DM Problems with Suggestion

[lytokk]

So, in my last game the party beat who they thought was the big bad, took his amulet of undead conrol, and then the player with it, decided to put it on and start using it. Player was a NG Druid, and pretty much all of us were a little surprised with this move. Unbeknownst to all of the players, there was a succubus sealed inside of the amulet which was used to power the item. I had already written it into the story that the succubus could use it's suggestion spell like even though it was sealed, and decided that it would be the best way to get the session back on track. So, after a few will saves, the druid failed her save, and I told her "You feel an overwhelming urge to destroy the amulet." Which she then did. I don't think this was too powerful of a suggestion to make right?

I don't usually mess around with the mind controlling spells from the DM side of things, since I really feel that it can interfere with player agency, even when I'm a player I don't like using it. This whole thing has been just gnawing on me since I did it. I needed the amulet destroyed for story reasons, and every other member of the party wanted it smashed, just the druids player was having a bad game and we have talked about that issue since and are working towards resolutions, so no real danger of falling druids.

I'm just curious if I played this right, or if there's any other DMs who try to avoid using any mind controlling spells on PCs.

[Kazudo]

Nah, sounds good. The story demanded it and your group is story oriented. Totally understandable. The houserule about the Succubus in the magical item is an interesting notion, but you're the DM, the rules and regulations of D&D pass through you as a filter before getting to the players, so I don't think you did anything wrong. As long as fun was had and the Druid doesn't feel too put upon by it, there ya go.

[lytokk]

The idea of binding demons into magic items isn't entirely new. And I made sure the amulet was cold iron to really seal in the idea. Course, cold iron has some new properties an creation guidelines in my game. I see what I did there and I'm not happy about it.

[Shining Wrath]

So you'd already written into the story that there was a succubus sealed within the amulet that wanted out? And this disappointed a druid who wanted to keep the amulet?

That amulet could have been cursed to an arbitrarily bad level of cursed, as in "BBEG was once a symbol of all that is good and pure, before putting on ... The Amulet Of Very Much Badness", and your NG druid attempts to kill the rest of the party one round after donning it. People who put on magic amulets taken from evil baddies without proper precautions get sadly disappointed on a regular basis.

Just talk to the druid's player. What you did was aligned with your notes and your campaign. You have nothing to worry about.

[Mnemnosyne]

It seems mostly okay, though there are a couple points that make me wonder. The druid succeeded on his saves several times; did you inform her that she was succeeding on her saves, and that she could feel a spell trying to affect her? Because when you succeed on a save, you know something just tried to affect you, even if you don't know exactly what it was.

As for the actual suggestion itself, you definitely did that wrong. Suggestion is language-dependent and must be worded. The druid must have heard an actual verbal (or telepathic or whatever) suggestion using actual words; telling her she suddenly feels an urge to destroy the pendant isn't accurate to the ability you had used against her. Even if everything else continues this way, she is now definitely entitled to know that an entity verbally instructed her to destroy the amulet, it wasn't just an 'urge'.

Finally, if the succubus wanted the amulet destroyed, do you already have an explanation for why she didn't already use her suggestion on its previous owner? I mean, if the previous owner was immune to mind-affecting or something then that makes sense, but otherwise it seems implausible that the succubus would not have long ago demanded the amulet destroyed. Even if the previous owner had a 21+ on his will save, everyone rolls a 1 eventually, and as an at-will ability, the succubus could just cast it every round until he fails.

[lytokk]

No, I didn't mention that there was something tryign to control the players actions. I actually didn't know that a character would realize all that was going on with a made save. Like I said, don't use mind control spells much mostly because I really don't like them. I pretty much worded it as an urge due to the fact that I really really didn't want to strip the player of the druid's powers for willingly controlling undead, which I think is a reason for a druid to fall.

Proper wording for what hapenned should have been along the lines of "You've been continuing to have thoughts enter your head, but everytime you start to focus on them, they seem to disapear. Through the haze, you're able to make out a voice in your mind saying 'DESTROY THE AMULET! IT'S EVIL IS CORRUPTION'." or something of that nature right?

That last point was brought up during the session by one of the players claiming "Plot holes abound." The ogre who found it, went back to his tribe, and using the power of the amulet, ousted the old leader and took over. Basically, the succubus wanted an army before she came back, since that seemed to me to be more of the way a succubus would do things. Granted, at this point, suggestion wouldn't work since the ogre had become much more powerful than he was before, and he knew the amulet was to cause, so there would be no reason for him to ever want to destroy the thing.

[Red Fel]

From my perspective, it seems like a lost opportunity.

You had an NG character who voluntarily took an undead-oriented (and therefore likely Evil) magic object. The object was inhabited by a demon with a Suggestion ability. Yes, it forwarded the plot to simply force the Druid to destroy the amulet, thus releasing the demon. But think of what you could have done.

