Dominating yourself

[Crake]

So... if I were to dominate myself while under the effects of a protection from xyz spell, then give myself the order "Act as you please", would this essentially give me an extra level of protection from hostile dominate spells? Not only do I get the save, but I also get an opposed charisma check against every order the enemy might give me. Is this legit?

Edit: Just to clarify, as there seems to be some confusion. I'm not talking about sending opposing orders at yourself while the other guy does the same. I'm talking about giving yourself an already standing order that allows you to act normally, that would conflict with any order given to you by a hostile dominate spell, meaning, regardless of whether your are in control or not, that order will conflict, causing an opposed charisma check to try and get you to do it, as per the rules here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/castingSpells.htm#stackingEffects) under Multiple mental control effects.

Essentially you have your dominate spell on you saying "Dont take dominate orders from anyone". So if someone establishes a dominate on you and gives you an order, it conflicts with that order and there is a charisma check to see which one prevails. Since that's an open ended order, and the charisma check doesnt negate your dominate, simply overpowers it for that instance, EACH time they would try and order you, there would be a conflict, meaning an opposed charisma check. The idea is that this gives you an extra opportunity to act normally, and get a protection spell off on yourself after someone dominates you.

[Cruiser1]

So... if I were to dominate myself while under the effects of a protection from xyz spell, then give myself the order "Act as you please", would this essentially give me an extra level of protection from hostile dominate spells? Not only do I get the save, but I also get an opposed charisma check against every order the enemy might give me. Is this legit?
Protection from X (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/protectionFromEvil.htm) blocks the effect of all charms and compulsions that give control. If you're under the effect of Protection from X, neither your self dominate nor any hostile dominates have any effect on you (at least not until Protection from X goes away).

If an ally dominates you, that provides some protection against if a hostile dominates you, because your ally is separate from you and not under the effect. However, I don't think dominating yourself provides any extra protection, because once you're hit by a hostile dominate, that not only gets you but also the "second you" holding the self-dominate puppet strings. That's like trying to lift yourself up by your own bootstraps.

[sleepyphoenixx]

No. Dominate Person reads "you control the subject through a telepathic link".
So, since it controls your thoughts (as opposed to your body) you can't dominate yourself because, hopefully, you already control your thoughts.

Even if you could, if someone else dominates you you carry out his orders "to the exclusion of all other activities except those necessary for day-to-day survival", making you incapable of telepathically commanding yourself.

Having someone else dominate you as a precaution could work if you don't mind having absolutely no initiative. You're basically a flesh golem (read:NPC).

[Slipperychicken]

Dominating yourself could be a really good way to stick to a diet.

However, "Act as you please" could go very badly wrong since it should override self-discipline. Feel like punching out your boss? Great, you just did it and now you're fired. You feel tempted to grab that cute girl on the bus? Enjoy your jailtime, creep. There are just so many ways for it to backfire.

[dascarletm]

Dominating yourself could be a really good way to stick to a diet.

However, "Act as you please" could go very badly wrong since it should override self-discipline. Feel like punching out your boss? Great, you just did it and now you're fired. You feel tempted to grab that cute girl on the bus? Enjoy your jailtime, creep. There are just so many ways for it to backfire.

That's just great. I'll need to remember that the next time my PCs do something like that.

[Crake]

Protection from X (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/protectionFromEvil.htm) blocks the effect of all charms and compulsions that give control. If you're under the effect of Protection from X, neither your self dominate nor any hostile dominates have any effect on you (at least not until Protection from X goes away).

If an ally dominates you, that provides some protection against if a hostile dominates you, because your ally is separate from you and not under the effect. However, I don't think dominating yourself provides any extra protection, because once you're hit by a hostile dominate, that not only gets you but also the "second you" holding the self-dominate puppet strings. That's like trying to lift yourself up by your own bootstraps.

The idea of the protection from X spell was to stop yourself from just becoming a vegetable, since you dominate yourself, and you get into this kind of loophole of being in control of yourself, but being unable to give yourself an order. So you give yourself an order while under the protection from X spell (which temporarily supresses the dominate spell long enough for you do achieve that).


making you incapable of telepathically commanding yourself.

I'm more going off the section under chapter 10 of the players handbook about overlapping enchantments, which state if two enchantments ever conflict with eachother, there's an opposed charisma check to determine which order is prevalent. So in this case, the already standing order "Do as you please" (which I would probably word more delicately, its just for hypotheticals right now guys :smalltongue: probably something more along the lines of "Never act on the influences of an enchantment other than this" or "Act as you otherwise would") would come in conflict with ANY other order someone else would give me, since them ordering me to do something is explicitly not something I am deciding to do myself, thus invoking an opposed charisma check each time they want to try and get me to do something.

