Craziness with Glibness

[Gligarman2]

Hi, Playgrounders! I just noticed that with the Bard spell Glibness (+30 to Bluff) you have the ability to convince anyone of anything. Is this true? If so, can we hear some craziness....with....GLIBNESS?

[The Random NPC]

Incorrect, even with a high bluff skill you cannot convince someone of a blatant lie, at least not for long. For example, the lie your shoes are untied is tried on a guard. You may be able to convince the guard to check, but once he confirms that they are indeed tied, he will not continue to believe they are untied.

TL;DR The lie has to be plausible.

[Blackdrop]

^^^Technically True^^^

In practice however since Glibness is a +30 to Bluff Checks and the DC modifier for "The bluff is way out there, almost too incredible to consider." lies is only +20, you still walk away with a rough +10 to your bluff roll.

Edit: An in response to the original post: Here ya go! (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0767.html)

[Gligarman2]

Do Glibness modifiers stack?

[Sudain]

I wanted to play with glibness. But the DM never let me lie about anything. Once. >.<

[NecroRebel]

Do Glibness modifiers stack?

Glibness does not stack with Glibness. Bonuses of the same name, or whose source have the same name, do not stack. The sources from two castings of Glibness have the same name (Glibness), even though the bonus itself is unnamed.

Because the bonus from Glibness is unnamed, it would stack with all other bonuses to Bluff.

[Roguenewb]

Yeah, Glibness is godly. As the people above, and Rich himself, pointed out, the penalty for a truly outlandish, cannot possibly be true bluff is -20. By level 7 of Bard, you've got 10 ranks, a +6 CHA and a +3 from circlet of persuasion. If you wanna go whole hog, you get a +X skill item, but that's silliness. Also, master work...bluffer's dice? All this is a character who's not making a single decision based on bluff. No stupid items, no bad feat choices or anything like that. The only questionable choice is Glibness as one of your first third level spells.

10 ranks
6 CHA
3 Circlet
2 masterwork
30 Glibness
+51 Bluff check.

The opposed mod isn't great, mainly because sense motive is a fairly rare class skill. Exactly 4 base classes have it as a class skill, and among those, only Paladin and Monk have any need for wisdom, and neither has a ton of spare skill points for Sense Motive. So, whose going to end up with full ranks and full wisdom? I don't think anyone.... And there's no circlet item. Almost every character is going to have 50% or less maximum sense motive to your bluff (pre-glibness), and most characters will have a 2 or 3 total modifier on their sense motive.

You: "Hey Bob, you're my slave for ever and ever and you love the idea!"
Bob (Needs to get a 32 if you rolled a *1*, this needs a +12 modifier and a 20, this makes it essentially impossible, no ECL appropriate dude will ever make the check): "Huh, I guess I am, and I guess I do! How can I serve you master?"

God forbid you roll well on your bluff check.

[The Random NPC]

Yeah, Glibness is godly. As the people above, and Rich himself, pointed out, the penalty for a truly outlandish, cannot possibly be true bluff is -20. By level 7 of Bard, you've got 10 ranks, a +6 CHA and a +3 from circlet of persuasion. If you wanna go whole hog, you get a +X skill item, but that's silliness. Also, master work...bluffer's dice? All this is a character who's not making a single decision based on bluff. No stupid items, no bad feat choices or anything like that. The only questionable choice is Glibness as one of your first third level spells.

10 ranks
6 CHA
3 Circlet
2 masterwork
30 Glibness
+51 Bluff check.

The opposed mod isn't great, mainly because sense motive is a fairly rare class skill. Exactly 4 base classes have it as a class skill, and among those, only Paladin and Monk have any need for wisdom, and neither has a ton of spare skill points for Sense Motive. So, whose going to end up with full ranks and full wisdom? I don't think anyone.... And there's no circlet item. Almost every character is going to have 50% or less maximum sense motive to your bluff (pre-glibness), and most characters will have a 2 or 3 total modifier on their sense motive.

You: "Hey Bob, you're my slave for ever and ever and you love the idea!"
Bob (Needs to get a 32 if you rolled a *1*, this needs a +12 modifier and a 20, this makes it essentially impossible, no ECL appropriate dude will ever make the check): "Huh, I guess I am, and I guess I do! How can I serve you master?"

