PDA

View Full Version : DM Help Using Dominate Person on players.



Harbinger
2014-05-28, 07:13 PM
So I'm running a campaign, and the players are going to an undergroundwater research station that has been taken over by mind flayers. Now, I want to freak them out, and I think it'd be incharacter, so I want to have it try to Dominate them. One of them is a Warforged juggernaut, and another is a necropolitan, so they're immune, but the others are fair game. Does anyone have experience about a situation like this? Did it work well? The way I'm going to do it is to pass them all notecards, with the undominated saying things like "Nothing happens," or "You suddenly feel your head start to ache a bit," while whoever fails the save has "Do not share this card with the others. You are now Dominated. You are ordered to kill your comrades, starting with (the warforged and necropolitan) in whatever way you choose. Use your judgement and ingenuity." I feel like this could either be really fun, or really bad. What do others think?

jedipotter
2014-05-28, 07:24 PM
Mostly this just turns out really bad. Having the players fight each other rarely ends well... Sure they might have great fun.....but they also might not like the DM ''forcing them to not have fun by taking control of their players. It sure is no fun to sit there and say ''my character does this or that as you told him too''.

When I want to ''dominate'' or such, I almost always role play it out. I want the player to take the action willingly. They will be tricked into it, sure, but it is their choice.

Illusions work great here, but you can also go ''beyond the rules''. Say that the dominated creature can be made to see anything you want. But they think it is real. So you have tem see a 'demon' go into another character....and then that character acts weird. Or you set things up in the game to make things look one way. Like Gorn never gets attacked....as to not hard the demon, of course. You can even spin and turn harmless things into horrible things.......and that is great fun.

nedz
2014-05-28, 07:50 PM
It depends upon your players. All of the people I play with would either love this, or at least play along, mostly the former.

Obviously this trick gets old very quickly so it's not something to overdo, but you weren't suggesting that.

da_chicken
2014-05-28, 08:02 PM
It can work out well if:

1. The character is away from the rest of the party when it happens.
2. The player is the type of player who will go along with it and not ruin it.

Essentially, you dominate the PC when he's away from everybody else. Since it's a mind flayer, they can communicate telepathically. Pull the player aside and discuss what's going on. Let them continue to "play" their character, but they have new restrictions.

The "kill the other players" instruction isn't very interesting, though. All that happens is the player kills the rest of the party while they sleep or are otherwise helpless. Even with two non-sleepers, it's not that difficult to do, especially with an ambush for the survivors by a party of Mind Flayers. Think about what the Mind Flayers are doing in the area. What do they want from adventurers that invade their realm? Probably to find out who they are, why they're there, and who told them the Mind Flayers were there. Even an average Mind Flayer is a genius. They're not going to be afraid of the adventurers. They'll be looking for what opportunities they can gain from them. Mind Flayers are also the type to have plans in place for when they face mind-immune creatures like undead and constructs. Beads of force seem like the most obvious method, but simple things like illusory wall concealing pits and passageways are tremendously effective.

Harbinger
2014-05-28, 08:24 PM
It can work out well if:

1. The character is away from the rest of the party when it happens.
2. The player is the type of player who will go along with it and not ruin it.

Essentially, you dominate the PC when he's away from everybody else. Since it's a mind flayer, they can communicate telepathically. Pull the player aside and discuss what's going on. Let them continue to "play" their character, but they have new restrictions.

The "kill the other players" instruction isn't very interesting, though. All that happens is the player kills the rest of the party while they sleep or are otherwise helpless. Even with two non-sleepers, it's not that difficult to do, especially with an ambush for the survivors by a party of Mind Flayers. Think about what the Mind Flayers are doing in the area. What do they want from adventurers that invade their realm? Probably to find out who they are, why they're there, and who told them the Mind Flayers were there. Even an average Mind Flayer is a genius. They're not going to be afraid of the adventurers. They'll be looking for what opportunities they can gain from them. Mind Flayers are also the type to have plans in place for when they face mind-immune creatures like undead and constructs. Beads of force seem like the most obvious method, but simple things like illusory wall concealing pits and passageways are tremendously effective.