Picture it. Every so often, tell the Druid to roll d20. Don't say what for. Take the result as a Will save (using the Druid's modifiers, of course). On a fail, pass the Druid's player a note, informing the Druid of something. It could be about anything. "You get an overwhelming impression that the mayor is lying to the party." "You sense that there's something unnatural about this tree." "You catch a glimpse of something evil in that squirrel's eyes."

Over time, either you corrupt the Druid, or the Druid becomes aware of an evil influence on his/her thoughts. If the former, get her to the Evil point, then let the Succubus make herself known. Her new pet Evil Druid would be only to happy to help out a demon. If the latter, once it's abundantly clear that the amulet is Evil, it's time to drop the bombshell. "You realize that the amulet is the source of your madness. It must be destroyed."

Now, keep in mind, not only is this a cool plot mechanism that can last across multiple sessions, it also does something else important - it retains player agency. It doesn't sound like the Druid's player had a problem with acting on "an overwhelming urge to destroy the amulet." Which is okay. But generally, I try to avoid putting something like that on the players. It's one thing to deceive the senses - to tell them that someone is lying when they're not, to create illusions or echoes or tricks. But it's another thing to tell them that they have an urge to take a particular action. Even if the player is okay with it, I tend not to be, because I don't like standing between a player and her character.

That said? If it turned out okay, pat yourself on the back. At the end of the day, your players don't know what thought process went into the campaign, or what might have been; they only know what actually happened. And if that made them happy, you did a good job.

[lytokk]

Since this was mostly supposed to be about Suggestion questions, I'll throw in a little bit more background which has little to do with the actual question. The player was off her game the entire time. This is the same druid being played by my wife I asked about here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?353604-My-wife-having-problems-in-my-game). This was a very off session for her and was doing things that in no way fit with her character. Me and her have taken to things to resolve the issue, first with an audit of her character sheet, which turned up quite a lot missing from it, been doing a little one on one rp with her druid and the DMPC cleric as well as the NPC tracker, just to help her get into character. We're also going to do a little bit of warm up exercises on the way to the games, as well as her getting some simple RP time with the hosts. Just little bits to establish her character.

[ahenobarbi]

Also wouldn't druid loose spells and wildshape for putting on metal equipment?

[TheCountAlucard]

Also wouldn't druid loose spells and wildshape for putting on metal equipment?Pretty sure the restriction is just for armor.

[Red Fel]

Pretty sure the restriction is just for armor.

And shields. As stated (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/druid.htm):

Druids are proficient with light and medium armor but are prohibited from wearing metal armor; thus, they may wear only padded, leather, or hide armor. (A druid may also wear wooden armor that has been altered by the ironwood spell so that it functions as though it were steel. See the ironwood spell description) Druids are proficient with shields (except tower shields) but must use only wooden ones.

A druid who wears prohibited armor or carries a prohibited shield is unable to cast druid spells or use any of her supernatural or spell-like class abilities while doing so and for 24 hours thereafter.(Emphasis added.)

There is no restriction on any other form of metal equipment. You can wear amulets, rings, even gauntlets. Technically, if you have the proficiency, you could use an all-metal weapon. The prohibition is only on armor and shields.

[Silvanoshei]

I'm just curious if I played this right, or if there's any other DMs who try to avoid using any mind controlling spells on PCs.

I leave everything out on the table, and never restrict my play or the play of my players. Not using suggestion spell is just limiting your own fun and variety. I think the way you used the spell wasn't totally in line with what it was intended however. There was no reason for the players actions, and the player needs to be suggested, if will save is failed, in such a matter that makes him want to smash the heck out of the amulet. Instead of "urge to destroy...", you need to be more fluffy and reasonable like, "the amulet has gold coins in the center and needs to be destroyed to get them." That would prompt the player to act on his own, but lead by the spell to destroy it.

[Mnemnosyne]

No, I didn't mention that there was something tryign to control the players actions. I actually didn't know that a character would realize all that was going on with a made save. Like I said, don't use mind control spells much mostly because I really don't like them. I pretty much worded it as an urge due to the fact that I really really didn't want to strip the player of the druid's powers for willingly controlling undead, which I think is a reason for a druid to fall.

Proper wording for what hapenned should have been along the lines of "You've been continuing to have thoughts enter your head, but everytime you start to focus on them, they seem to disapear. Through the haze, you're able to make out a voice in your mind saying 'DESTROY THE AMULET! IT'S EVIL IS CORRUPTION'." or something of that nature right?