God forbid you roll well on your bluff check.

The thing is, baring the epic use, bluff explicitly doesn't work this way. If you came up and said that to Bob, it would take a round for him to remember that, no he isn't, and no he doesn't.
EDIT: That round is mostly him going "Whuh?"
EDIT2: If you took a -20 to instil a nonmagical suggestion, then yeah it would work, but it still would be better to say, "This contract states that you're my slave, and you love the idea!"
EDIT3: Suggestions influence actions, not feelings.

[Hiro Protagonest]

BLUFF IS NOT SUGGESTION! AND SUGGESTION IS NOT DOMINATE!

Even the epic use of bluff says it acts like Suggestion. Suggestion is not Dominate. You cannot tell someone that they're your slave and they love the idea, and expect them to become your slave and love it. You cannot tell them, to take examples from OotS, that they're actually a polymorphed animal, can't see you, or are fired (at least, if you don't have the authority to do that).

And non-epic usage? Yeah, you can't even convince someone that the boiling acid pool is just a hot spring. You might be able to make them think YOU believe it's a hot spring.

[The Random NPC]

BLUFF IS NOT SUGGESTION! AND SUGGESTION IS NOT DOMINATE!

Even the epic use of bluff says it acts like Suggestion. Suggestion is not Dominate. You cannot tell someone that they're your slave and they love the idea, and expect them to become your slave and love it. You cannot tell them, to take examples from OotS, that they're actually a polymorphed animal, can't see you, or are fired (at least, if you don't have the authority to do that).

And non-epic usage? Yeah, you can't even convince someone that the boiling acid pool is just a hot spring. You might be able to make them think YOU believe it's a hot spring.

Exactly, but what you could do is say they were polymorphed from a wallaby, and given amnesia (programmed or otherwise) about it. Or say you are an illusion designed to test their susceptibility to illusions and should thus be ignored, or that you have just been hired to fire them. All in all, you need to make the lie plausible if you want to have an effect that lasts longer then a 6 second "Whuh?"

[Roguenewb]

BLUFF IS NOT SUGGESTION! AND SUGGESTION IS NOT DOMINATE!

Even the epic use of bluff says it acts like Suggestion. Suggestion is not Dominate. You cannot tell someone that they're your slave and they love the idea, and expect them to become your slave and love it. You cannot tell them, to take examples from OotS, that they're actually a polymorphed animal, can't see you, or are fired (at least, if you don't have the authority to do that).

And non-epic usage? Yeah, you can't even convince someone that the boiling acid pool is just a hot spring. You might be able to make them think YOU believe it's a hot spring.

According to RAW you can. It says you can make them believe something you want them to believe.

"A successful Bluff check indicates
that the target reacts as you wish, at
least for a short time (usually
1 round or less) or believes
something that you want it to
believe." -PHB

OR believes something that you it to believe. I want Bob to believe he's my slave and he's happy about it. Should the rules work this way? Of course not, but technically it works that way. And what if I said "Oh Bob, when are you going to pay me that ten billion gold debt you owe me after all that gambling alst night? Oh, you can't? I should turn you in to the guards" New Bluff check: "You know the guards hideously torture anyone who owes that much, right? And that they will do the same to all your family?" Final bluff check: "It would be incredibly kind of me to let you work as a slave instead. I'll do that if you promise to be happy about it".

Now, since I auto-win these damn checks, look at how much I've ruined. And I can keep doing it. Bluff as RAW is totally broken. A normal DM will employ an additional level of bluff-plausibility of "it absolutely cannot be true" which prevents bluff checks. But they never did, so it's possible.

[The Random NPC]

It goes further to say if it can be easily proven to be untrue, they don't believe it. It uses the example of a shopkeeper and an untied shoe, the book says you get 1 round as he checks his shoes, and explicitly says the shopkeeper does not fiddle with his shoes trying to tie them.
EDIT: Ergo, if he can remember that you didn't gamble last night, he knows he doesn't owe you squat. You do get a round of reminiscing, and if you properly set it up, you can still get a slave, but that's it.