The PCs and the mind flayer (well,there are two, but only one of them is directly opposed to the PCs) are both in an underwater research station (sorry, I misspoke when I said underground) on the elemental plane of water where the mind flayer is trying to get information on using a gate spell to open a rift to another time, to summon a massive mind flayer fleet from the future. The PCs don't yet know what specifically they are up against. The mind flayers would already know the answers to all three of the above questions. I like your thought about doing something other than killing them, but I can't really separate a specific player because then the others would know exactly who was targeted, and will probably figure out it was domination. That is the point of giving everyone a note card, so no one will know who was effected, but everyone will know something happened.

Jay R
2014-05-28, 08:57 PM
Some players would love it. Some players would hate it. You know these people and we don't, so we can't really advise you.

But I recommend that you keep anybody from killing any other PCs. Ideally, the dominated characters are trying to sabotage the mission, not kill the others.

But the question you must ask yourself is this: will these players enjoy it?

Alex12
2014-05-29, 01:55 PM
The PCs and the mind flayer (well,there are two, but only one of them is directly opposed to the PCs) are both in an underwater research station (sorry, I misspoke when I said underground) on the elemental plane of water where the mind flayer is trying to get information on using a gate spell to open a rift to another time, to summon a massive mind flayer fleet from the future. The PCs don't yet know what specifically they are up against. The mind flayers would already know the answers to all three of the above questions. I like your thought about doing something other than killing them, but I can't really separate a specific player because then the others would know exactly who was targeted, and will probably figure out it was domination. That is the point of giving everyone a note card, so no one will know who was effected, but everyone will know something happened.

My group uses a chat room type thing for private messaging (mainly between DM and players, but occasionally between players too). That way, we don't even know something happened if we weren't there to see it. I'll also note that those players who passed the Will save will be aware that they just shrugged off a mental attack, though they won't know what kind.

That said, the particular order given grants the dominee (is that the proper word?) initiative. That means they can try and loophole-abuse it. "In whatever way you choose" could include something like "tortured to death over the course of days." Or by acting absolutely normal and completely ignoring the compulsion, reasoning that attacking one of your own party members in obviously hostile territory (as justified by the fact that they just got Dominated) is a clearly self-destructive act.

Ravens_cry
2014-05-29, 02:06 PM
It's very group dependent. I myself find it super annoying when I basically have to sit out a session, something I have potentially been waiting for weeks or more, because, hey, them bones didn't roll in my favour. As a short term thing, like a single combat with a baddie, it can be fun, or as something you agree upon with the player for a longer con, but you don't suddenly pull a Manchurian agent without player consent.
It tramples all over player agency if you do.

nedz
2014-05-29, 02:14 PM
It's very group dependent. I myself find it super annoying when I basically have to sit out a session, something I have potentially been waiting for weeks or more, because, hey, them bones didn't roll in my favour. As a short term thing, like a single combat with a baddie, it can be fun, or as something you agree upon with the player for a longer con, but you don't suddenly pull a Manchurian agent without player consent.
It tramples all over player agency if you do.

Well it tramples on PC agency, but so long as you let the player play the dominated character — player agency, not so much. It's definitely an occasional trick though — maybe once in a campaign.

Ravens_cry
2014-05-29, 02:44 PM
Well it tramples on PC agency, but so long as you let the player play the dominated character — player agency, not so much. It's definitely an occasional trick though — maybe once in a campaign.
Well, yes, but that only really works for the single combat version, where they get to attack the other PCs. At some point for the long con you, as the NPC, are going to have to say 'No, you don't do that'.

Jay R
2014-05-29, 05:12 PM
Well, yes, but that only really works for the single combat version, where they get to attack the other PCs. At some point for the long con you, as the NPC, are going to have to say 'No, you don't do that'.