That last point was brought up during the session by one of the players claiming "Plot holes abound." The ogre who found it, went back to his tribe, and using the power of the amulet, ousted the old leader and took over. Basically, the succubus wanted an army before she came back, since that seemed to me to be more of the way a succubus would do things. Granted, at this point, suggestion wouldn't work since the ogre had become much more powerful than he was before, and he knew the amulet was to cause, so there would be no reason for him to ever want to destroy the thing.
A character who makes a saving throw knows they succeeded on a saving throw. They do not automatically know what they succeeded on, but they know they succeeded on a saving throw of whatever the appropriate type is. This is pretty important because it gives a character a clue that something is happening to them, and a reason to search for the problem. If this weren't the case, spells like charm person or dominate would be even more obscenely powerful than they already are.

As far as suggestion goes, there's something else noticeable about the spell - the caster must speak (or otherwise communicate, such as via telepathy) the suggestion to the target. If the target makes their saving throw, that doesn't mean the target fails to understand, or that the caster didn't speak; it simply means that she resisted the magical compulsion to act on the suggestion. So she would have, several times, heard a voice in her head telling her to destroy the amulet, perhaps with different wording each time, and also known at the same time that she felt a 'tingle' and resisted some sort of effect. Suggestion is definitely not a subtle sort of spell; if the target makes their saving throw, any idiot can put 2 and 2 together and realize that the person making a suggestion to them just tried to magically compel them to obey.

This winds up kind of important because it means that the sequence of events should basically have been, when the succubus first tries, she hears the voice in her head telling her to destroy the amulet, and she feels the telltale tingle of resisting a magical effect. This should have given her a chance to act on her own, possibly realizing that the amulet was trying to control her to destroy it. This obviously raises some suspicions, and the players may well have done something other than destroy the amulet at that point.

Now, if everything worked out and this event is past and all, it's probably too late to correct your mistakes here, even though it may well cause a very different series of actions to have taken place. But at the very least, the druid player needs to be informed that she was actually spoken to by a voice rather than an urge, since it may very well make a major difference in their behavior and how they proceed in the future.

[lytokk]

Thank you very much for all the clarification on how suggestion is supposed to work. Its really going to help out should I ever need to use it again. I could have made this a long term possession, but I don't know how long I could conceivably keep that up. Also, I didn't know how long the party would put up with keeping the thing around. all that was going through my head at the moment was "I don't want to make my wife's druid fall due to using undead, but I can't give her special treatment, and none of the other players are succeeding in convincing her to destroy the thing."

[Mnemnosyne]

It should be noted that druids would not 'fall' because of undead. Druids can be any neutral alignment; even if undead in your setting are inherently evil and using them is automatically evil (which isn't even automatically the case, since there are more than a few settings where undead can be neutral or even good), all that would really happen is her alignment would shift from Neutral Good to Neutral, then eventually Neutral Evil. There would be no loss of druid powers, although if in your setting druids must worship a god to gain their powers as they do in the Forgotten Realms, she might have to switch which god she worships.

[Silvanoshei]

"I don't want to make my wife's druid fall due to using undead, but I can't give her special treatment, and none of the other players are succeeding in convincing her to destroy the thing."

Here's something to chew on, do you think Aragon leading on undead army to kill Sauron's army was evil?

[VoxRationis]

It's not that the undead-commanding NG druid would fall because they're NG, they'd fall because they're a druid. The PHB specifically condemns undead (and aberrations, though that's not really pertinent in this case) as unnatural and as something druids, regardless of alignment, desire to destroy. A druid should in fact get a saving throw penalty when dealing with a suggestion to destroy such an item, since it is so stained by association with an object of her class's hatred.

[lytokk]

There's a difference with Aragon leading that army of undead. Those were sentient ghosts he negotiated with to come to his aid, and while he commanded them, he didn't control them. The amulet gave a control of undead and a very enhanced ability to create them. Also, Aragon didn't have a code of conduct he needed to follow in order to keep his class abilities.

[Techwarrior]

There's a difference with Aragon leading that army of undead. Those were sentient ghosts he negotiated with to come to his aid, and while he commanded them, he didn't control them. The amulet gave a control of undead and a very enhanced ability to create them. Also, Aragon didn't have a code of conduct he needed to follow in order to keep his class abilities.

He did if, as has been postulated before, he has levels of Paladin.

[Silvanoshei]

There's a difference with Aragon leading that army of undead. Those were sentient ghosts he negotiated with to come to his aid, and while he commanded them, he didn't control them. The amulet gave a control of undead and a very enhanced ability to create them. Also, Aragon didn't have a code of conduct he needed to follow in order to keep his class abilities.

I can only speculate, since you never actually answered the Aragon question, is that you think Aragon did in fact not do an evil act leading / persuading / suggesting an undead army to fight for his cause. I would like to stipulate, regardless of what Aragon's class is, he is undoubtedly a good person, Neutral Good maybe? I think you're being a little sophistic in your reasoning, and needs to be a very broad scope.