[Fouredged Sword]

You guys are not lawyer enough!

I would order myself "To not obey any outside mental influence, but otherwise do exactly as a choose". Then you don't get bogged down in "you want to do X, you can't resist!" silliness and any outside enchantments will trigger the charisma check as any obedience to them triggers your counter domination. If you want to obey the outside domination for any reason, you can voluntarily fail the charisma check, so no commanding you to do the opposite of what they want ether.

If you are a high charisma sorcerer, it would be a viable counter to a low charisma wizard's dominate. You can cast it on party members as well, if they trust you that much, and it lets you tell what they are doing and what general condition they are in through their sensory imput.

[Segev]

You telepathically control the actions of the target of Dominate. You Dominate yourself, and now you telepathically control yourself. This has no notable impact under most circumstances, since you normally control yourself with a thought, anyway.

However, when two people try to dominate somebody, a CL check occurs to see whose spell wins out. You can fluff interpret this in one of two ways:

1) He's Dominated by both people, and the stronger caster's control-signal is "louder" and thus overrides, or

2) Only the stronger SPELL takes hold, uprooting the weaker one if it was there already.

The first interpretation would seem to call for mechanics for repeated CL checks, not just one when you cast the second spell on the target. It is also the one which would make sense to say, "since you're dominated, you can't think of opposing the domination with your own telepathic commands."

The second interpretation is the one that seems most in line with the RAW. The RAW work thusly: you check to see if there is already a Domination effect on the target; if there is, a CL check occurs to see which spellcaster gets to actually have control. The winner gets to Dominate; the loser loses all hold (unless somehow the winner's Dominate goes away but the loser's does not).

Since it doesn't specify that you cannot Dominate yourself, nor that Dominating yourself somehow "doesn't count" as a Domination spell on you, the RAW call for a CL check when another caster attempts to cast Dominate on you. If he loses the CL check, he doesn't get to control you until your Dominate wears off (And then only if his has not worn off by that point).

That is how the RAW work.

[AugustNights]

Off the top of my head, there's nothing against the rules about dominating oneself. I'd certainly allow it.
I like the idea of a wizard with very poor self control that uses this as a tactic to make themself seem disciplined.

[Slipperychicken]

However, when two people try to dominate somebody, a CL check occurs to see whose spell wins out. You can fluff interpret this in one of two ways:

1) He's Dominated by both people, and the stronger caster's control-signal is "louder" and thus overrides, or

2) Only the stronger SPELL takes hold, uprooting the weaker one if it was there already.

[...]
That is how the RAW work.

Where did you find this rule? It makes sense, but I don't recall seeing it in the books.

[The Oni]

If I recall, there was some episode of Gargoyles involving a mind-control spell that couldn't be canceled by normal means, effectively making the character a living zombie. One of the characters told the character to act exactly as she would if she weren't mind controlled, and it worked. She's still technically under the spell, the spell just doesn't do anything.

If it were possible, dominating oneself could be an added layer of protection. Or, alternately, you could use it to force yourself to do something your heart's really not into. Talk about motivation and self-control.

[Segev]

Where did you find this rule? It makes sense, but I don't recall seeing it in the books.

I'll need to dig around to find specific quotes, but it derives from how two conflicting spells resolve.

[sleepyphoenixx]

The rule is from teh PHB, p. 172:

Multiple Mental Control Effects: Sometimes magical effects that
establish mental control render each other irrelevant. For example, a
hold person effect renders any other form of mental control irrelevant
because it robs the subject of the ability to move. Mental controls
that don’t remove the recipient’s ability to act usually do not
interfere with each other. For example, a person who has received a
geas/quest spell can also be subjected to a charm person spell. The
charmed person remains committed to fulfilling the quest, however,
and resists any order that interferes with that goal. In this case, the
geas/quest spell doesn’t negate charm person, but it does reduce its
effectiveness, just as nonmagical devotion to a quest would. If a
creature is under the mental control of two or more creatures, it
tends to obey each to the best of its ability, and to the extent of the
control each effect allows. If the controlled creature receives
conflicting orders simultaneously, the competing controllers must
make opposed Charisma checks to determine which one the
creature obeys

EDIT: It seems that in case of conflicting orders the latest order is obeyed, so the tactic does not work.

[Segev]

Ah, sleepyphoenixx has the full text, which is slightly off from how I recalled. Thank you, sleepyphoenixx.