My experience (admittedly quite small) is that the person whose character should be Dominated is the one best able to play it well, and most willing to go along with it. If I have to tell him, "No, you don't do that," then I chose the wrong player.

[And if there's no player in the game who can both play it well and enjoy it, then you probably shouldn't do it in that game.]

RFTD-blog
2014-05-29, 10:40 PM
First, I'll say that from a creative standpoint, I love your idea and I think it's that type of thinking that will make for a great campaign.

Unfortunately there is also the technical side of things.

If this is a singular battle, then I would just take control of that character with the dominate person. Hopefully whoever it is can smoke a cigarette or play with the cat for a couple minutes.

If it's more than a singular battle, I think you'll need a different rules system other than D&D to pull this off, from a technical standpoint.

I agree with what Ravens_cry said.

I wouldn't do it for more than a battle. There's got to be other enchantment spells or effects that would make for the same level of interest but not take complete agency over a player. A few suggestions have already been put into the thread, like illusory wall. What about Otto's Irresistible Dance into a 100 ft pit? A weird idea I know, but maybe there's something to it.

Frankly, if I was a mind flayer, I'd be more interested in finding out who the PCs are working for rather than the PCs themselves. Keep your friends close, enemies closer kind of thing. And then stab the PCs in the back with some mercenaries who seem to be disconnected to the mind flayers...because mind flayers are a bit cowardly when it comes down to it. Well, most are. Maybe not in your campaign.

Fayd
2014-05-29, 10:42 PM
My only experience with doing this turned out REALLY REALLY WELL. But that may be mostly based on the fact that the only thing I made them do was sing Broadway Musicals.

Wardog
2014-05-31, 10:28 AM
Using Dominate Person on players.
Not cool, bro.

Now, using Dominate Person on their characters, that might be ok if you do it right ;)

Mono Vertigo
2014-05-31, 11:56 AM
Not cool, bro.

Now, using Dominate Person on their characters, that might be ok if you do it right ;)

That being said, I've more than once wanted to use Dominate Person on the players. Mostly so they would decide to pursue any of the obvious existing hints and hooks.

Spore
2014-05-31, 03:49 PM
I'd say you use Charm Person and tell the players that have not saved successfully that

- it is a very very good idea to go out of the research station.
- that this thing you hated on character x is REALLY bugging you RIGHT NOW and needs discussion.
- that you would really really love to hurt character y.

No open combat with actual rules unless they really want it. Also have them all roll saves (except the guys not available to Dominate) and give them orders starting with the lowest. The lowest actually wants to kill. The second lowest is really angry towards the others. The best failed save feels a irrational hatred that is mixed with good feelings. Fudge the "fight" that the uncontrolled fraction is more people so that they can restrain their comrades and do not have to resort to ultimate violence.

Angelalex242
2014-05-31, 04:41 PM
Dominate Person on players: Well, I dunno, some people are just IN to that kind of thing. Done wisely, it can be a healthy experience.

Dominate Person on characters: Just be aware of who you're dominating. Some classes have codes of conduct, and intelligent enemies...well, one of their first goals should be seeing to it those codes of conduct are violated as soon as possible. The first thing you should order a cleric to do is blaspheme his god, the first thing you should order a druid to do is defile nature and/or wear metal armor or use unapproved weapons, and the first thing you should order a paladin to do is murder the nearest innocent.

All 3 of the above then need an atonement spell, and even if they escape your domination later, they've got no class abilities for a while, during which, the monsters should have a much easier time destroying them because of it.

In short, rule #1 of dominate person:If the character has a code of conduct, make sure they violate it, immediately, upon failing their saving throw.

Honest Tiefling
2014-05-31, 04:43 PM
Perhaps make the domination more subtle? Instead of killing the other party members, manipulate them. Take THAT path, not that one. Give this rather nice sword to that jolly good warforged. Out compete the Necropoltian so he does something he wouldn't normally to out compete you. And perhaps some sense motive checks if players get the idea that something is a bit wrong with their more fleshy compatriots.