So in your view, your Druid could have talked to some liches, made them fight for her cause, whatever that may be, and still have her following her Neutral Good path (it has nothing to do with Druidic Code, the main no no is teaching the language, burning a forest down, or becoming a paladin or sauron himself via alignment). However, if she were to use a device that allowed her to create or control undead, to help in a good cause, she'd lose her Druid powers because she... stopped revering nature? A good cause for any NG Druid would be to preserve nature at all costs. Since she is a neutral good Druid, she can be fallible, which means you can sometimes lie for the greater good, or steal to keep living to fight the bad guys. Since Druids only have a basic rule set, it's to be assumed there are NE Druids too, who actually do create undead for bad reasons, but a NG Druid using undead to promote nature and kindness is a fair assessment of someone of that type.

Edit Note: Fun fact, there is a feat that allows undead to wild shape. :smallsmile:

[lytokk]

The point of this thread was to clear up any misconceptions I had regarding the suggestion spell, not to debate whether or not controlling undead would be a fallable reason for druids, especially since falling from any class is a decision left entirely up to the DM. But, my reason for why it should be a falling offense is that druids revere nature above all else. Life is natural, death is natural, undeath is unnatural and should not be allowed to exist.
Now, to convince liches to fight for you. Sometimes there's a greater good. Aragon getting the ghost army to fight for him is labelled as a necessary evil, since without them, Gondor would have fallen. He made a Lawful decision to hold those spirits to the vows they had made centuries prior. When the ghosts realized they could be freed from their unnatural imprisonment, they agreed. After the battle, Aragon held true to his word and release the spirits, releasing thousands of undead from the material realm, which is both lawful and good. Now, I don't subscribe to the idea that Aragon is a paladin, merely a Ranger/Fighter (maybe some ToB, but that doesn't matter for here). None of the classes I think he belongs to have any sort of conduct code, so he's fine doing whatever he wants.
In addition, this is D&D, that is LotR, and while one is based on the other, they are incompatible systems for direct moral comparisons, as is every other work of fiction comparing to D&D.

[Silvanoshei]

The point of this thread was to clear up any misconceptions I had regarding the suggestion spell, not to debate whether or not controlling undead would be a fallable reason for druids, especially since falling from any class is a decision left entirely up to the DM. But, my reason for why it should be a falling offense is that druids revere nature above all else. Life is natural, death is natural, undeath is unnatural and should not be allowed to exist.

You used the Suggestion spell in a very sophistic way, and it's causing not only yourself anguish...


This whole thing has been just gnawing on me since I did it.

...but also hindering your players actions by railroading them into your perfect model of your Druid. You are blinding yourself to one way of thinking, and that cannot happen in D&D because of how broad the playing field is. I would agree with your logic, since I'm a rule nazi, that if there was a section in the Druid PHB saying "Creating or controlling undead will make you lose your Druid status." sold, nothing more to be said. It doesn't say that though, and gives room for freedom of it's players on what kind of Druid they want to be.

It's the age old debate on you have your girlfriend, mom and dad on one side, and ten people on the other, you decide to save your loved ones rather then over 3 times as many people makes you an evil person because more lives equal morally better standard in the eyes of others? Of course not, just because a Druid using undead for protection of the forest and promoting good is odd, does not necessarily make it non-druidic, but a very fun and interesting character creation. I'm trying to point out that you contradicted yourself by using the spell to force her to play a Druid your way instead of her own way and that's not in the spirit of D&D.

Here's a quote from an article I really enjoyed and encourage you to read it HERE (http://www.paperspencils.com/2012/03/12/a-paladins-fall/).

"Of course, there is one final element which is important to keep in mind when GMing: never, under any circumstances, try to force your players to take a certain kind of action. No matter how cool you think it would be. No matter how important it is to your ‘story,’ it is never acceptable for a GM to attempt to force a choice. We control the entire world. The demons and the devils, the celestials and the very gods themselves bend to our whim. The only thing the players control is the choices their own characters make. If you really want to make those choices yourself, then maybe you should be writing fiction, rather than running a game."

[lytokk]

I actually have read that article, and I found it to be a good read. I don't like intruding on player agency, except in certain circumstances. Say a new player, new to all RPGs, is in their first dungeon ever, and that player comes to a closed door. That individual player, decides to open the door, and even while the whole party is yelling for them not to, saying its a bad idea, the player does anyway. Well, the door was trapped, and the damage kills the player. At that point, what's going to be more likely, the player says with the maturity of someone who's lost more characters they can count, "oh well, my mistake, hand me a new sheet," or the more likely, "this game is stupid, I don't want to play anymore." Stepping in to save a new player from themselves is part of being a DM, especially when they come face to face with a circumstance they've never known. In my games, a druid who willingly controls undead, is going to fall, but thats why the Blighter PrC exists.