[Ravens_cry]

Its intended purpose, besides a quick distraction, is for when you have to, have to lie successfully.
For example, if you failed to rescue the princess because she was eaten by the dragon before you got to its lair, telling the king she ran away after you rescued her should at least buy you some time.

[Hecuba]

And non-epic usage? Yeah, you can't even convince someone that the boiling acid pool is just a hot spring. You might be able to make them think YOU believe it's a hot spring.

Bubbly green toxic-looking prop acid? No. Clear, realisitc, looks-like water acid? I can see that working.

[Deophaun]

And non-epic usage? Yeah, you can't even convince someone that the boiling acid pool is just a hot spring. You might be able to make them think YOU believe it's a hot spring.
This is generally my approach when an absolutely outrageous lie is given. The target knows that he is not a turtle, but he believes that you believe he is a turtle.

And that is how I got the party's bard institutionalized.

[Flickerdart]

And what if I said "Oh Bob, when are you going to pay me that ten billion gold debt you owe me after all that gambling alst night? Oh, you can't? I should turn you in to the guards"
Bob: I owe you how much? Oh god, my wife will kill me...


New Bluff check: "You know the guards hideously torture anyone who owes that much, right? And that they will do the same to all your family?"
A round has elapsed and Bob realizes that your previous bluff could not have possibly been true, and punches you in the eye.

[Slipperychicken]

Bob: I owe you how much? Oh god, my wife will kill me...

A round has elapsed and Bob realizes that your previous bluff could not have possibly been true, and punches you in the eye.

The 1-round is only for "reacts as you wish". Convincing Bob to "believe something you want it to believe" works until Bob is convinced otherwise. If you beat the opposed roll (Bluff vs. Sense Motive), you convinced him. Period.


Silliness aside, when using Glibness, keep your lies as believable as you can to avoid DM-Rage and the horrific consequences thereof, like nerfing Bluff to be "you can only convince him that you believe something" (which makes Bluff pretty damn worthless, not to mention unrealistic).

[StreamOfTheSky]

By taking a -50 on your bluff check, you can use it to instill a suggestion in the listener. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/skills.htm#bluff)

I used Glibness with that rule once at ~level 9 to convince a military commander (and by extension, his whole army) to surrender to our party. That was pretty awesome.

[The Random NPC]

The 1-round is only for "reacts as you wish". Convincing Bob to "believe something you want it to believe" works until Bob is convinced otherwise. If you beat the opposed roll (Bluff vs. Sense Motive), you convinced him. Period.


Silliness aside, when using Glibness, keep your lies as believable as you can to avoid DM-Rage and the horrific consequences thereof, like nerfing Bluff to be "you can only convince him that you believe something" (which makes Bluff pretty damn worthless, not to mention unrealistic).

Yes, they believe until otherwise convinced. If their memories can refute the lie, it wouldn't take long for the convincing to happen.

[Ranting Fool]

*sigh* didn't we go through this the other week when I asked about it :smallbiggrin::smalltongue::smallbiggrin:

[Mithril Leaf]

Here's how you get a slave. You take the target out for a night on the town and slip him some drugs so he forgets most of the night. Then the following morning you make the following bluffs. First, you convince the target that he made a series of high stakes rolls on a hot streak. Then you convince his that he borrowed money from another patron of the establishment who happened to be a wealthy out of town crime lord. Then you convince him that if he doesn't pay his debt back to the mob boss that he'll be killed. Then that you have connections with the mob boss and can pull some strings to get him off the hook if he becomes your servant. After which, you head over to the gambling establishment and bluff some people into thinking that your friend lost a lot of money last night. Nothing taxes suspension of disbelief and nothing can verify that didn't happen. As long as you cover your tracks, lying can get anything done, much like in real life.

[Psyren]

According to RAW you can. It says you can make them believe something you want them to believe.

*snip*

OR believes something that you it to believe. I want Bob to believe he's my slave and he's happy about it.

*slams the brakes*

Let's talk RAW then. You only get one: he reacts as you wish, OR he believes what you want him to believe, for 1 round - which took a round of convincing on your part. So he would believe he's your slave for 1 round.