So, looking at that...

If you Dominate yourself, your commands for yourself would need to be standing and in opposition to those of the other Dominator in order to actually force the opposed checks. Apparently, these are opposed Charisma, not CL, checks, as well.

It gets fuzzy when you start to ask whether you can give yourself opposing orders through your own Domination once the enemy spellcaster wins even one of those checks. "Standing orders" to yourself would probably be the best solution. I think the easiest would be a something like: "If anybody other than myself casts a mind-controlling effect on me which conflicts with what I think I would do on my own recognizance, cast Protection from Evil on myself."

You want the standing order to be something that is unlikely to be directly opposed by what the enemy dominator will order you to do. It will force the Cha check, but he won't notice until he loses it. As long as he's winning, you're doing what he says, but the moment he loses it - the first time he realizes there's an opposing set of orders he might need to root out - you're already spending your action casting Protection From Evil on yourself. When it's up, it's too late for him to countermand, as you're going to ignore it anyway now.



EDIT: It seems that in case of conflicting orders the latest order is obeyed, so the tactic does not work.

Ooh, that one's a toughie, too. Good catch.

Modify to, "As soon as you are subjected to such an effect, order yourself to cast Protection from Evil at your first opportunity, and keep ordering yourself to do so until you cast it."

Your enemy dominator is unlikely to order you not to give yourself orders, unless he knows you've got this planned, so you can give your orders to yourself as immediately as possible before actually carrying them out.

[Crake]

The rule is from teh PHB, p. 172:


EDIT: It seems that in case of conflicting orders the latest order is obeyed, so the tactic does not work.

That's a silly way to see it, since orders can never be given simultaneously, simply based on how the system works (it's turn based). I think it's quite clearly that by simultaneously, it means that two orders are given that must be carried out at the same time. So if someone gives the order "Walk to the other side of the room" and someone then, while that's happening, gives the order "walk to the side you started on", despite the second order being given last, they are simultaneously applied to the target, thus a conflict occurs. For this reason, you give an open-ended, never-actually-fulfilled order that technically always applies to yourself, and is designed to always conflict with any other order, as outlined previously in the thread in several different ways, and thus any additional order would be applied simultaneously to the target.

Technically someone who figures it out could likewise give you an open ended order that perfectly negates the one you set up, completely overriding it such as "Obey my commands completely", and since that command never actually comes to a completion, from there on out your previous order would be supressed by that one, but it still forces the enemy caster to spend extra time in figuring out your defences, plus give yourself an extra chance to avoid properly being dominated (via the opposed cha check), which, if successful, you can trump the whole thing by casting a protection spell on yourself for the duration of the combat, then dispel the enemy dominate afterwards should they escape or something.

[Segev]

No, you can have simultaneous orders. "Talking is a free action," so a dominator can give his mental orders on your turn, dictating your actions as if you were his PC.

[Crake]

No, you can have simultaneous orders. "Talking is a free action," so a dominator can give his mental orders on your turn, dictating your actions as if you were his PC.

except talking doesnt cut it for dominate, it requires a move action to give them a new order.

If what you are saying were the case, the rule would be moot, because whoever wins the cha check, the other person just gives another free action order, so it would be impossible to resolve.

By simultaneous, it clearly means two orders that are on the target at the same time that conflict with one another.

It's also worth noting that you don't get to control the target like a puppet. You give them an order, and they act to perform the order to the best of their ability. You don't necessarily know what that might entail, so the subject would be under DM control (or in a mature group, even the player themselves would choose what actions to take)

[Fouredged Sword]

From a game rule perspective, I think "multiple commands before you get a chance to act on one or the other" is as close to simultaneous as DND gets.

Wizard A and Cleric B are both paralyzed and battling one another. Luckly, thy both previously dominated Fighter 1. The wizard wins initiative and orders the fighter to CDG the cleric. The cleric DOES get initiative before the fighter though, and gives a counter order to the fighter to have him CDG the wizard instead. This triggers the Cha contest to see what of the two orders the fighter follows.

I don't think standing orders covers it. The orders must come in at the same time.

[sleepyphoenixx]

Dominate is not Contingency.
Ordering yourself to give yourself an order to cast PfE when you're already dominated by an outside source sounds pretty fishy to me.

There's also the question if the victim of multiple dominates knows who gives what order or can tell apart his own dominate from that of the outside caster.
Ordering yourself not to obey dominate orders is pretty self-defeating in that case as is anything with "when i'm dominated" in it.