Another part of DMing is knowing your players and their expectations. Now, I know my wife, and I knew she was getting frustrated this entire session for being completely unable to do anything. The dice weren't on her side. When she gets frustrated, she likely ends up making the poorly informed snap decisions. So I made a decision, as a husband and DM to stop her from breaking one of my rules that had any other player broken, would have resulted in a fall, not only because she was my wife, but also because she was new. Don't put on evil magic items or even touch them with bare skin, unless you're willing to risk evil things happenning to you. This is one of my rules as a DM, and I can't break it for my wife.

I told her she felt an urge to destroy the amulet. I did not tell her to destroy it, just she felt an urge. Using the undead went against every aspect of her character she had shown up to that point and the more frustrated she got the more off of her character she was acting all night. I didn't care about the story, if she didn't want to destroy it fine, but in my games druids don't control undead. Just like normal paladins don't slaughter villages. I'm not going to overlook one of my rules just because the person is my wife.

I feel bad for stepping on agency, but I did it to save the character and keep player interest.

[Boci]

I actually have read that article, and I found it to be a good read. I don't like intruding on player agency, except in certain circumstances. Say a new player, new to all RPGs, is in their first dungeon ever, and that player comes to a closed door. That individual player, decides to open the door, and even while the whole party is yelling for them not to, saying its a bad idea, the player does anyway. Well, the door was trapped, and the damage kills the player.

Why has the DM put a lethal trap behind the very first door this new player meets? Just don't make it lethal, and then they learn a valuable lesson without a character death.


In my games, a druid who willingly controls undead, is going to fall, but thats why the Blighter PrC exists.

And did the player know this? A big problem with the druid is that "natural" and "nature" are pretty vague concepts. In real life drawing the line between nature and civilization can be difficult, throw in magic and it becomes a whole lot more complicated. Its understandable to think that undead go against druids, but it may not be as logical as conclusion as many people initially assume.

[Silvanoshei]

Stepping in to save a new player from themselves is part of being a DM, especially when they come face to face with a circumstance they've never known. In my games, a druid who willingly controls undead, is going to fall, but thats why the Blighter PrC exists.

How about looking at it from all angles first? Let's say the Druid's companion dies and the Cleric casts Raise Dead on the companion. From your strict viewing of "revere nature", would not allow that companion to be raised because you must accept death and not bring back those that have died. That's not very fun is it? Or using an item via UMD to bring back a character and lose your Druid powers? Positive and Negative energy is a natural part of the world, and Druids are very Neutral on the matter.

Let's think about the Corrupted Wild Shape in Libris Mortis, undead can use Shape Change, that's cool. An Undead, running around protecting the forest. You don't have to fall and burn the forest down and be a Blighter. I mean, it's based on style and fluff of the character, would you have an issue with a Monk using a sword instead of it's fist? Of course you wouldn't.

Druid's are not anti-unnatural. Example, you love / revere your wife, does that mean you seek out and destroy or even disgusted with same sex lovers? Of course not, you accept it and just continue loving your wife, nothing else.

Edit Note Question: lytokk, would you make a Druid lose it's powers if it married a vampire or other undead creature? :smallconfused:

[lytokk]

Why has the DM put a lethal trap behind the very first door this new player meets? Just don't make it lethal, and then they learn a valuable lesson without a character death.

This is actually a story from my first D&D game. Started at level 5, and I got thrown into the game middungeon. The thing was filled with very tough traps, and the group had a system that I didn't know about. So the DM stopped me from getting myself killed, which would have been my first action after meeting the group of my first game of D&D ever. I may never have played again if he hadn't stopped me.



And did the player know this? A big problem with the druid is that "natural" and "nature" are pretty vague concepts. In real life drawing the line between nature and civilization can be difficult, throw in magic and it becomes a whole lot more complicated. Its understandable to think that undead go against druids, but it may not be as logical as conclusion as many people initially assume.

No, she didn't know about that correlation, but we've talked about it since and she gets it now, or at least my reasoning behind it.


How about looking at it from all angles first? Let's say the Druid's companion dies and the Cleric casts Raise Dead on the companion. From your strict viewing of "revere nature", would not allow that companion to be raised because you must accept death and not bring back those that have died. That's not very fun is it? Or using an item via UMD to bring back a character and lose your Druid powers? Positive and Negative energy is a natural part of the world, and Druids are very Neutral on the matter.

Different situation, since bringing someone back from death is completely separate from creating an undead. Druids have Reincarnate spell, but none that I'm aware of to create an undead. Also, can you raise an animal companion? how does that even work since they don't level like a normal character, but by tagging along with the druid? Just an honest question.