There is no "and" - that would be two things, a violation of RAW. So either he's your slave, or he's happy about it, not both. By RAW, you cannot both make him believe something false and react the way you want; even if he believes he's your slave, how he reacts to that is up to him because you don't get both.

[Slipperychicken]

Yes, they believe until otherwise convinced. If their memories can refute the lie, it wouldn't take long for the convincing to happen.

Sounds like that would be better-modeled as a modifier on the Sense Motive check (remember, the DM can assign a modifier greater than +20 if he thinks it's appropriate). Everyone's believed things which contradict past experience, at one point or another. Same goes for remembering something falsely and being corrected later.

[Slipperychicken]

nothing can verify that didn't happen.

And if no-one at the establishment has any records of our guy gambling, or being in debt at all? That's how those places track debt, you know. The crime boss won't have any records of debt, either. The entire bar would have seen this guy pass out long before he allegedly went out gambling. Wherever you take him from the bar, there are people there, and they know he's done for the night, also before the gambling allegedly took place.

The target might seek refuge in the law, or try to flee this horrible fate (leave the boss' jurisdiction, disguise himself), and be pleasantly surprised when no one comes after him. Hell, the crime boss might even have you killed for impersonating his servant, if word gets around to him.

You will additionally need successful Bluff checks every time you mention you connections to the crime boss, that night, the guy's debts, or his servitude.

[The Random NPC]

Here's how you get a slave. You take the target out for a night on the town and slip him some drugs so he forgets most of the night. Then the following morning you make the following bluffs. First, you convince the target that he made a series of high stakes rolls on a hot streak. Then you convince his that he borrowed money from another patron of the establishment who happened to be a wealthy out of town crime lord. Then you convince him that if he doesn't pay his debt back to the mob boss that he'll be killed. Then that you have connections with the mob boss and can pull some strings to get him off the hook if he becomes your servant. After which, you head over to the gambling establishment and bluff some people into thinking that your friend lost a lot of money last night. Nothing taxes suspension of disbelief and nothing can verify that didn't happen. As long as you cover your tracks, lying can get anything done, much like in real life.

This works much better, the point I have always been trying to make, is that the lie has to be plausible. If the mark remembers going out on the town with you, but doesn't remember what happened, you can convince him of anything. Likewise, all you really need is to say they got hit with a magic spell, and that's why they don't remember gambling. Plausibility is key.

[Slipperychicken]

This works much better, the point I have always been trying to make, is that the lie has to be plausible. If the mark remembers going out on the town with you, but doesn't remember what happened, you can convince him of anything. Likewise, all you really need is to say they got hit with a magic spell, and that's why they don't remember gambling. Plausibility is key.

Then you have to wonder if the law (and custom) forgives misdeeds committed under magical influence. If someone's Dominated or Charmed, there's no way you can hold him accountable for his actions. You'd have to punish the caster instead.

Magic-users who could wipe out the memory of an entire night? That's crazy high-level magic, extremely rare. And why would such casters waste their time on Joe Average? It's like saying the FBI swept in and gave you drugs to forget your night of gambling. He'd definitely get a bonus on Sense Motive for that.

[The Random NPC]

Then you have to wonder if the law (and custom) forgives misdeeds committed under magical influence. If someone's Dominated or Charmed, there's no way you can hold him accountable for his actions. You'd have to punish the caster instead.

Magic-users who could wipe out the memory of an entire night? That's crazy high-level magic, extremely rare. And why would such casters waste their time on Joe Average? It's like saying the FBI swept in and gave you drugs to forget your night of gambling. He'd definitely get a bonus on Sense Motive for that.

Well, paladins are held accountable for their actions while dominated, and so I could see the churches (and thus the governments) holding the dominated accountable. Not that they should be, but I can see it.
It really doesn't matter why a caster would waste their time, as long as it could have happened, you have a lie that will last longer than a few seconds. But he would get a bonus for the unlikely nature of the lie.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

On a more reasonable note...

Ten minutes of RP and a Bluff check turned Harvey Dent into Two-Face. This is about the limit of what you can pull with Bluff, since he was already rather leaning in that direction in the first place.