Perhaps if characters start making perception/spot/listen checks...Write down the information, unlike usual. No one else hears that odd chanting, just you. Nope, just you. No one else. Of course its real! And it would be just the DM using the note cards to make the playes think they are hallucinating, when in reality, the others just didn't roll high enough.

I am not sure how it would work, but I would still advise to tread carefully. And to think on if your party would work with it.

Alex12
2014-05-31, 05:16 PM
Dominate Person on players: Well, I dunno, some people are just IN to that kind of thing. Done wisely, it can be a healthy experience.

Dominate Person on characters: Just be aware of who you're dominating. Some classes have codes of conduct, and intelligent enemies...well, one of their first goals should be seeing to it those codes of conduct are violated as soon as possible. The first thing you should order a cleric to do is blaspheme his god, the first thing you should order a druid to do is defile nature and/or wear metal armor or use unapproved weapons, and the first thing you should order a paladin to do is murder the nearest innocent.

All 3 of the above then need an atonement spell, and even if they escape your domination later, they've got no class abilities for a while, during which, the monsters should have a much easier time destroying them because of it.

In short, rule #1 of dominate person:If the character has a code of conduct, make sure they violate it, immediately, upon failing their saving throw.

I'm pretty sure that being dominated into breaking your code of conduct would fall under the category of "actions against their nature" and allow another saving throw with a +2 bonus.

Angelalex242
2014-05-31, 08:32 PM
You're right, it would! But it's VERY rewarding to successfully pull it off for the bad guys. It leaves their opponent a helpless bug, waiting to be crushed.

As a villain, you must think of what would stroke the villain's ego the most, not necessarily what would be most practical. They haven't all read the evil overlord's list, ya know.

Alex12
2014-05-31, 08:56 PM
You're right, it would! But it's VERY rewarding to successfully pull it off for the bad guys. It leaves their opponent a helpless bug, waiting to be crushed.

As a villain, you must think of what would stroke the villain's ego the most, not necessarily what would be most practical. They haven't all read the evil overlord's list, ya know.

Oh, I'll absolutely agree that if it works, it's devastating.
And that's certainly one way to play villains, though obviously not the only way.

Angelalex242
2014-05-31, 09:19 PM
The practicality problem, of course, comes from the fact that classes with codes of conduct tend to have killer will saves. Clerics and Druids both pump their wisdom as a matter of course, and the Paladin pumps Charisma instead, which amounts to the same thing.

That said, nothing makes a villain twirl his mustache in greater pleasure then dominating people with codes of conduct to break them, perhaps in part because it IS something of a lower percentage shot.

Thrudd
2014-05-31, 09:29 PM
Pretty sure magical mind control exempts a paladin character from losing their powers. Deities that award spells to their clerics by placing incantations into their mind can also tell when those clerics are under magical compulsion. It is debatable whether Druids should be punished by "nature" while under compulsion, it depends on the campaign setting, but even if they were, they don't require an atonement, they lose powers while using the disallowed implements and for 24 hours after.

I would consider it a very adversarial move on part of a DM to rule that my paladin loses his powers while under a dominate spell he (or anyone) placed on me, or to deny my cleric's spells because the deity is somehow omniscient enough to know that I am blaspheming and punish me, but not omniscient enough to know that I am under a magic spell and not in control of my actions. I would argue either ruling.

Angelalex242
2014-05-31, 09:43 PM
I think it depends on which edition you're playing, but I believe the code of conduct is such that 'magically compelled blasphemies/evil/disrespect of nature' requires an atonement spell that doesn't cost the cleric casting it XP. That is, the god takes the powers away to prevent them from being misused for evil/blasphemous/antinature purposes.

Hence, why dominating a code of conduct character to doing evil works, so long as nobody's around to cast atonement (or else it'll only be a till the cleric/druid can rest and regain spells problem). For this reason, always target the cleric or druid first.