Let's think about the Corrupted Wild Shape in Libris Mortis, undead can use Shape Change, that's cool. An Undead, running around protecting the forest. You don't have to fall and burn the forest down and be a Blighter. I mean, it's based on style and fluff of the character, would you have an issue with a Monk using a sword instead of it's fist? Of course you wouldn't.

I've never even cracked open Libris Mortis, so I can't begin to debate this point. Just a quick lookup of the feat says it requires you to already be undead and to have wild shape. It continues to say "you can use wild shape even though you are undead" which implies (to me at least) that being undead will keep you from wildshaping, even if you had the ability, which tells me something about undead preventing druid powers. Now that's just a cursory examination, and frankly, a sentient undead druid could make for an interesting lich or vampire character. But, the simple fact that this feat is needed for the undead druid to be able to wild shape tells me that being undead stops at least that part of a druids ability from functioning. Though, that's a pre-eratta standpoint when wild shape was based on polymorph, which only works on living creatures, and I'm too lazy to search for an update to the book.



Druid's are not anti-unnatural. Example, you love / revere your wife, does that mean you seek out and destroy or even disgusted with same sex lovers? Of course not, you accept it and just continue loving your wife, nothing else.

WTH is your jump modifier cause I can't even track that leap in logic? I have a hard time figuring out how the two are comparable.


Edit Note Question: lytokk, would you make a Druid lose it's powers if it married a vampire or other undead creature? :smallconfused:
I honestly don't ever see that actually happening in a game, but if I do I'll judge it on that basis then. I'm seeing your point, but this is going to be one of those things where neither of us is going to see eye to eye on it. I see undead as unnatural, and if two players came up to me, one druid and one undead and wanted to play a romantic relationship between the two, I'd be alright with it so long as they could properly make an argument as to why the druid wouldn't fall.

Another possible argument could be that animating undead is druids using renewable resources in order to protect nature, but I don't quite agree with it.

I'll agree to disagree if you will, cause this isn't going to really get us anywhere. Unless you like to argue, in which case I don't have near enough scotch. I talked the whole situation through with my wife, and we discussed all of it, and it came down to her not understanding certain parts of the game, like don't put on evil magic items.

[squiggit]

In the future, should try to word suggestion as an actual suggestion. "You feel compelled to destroy it" would be the effect of a Command style spell.


I've never even cracked open Libris Mortis, so I can't begin to debate this point. Just a quick lookup of the feat says it requires you to already be undead and to have wild shape. It continues to say "you can use wild shape even though you are undead" which implies (to me at least) that being undead will keep you from wildshaping, even if you had the ability, which tells me something about undead preventing druid powers
Being undead has no effect on druid powers (unless the type of undead you are forces you to lose your neutral alignment). It's just, as you said, because pre-errata wildshape only worked on living creatures. The newer version, based on alternate form, means the feat has no function at all.

[Mnemnosyne]

Actually, Command is also language-dependent and would also require a verbal command to be heard or otherwise communicated to three target.

[lytokk]

In addition, under the druid entry in the players manual, it explicitly calls out aberrations AND undead as unnatural creatures that Druid's hate.

[VoxRationis]

Indeed it does. Some people just have an issue with putting ethical and ideological restrictions on people who are defined by an adherence to a religion (i.e., a system of ethical and ideological beliefs and restrictions). Or really restrictions on any character whatsoever.

[Silvanoshei]

In addition, under the druid entry in the players manual, it explicitly calls out aberrations AND undead as unnatural creatures that Druid's hate.

I JUST was going to bow out with that, because I saw it like 2 minutes ago trying to find something on Undead and Druids. More so the
"Druids sometimes lead raids against such creatures, especially when they encroach on the druid's territory."

I'm seeing your reasoning, and I learned something new today. :smallsmile:

[lytokk]

I'm seeing your reasoning, and I learned something new today. :smallsmile:

I think we all did. But, if a player came to me with a character concept for being a sentient undead druid, we could try to find a way to make it work. Finding a playable race, or even making one up, with a small enough level adjustment to allow play in a normal game without being overpowered, I'd allow it. After all, constructs can be druids, which are as unnatural as aberrations and undead, even though they are not specifically called out on it. Looking at the Warforged here. Call it a living undead creature, since why not, living construct sounds just as weird. Granted, no other druid in the world is going to like you, but the player will know that going in. Backstory would more than likely be something along the lines of "was a druid, brought into the unlife, and through a complete accident got his mind back"

Prb RHD instead of an LA...

