Please help me with Dominate spell

[Jon_Dahl]

From Dominate Person:
Subjects resist this control, and any subject forced to take actions against its nature receives a new saving throw with a +2 bonus.

What exactly is "against its nature"?

Is the following scenario possible?
Dominator wizard: "Defend me!"
Dominated rogue's player: "My character would never strike teammates! I want a save with +2 bonus!"
Dominator wizard: "Let's go. Take the point."
Dominated rogue's player: "My character would never walk in front of anyone. I want a save with +2 bonus!"
Dominator wizard: "Give me your money."
Dominated rogue's player: "I would never give money to anyone! I want a save with +2 bonus!"

[TuggyNE]

From Dominate Person:

What exactly is "against its nature"?

Exactly? That's hard to define; it's more of a deliberate opening for judgement calls. Generally, though, I would interpret it pretty narrowly; it's in the nature of a paladin to keep innocents safe, but not necessarily to punish all petty crime whenever they see it.


Is the following scenario possible?
Dominator wizard: "Defend me!"
Dominated rogue's player: "My character would never strike teammates! I want a save with +2 bonus!"

Depending on "defend", and whether the character has been shown to be extremely loyal or honorable before, probably not reasonable; something like tripping their former allies would still work, or perhaps using non-lethal damage, so a vague command is more useful here.


Dominator wizard: "Let's go. Take the point."
Dominated rogue's player: "My character would never walk in front of anyone. I want a save with +2 bonus!"

Unless they have Craven or similar, no, probably not. Indeed, maybe not even then.


Dominator wizard: "Give me your money."
Dominated rogue's player: "I would never give money to anyone! I want a save with +2 bonus!"

Unless they are the sort of person who would have the Greed domain, probably not; a Rogue is possible, but it takes some special miserliness to be unwilling to part with any money under any circumstances.

Basically, the way I'd look at it is that if the character would seriously consider disobeying an armed enemy soldier/bandit/pirate who had just demonstrated their coldblooded ruthlessness by cutting down some random ally and was now holding a weapon to their head/neck, then they would get a save against dominate. Otherwise, no.

[Fouredged Sword]

A good litinus test is "Would this action cause the loss of class features?"

If yes, than it is against the nature of the character. If not, then it isn't so clear cut.

[Jon_Dahl]

A good litinus test is "Would this action cause the loss of class features?"

If yes, than it is against the nature of the character. If not, then it isn't so clear cut.


Basically, the way I'd look at it is that if the character would seriously consider disobeying an armed enemy soldier/bandit/pirate who had just demonstrated their coldblooded ruthlessness by cutting down some random ally and was now holding a weapon to their head/neck, then they would get a save against dominate. Otherwise, no.

These are both very good points. They don't cover all the angles, but they do give me a better idea how to handle some possible scenarios.