Nothing is DMproof. If he wants to screw you over, he will. If the concept of "DMproof" exists at your table, that means the DM is showing restraint, not inability.