Ravens_cry
2014-05-31, 11:12 PM
Definitely edition dependent. In 1st edition AD&D, unwilling acts of evil were the only kind that could be atoned at all. Willing acts were Do Not Pass Go, Do Not Collect 200 GP . . . Forever.
Honestly, even if I was playing 1st edition, I think I'd houserule that. Unwilling acts of evil stain the soul of the controller, not the controlled one.

Angelalex242
2014-05-31, 11:18 PM
I think that's why Unearthed Arcana (1st Ed) had Paladins become Cavalier Paladins, to take advantage of the Cavalier's 90 percent resistance to charms and compulsions, on top of the godly saving throws Paladins always have.

Thus, it was highly unlikely your cavalier paladin would ever run into the 'I got mind controlled' problem. You had to be REALLY unlucky before it came up.

Thrudd
2014-05-31, 11:34 PM
I think that's why Unearthed Arcana (1st Ed) had Paladins become Cavalier Paladins, to take advantage of the Cavalier's 90 percent resistance to charms and compulsions, on top of the godly saving throws Paladins always have.

Thus, it was highly unlikely your cavalier paladin would ever run into the 'I got mind controlled' problem. You had to be REALLY unlucky before it came up.

I forgot 3e atonement spell actually says in the description that it is used for atoning for unwilling acts of evil, so you're right about dominate person requiring atonement.
1e paladins also have a persistent "protection from evil" emanation with a 10ft radius, so they are pretty much immune from mind control spells.

Ravens_cry
2014-05-31, 11:47 PM
I think that's why Unearthed Arcana (1st Ed) had Paladins become Cavalier Paladins, to take advantage of the Cavalier's 90 percent resistance to charms and compulsions, on top of the godly saving throws Paladins always have.

Thus, it was highly unlikely your cavalier paladin would ever run into the 'I got mind controlled' problem. You had to be REALLY unlucky before it came up.
It's still rather gauche. "Hey, thanks to nothing you could do or have prevented, you are now a Fighter without the things that make Fighters good." At least its fixable, but still, it makes no sense from any moral or ethical perspective I see.

Grod_The_Giant
2014-05-31, 11:48 PM
My experience (admittedly quite small) is that the person whose character should be Dominated is the one best able to play it well, and most willing to go along with it. If I have to tell him, "No, you don't do that," then I chose the wrong player.

[And if there's no player in the game who can both play it well and enjoy it, then you probably shouldn't do it in that game.]
I agree with this 100%.

Also, I 100% disagree with RFTD-blog, on both counts. Firstly, in a singular battle, taking control of the character is the worst thing that you, as DM, can do-- not only does it remove that player from the game, but it slows things down for everyone else as you try to decipher his character sheet. (And you will need to decipher it, even if you're a paranoid DM who keeps abreast of PC abilities). And secondly... While D&D doesn't have any real mechanics for dominated PCs, it doesn't really need them, provided the player is mature enough to play along. And if he's not... well, see the earlier point about only doing it to players who'll roll with it.

Angelalex242
2014-05-31, 11:52 PM
Also one of the many reasons the Book of Exalted Deed's Fist of Raziel is my favorite prestige class. Permanent magic circle against evil is a GODSEND.

In fact, I got to use that prestige class once in a campaign where there was 'Runt the Barbarian. Str 20, Dex 20, Con 20, Int 14, Wis 3, Cha 10.' The point was that all the enemies had charm and compulsion magic to use on Runt, who had a TERRIBLE will save!

Magic Circle against Evil broke the game, because the charms and compulsions had no effect while my Magic Circle protected him.

But yes, you are correct. The Atonement spell does specifically say it's there to use if unwilling acts of evil are committed, and when that happens, the cleric casts it for free. Only if you willingly did something wrong does it cost him XP.

neonchameleon
2014-06-01, 08:52 AM
Don't do it.

Charm on the other hand can work. Just tell the player that their character has been charmed and is now loyal to [whoever] - and let them work out the implications of that. Actively dictating their actions is a gamebreaker.