[Bronk]

Thank you very much for all the clarification on how suggestion is supposed to work. Its really going to help out should I ever need to use it again. I could have made this a long term possession, but I don't know how long I could conceivably keep that up. Also, I didn't know how long the party would put up with keeping the thing around. all that was going through my head at the moment was "I don't want to make my wife's druid fall due to using undead, but I can't give her special treatment, and none of the other players are succeeding in convincing her to destroy the thing."

I think the most important thing is that your wife has fun. Sure, next time you can let her know she's overcoming waves of crazy suggestions from the evil magic item... then she would get to decide what to do... take it off? Destroy it? Take it to a powerful cleric? Some other thing she thinks of?

Now that it's destroyed, though, it doesn't have to be over for her or for your story. You didn't mention what happened to the succubus... I'm assuming it cackled at everyone and flew/teleported away. Your wife might feel miffed because after having a bad gaming day, this crazy stuff happened to her that she didn't want, plus she lost what she thought was a cool magic item. Instead of leaving it there, maybe she gets something in return... like the succubus didn't realize she'd be bound to serve whoever broke the amulet until certain conditions are met or has to bargain for her release somehow, maybe a favor in the future... doesn't have to be a faustian pact or anything.

Oooh, maybe breaking it unleashed a hidden 'extract gift' spell and she gets to have a charisma or some other boost? Maybe it's delayed, and if she plays her cards right, the succubus finds herself continually crossing paths with the party because it was the demon who is now cursed, and she can bargain it away with the 'extract gift' spell... in that case, they can decide who gets it the bonus... maybe the animal companion? And they can try to figure out a way to out maneuver her and take her out after if they want.

I guess my advice is basically to turn this into more of a win for your wife and for the party, and to alleviate any hard feelings from the not so fun rules call.

[The Grue]

He did if, as has been postulated before, he has levels of Paladin.

I wasn't aware Paladins had the ability to command undead.

[Boci]

Indeed it does. Some people just have an issue with putting ethical and ideological restrictions on people who are defined by an adherence to a religion (i.e., a system of ethical and ideological beliefs and restrictions). Or really restrictions on any character whatsoever.

Or they don't like the arbitrary nature of what is and isn't unnatural for the purpose of a druid hating them. Aberrations and undead get specifically called out but demons don't? Plus you know, the whole problem of nature. Just because WotC wrote it in the fluff doesn't mean its a good idea to follow it. Just look at the various paladin threads (and not just the default one, the Paladin of Slaughter is even worse).

Some people don't like restrictions not because they don't want to have any, but because they want to decide their characters to the fullest extent.


This is actually a story from my first D&D game.

That doesn't change the fact that if the DM didn't want your character to die, he should have put a lethal trap behind the door. Have it take a third of your health as 3 crossbow bolts slam into your chest and not that it was rigged to fire 20 but deteriorated over time.


No, she didn't know about that correlation, but we've talked about it since and she gets it now, or at least my reasoning behind it.

Okay, glad that got clarified.


I wasn't aware Paladins had the ability to command undead.

And that proves that he wasn't a paladin how...?

[lytokk]

After talking with my wife about all that has been going on in this forum discussion, she made something even more clear to me. She knew druids hated undead, because she remembered reading it in the players manual. What she thought that meant was, she hates undead, and what better to do against something you hate than to make them your unwilling slaves. Really, she wanted her own "thing". The four other members of the party are 2 sets of couples and she feels left out of the RP a little bit since the couples are always bickering amongst themselves. Told her she;s more than free to bicker with the DMPC, since I feel he gets left out a lot.

I intend to make sure she gets something in the treasure trove that they'll receive after what they fought off. Ogre Mage, Ogre Barb, and 3 run of the mill ogres. Part of me is thinking the Ogre Barb actually had an old druid's +1 Sizing (something else, but only for druids) Greatclub. I'd say a wilding clasp, but I was planning on making those available for purchase in the next town, as its a fey guarded forest town.

They're going to run into the Succubus many, many more times. It's either the BBEG or the fake BBEG. Still haven't decided if I want to do that lich that lost all spellcasting powers. If they'll even remember finding his original body impaled and pinned to a wall with an adamantine greatsword.

[Boci]

After talking with my wife about all that has been going on in this forum discussion, she made something even more clear to me. She knew druids hated undead, because she remembered reading it in the players manual. What she thought that meant was, she hates undead, and what better to do against something you hate than to make them your unwilling slaves.

Sounds like your wife has come up with a nice character trait for her druid. She has a point. As long as the undead are under her control, why not make them protect nature? Is there anything inherently wrong with this? Maybe giver her a none evil undead controlling necklace.