Convince the King that the Duke is actually the one behind the treason plot

Convince [a powerful NPC group] that [annoying boss/miniboss] is a threat to their overall plans

Remember, kids... Glibness lets you fast-talk even in a Zone of Truth, Compel Truth, and can fool Detect Lies. The phrase "Look, your own Zone of Truth compels me to tell you the absolute and unvarnished truth, so it's not like I can lie to you here" is a rather strongly convincing statement.

Or, if you want to kick off a Sin War... convince the Devils that the Demons are gonna shiv them in an attempt to consolidate a hold on all Evil souls, so they can finally have the power to storm the gates of the heavens.

[Slipperychicken]

Well, paladins are held accountable for their actions while dominated, and so I could see the churches (and thus the governments) holding the dominated accountable. Not that they should be, but I can see it.
It really doesn't matter why a caster would waste their time, as long as it could have happened, you have a lie that will last longer than a few seconds. But he would get a bonus for the unlikely nature of the lie.

Paladins only fall for willingly violating the Code, precisely for that reason: a dominated character's actions are directly and unambiguously dictated by someone else. The dominated character has been forcibly deprived of his agency, and is therefore not responsible for anything he does while dominated.

[VGLordR2]

Paladins only fall for willingly violating the Code, precisely for that reason: a dominated character's actions are directly and unambiguously dictated by someone else. The dominated character has been forcibly deprived of his agency, and is therefore not responsible for anything he does while dominated.

So all you need to do is Dominate yourself. Because a dominated creature is not responsible for its actions. :smalltongue:

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Paladins only fall for willingly violating the Code, precisely for that reason: a dominated character's actions are directly and unambiguously dictated by someone else. The dominated character has been forcibly deprived of his agency, and is therefore not responsible for anything he does while dominated.

Actually, no. Paladin falls even while dominated. The kicker is that the atonement is easy to obtain. From the spell:


XP Cost

When cast for the benefit of a creature whose guilt was the result of deliberate acts, the cost to you is 500 XP per casting (see above).

So if a Paladin falls because of the effects of a Dominate or similar effect, the cleric casting Atonement is not charged the xp cost, so the forgiveness has a light penance. However, if it's a direct result of his deliberate act... forgiveness comes at a steeper price, since a 500 xp hit is one that most Clerics aren't going to want to pay unless you really mean it.

[Slipperychicken]

So all you need to do is Dominate yourself. Because a dominated creature is not responsible for its actions. :smalltongue:

Now that would be wonky, rules-wise. So you'd be unaffected until you gave yourself a command, at which point you would carry out that one command to the exclusion of all nonessential activities, so you couldn't even change the command. You'd just be stuck doing whatever that first command was for 9+ days...

Plus you can't see through your own eyes, in bold here.



Dominate
[...]
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. [...]

[Crasical]

Hi, Playgrounders! I just noticed that.....

You know what I just noticed? In Soul Calibur, the custom armor part Gorgon Spaulders has busty minotaur women worked into the shoulderpads. When I mentioned this to other people, they all noted "Oh, yeah. We already knew about that" and I was flabberghasted no-one had mentioned such a thing before. But they'd just known about it long before I had, and already discussed it, and where mostly done talking about it.

So I'm full of a great deal more understanding and empathy for new playgrounders who are just now discovering an interesting new rule interaction or build.

[The Random NPC]

Or, if you want to kick off a Sin War... convince the Devils that the Demons are gonna shiv them in an attempt to consolidate a hold on all Evil souls, so they can finally have the power to storm the gates of the heavens.

Isn't that already happening?


Paladins only fall for willingly violating the Code, precisely for that reason: a dominated character's actions are directly and unambiguously dictated by someone else. The dominated character has been forcibly deprived of his agency, and is therefore not responsible for anything he does while dominated.

You know, I could have sworn there was something about dominated paladins falling, but I can't find it now. Paladins just went up a notch in my book.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Isn't that already happening?

Depends on the campaign setting.

[The Random NPC]

Actually, no. Paladin falls even while dominated. The kicker is that the atonement is easy to obtain. From the spell:



So if a Paladin falls because of the effects of a Dominate or similar effect, the cleric casting Atonement is not charged the xp cost, so the forgiveness has a light penance. However, if it's a direct result of his deliberate act... forgiveness comes at a steeper price, since a 500 xp hit is one that most Clerics aren't going to want to pay unless you really mean it.

Where does it say that, because I very much want it to not be true.

[QuidEst]

Where does it say that, because I very much want it to not be true.

Eh, it's the sort of thing the DM decides anyhow. Play Pathfinder, and Paladins will go up many more notches with you than Dominate interaction could ever accomplish. :smalltongue:

With respect to Glibness, it's the sort of thing to pull out to make being a Bard fun without having to focus your whole build on Bluff. Convince people you're divine emissary, get the guard to believe there's something after him, convince the bartender that the fellow over in the corner will cover your tab, and so on. It's up to a given DM to decide how far is too far, as well as what happens then.

[Psyren]

Where does it say that, because I very much want it to not be true.

There is precedent for falling due to domination. For instance, all of the Sacred Vows in BoED cause you to still lose their benefits even if the breach was due to compulsion.

[Jay R]

People on this thread with high Bluff scores have attempted to make us believe that with a high Bluff score, you can make people believe anything.

If that were true, everyone here would now believe it. Since we haven't been convinced by your high Bluff scores, clearly Bluff doesn't work that way.

:wink:

[QuidEst]

People on this thread with high Bluff scores have attempted to make us believe that with a high Bluff score, you can make people believe anything.

If that were true, everyone here would now believe it. Since we haven't been convinced by your high Bluff scores, clearly Bluff doesn't work that way.

:wink:

Not believing it. You need to raise your bluff score some more.

[Slipperychicken]

Where does it say that, because I very much want it to not be true.

Well, here's the full text of the Paladin Code.


Code of Conduct
A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act.

Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.

Associates
While she may adventure with characters of any good or neutral alignment, a paladin will never knowingly associate with evil characters, nor will she continue an association with someone who consistently offends her moral code. A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good.

Ex-Paladins
A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who grossly violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and abilities (including the service of the paladin’s mount, but not weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies). She may not progress any farther in levels as a paladin. She regains her abilities and advancement potential if she atones for her violations (see the atonement spell description), as appropriate.

Like a member of any other class, a paladin may be a multiclass character, but multiclass paladins face a special restriction. A paladin who gains a level in any class other than paladin may never again raise her paladin level, though she retains all her paladin abilities.

Paladins fall for willingly committing an Evil Act (which is impossible while Dominated), or grossly violating the Code. I'd say a Paladin cannot incur violations while Dominated, because the Paladin is not the one committing them; it's just the caster who's using the Paladin as a meat-puppet. If you want to get RAW, the violation is not Gross, because the Paladin did not willingly commit it.

Think about it this way. If someone grabs your fist and slams it into a child's head while you did everything you could to resist, did you punch the child, or did the other guy merely use your arm as a weapon? Does that mean you should suffer the legal penalties for punching a child? The only sane or usable answer is that you do not suffer penalties, and the other guy is held responsible.

[Hitaro9]

If you want to convince someone of anything, I believe there's a curse that makes anyone not believe what you say. You just say the opposite of what you want, and everyone auto- believes you.

[Ravens_cry]

There is precedent for falling due to domination. For instance, all of the Sacred Vows in BoED cause you to still lose their benefits even if the breach was due to compulsion.
Sacred Vows are not Paladin Vows.
In AD&D, this WAS how it worked, and any willing Fall stripped you of paladin status forever and henceforth, no Atonement possible.

[Omegonthesane]

Paladins only fall for willingly violating the Code, precisely for that reason: a dominated character's actions are directly and unambiguously dictated by someone else. The dominated character has been forcibly deprived of his agency, and is therefore not responsible for anything he does while dominated.

Not quoting further in the thread as this tangent hasn't had anything important added, other than contradictions in the text implying that paladins can fall unintentionally.

However personally I'd find it strange if paladin powers weren't at least suppressed while Dominated, as from your god's PoV, regardless of the morality of this saintly meat puppet, if it's being controlled by a not Lawful Good person then it's not exerting your powers for Lawful Goodness, so best withdraw them for the duration.

[Jay R]

Not believing it. You need to raise your bluff score some more.

It wouldn't help. It only works on things that aren't true (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0774.html).