[Mnemnosyne]

They're going to run into the Succubus many, many more times. It's either the BBEG or the fake BBEG. Still haven't decided if I want to do that lich that lost all spellcasting powers. If they'll even remember finding his original body impaled and pinned to a wall with an adamantine greatsword.This, honestly, is what I would be most annoyed at if I was a player, especially the druid's player. Due to the mishandling of the suggestion, an opportunity to deal with this enemy here and now is gone. Granted, she may not have realized it like I might, and she may never have realized it even if the suggestion spell had been played correctly, but if she had, it would have been very plausible for them not to destroy the necklace, thus preventing the succubus from escaping.

I mean, consider the series of events as they may have happened had the suggestion spell been handled by the book. The druid puts on the necklace. Shortly thereafter, she 'hears' a telepathic suggestion to destroy the necklace, and feels that she resisted a magical effect. Now that's suspicious, so she takes off the necklace, maybe thinking she needs to get this properly and fully identified, so she stores it someplace safe. When they have the opportunity, the party uses analyze dweomer or something on it, and now they realize exactly what's going on with the necklace. Realizing now that, if used, it could control the wielder, they refuse to wield it, but knowing that it imprisons a fiend, they also do not destroy it, unless they have a way to ensure that destruction does not result in the release of the fiend.

Would that necessarily have happened? Nope, not necessarily at all. But as a player, I'd be irritated that I didn't get the information that would have allowed me to at least have a chance at realizing what was really going on.

[Techwarrior]

I wasn't aware Paladins had the ability to command undead.

He doesn't have that power from class. That's part of his heritage, and isn't commanding so much in the Commanding sense, but in the leading sense. He negotiated an arrangement that allowed him to command an army of the undead, or maybe Deathless, I don't recall the exact fluff, in exchange for releasing them of their debt and allowing them peace.

[The Grue]

He doesn't have that power from class. That's part of his heritage, and isn't commanding so much in the Commanding sense, but in the leading sense. He negotiated an arrangement that allowed him to command an army of the undead, or maybe Deathless, I don't recall the exact fluff, in exchange for releasing them of their debt and allowing them peace.

So then, contrary to what you actually said, Aragorn having levels in Paladin doesn't actually contribute at all.


He did if, as has been postulated before, he has levels of Paladin.

[Techwarrior]

I was referring to this:


There's a difference with Aragon leading that army of undead. Those were sentient ghosts he negotiated with to come to his aid, and while he commanded them, he didn't control them. The amulet gave a control of undead and a very enhanced ability to create them. Also, Aragon didn't have a code of conduct he needed to follow in order to keep his class abilities.

[Crake]

Ignoring all the off topic talk, I've always imagined a successful suggestion SLA works in the sense that it makes the target think they had the idea. So usually when one of my players fails a suggestion save, I start giving them reasons why they should do the thing that was suggested. Note that suggestions automatically fail if the target thinks its unreasonable, so if you cant convince your player to do it, the suggestion wouldn't have worked anyway. So in your particular case, I would have started explaining the reasons why his character might want to destroy the amulet, rather than telling him that he has an overwhelming urge to destroy it. Suggestion doesn't make an urge, it presents a favourable option.

[ericgrau]

Mechanically that was a perfectly sound suggestion. It's a reasonable thing to do to an evil amulet, so destroying the amulet is more than reasonable as a suggestion. You could have done more or less with suggestion too.

The bigger issue here is whether or not it's ok to mind control the players regardless of whether or not you can. A lot of players don't like it. It takes them out of an encounter temporarily which takes them out of the fun temporarily. Or longer, if for example the suggestion is to leave the fight because it's too hard. It can also become a challenge to be overcome; especially if you went with several subtle suggestions to influence the player over time without totally disabling him. If you only run one fight a session then I would never use mind control. Because if you fail the save then why even show up to the game? You may as well say over the phone "Hey am I going to fail any saves vs mind control or other total disables today? Wait for game? Well I don't want to wait for game. Roll it now. Fail? Ok, see you guys next week I'm gonna go play video games." But if you run many fights per session and the players are well equipped to counter or remove mind control, then it's just another challenge. And when combined with proper role playing it can get pretty interesting.

[lytokk]

Another thought that comes up, since I used a sort of telepathic suggestion, how do I differentiate the fluff between a made and failed save suggestion? Since both of them ensure that the target heard the thought, is the difference adding "you feel compelled to act on it"? That somewhat breaks immersion for me, and may for my players. Though to simplify, I should avoid telepathic suggestions in the future, as it doesn't work that way. Maybe for a psion, but not arcane.

[LordBlades]

In addition, under the druid entry in the players manual, it explicitly calls out aberrations AND undead as unnatural creatures that Druid's hate.

There's a long way to go from 'hate that' to 'lose all his for using it'. If that wasn't the case why go into details about what happens with druids wearing metal armor rather than just saying 'druids hate metal armor'?

It's also just a bit of fluff, not mandatory code of conduct (like paladins for example). After all, if druids hate all unnatural things so much, why aren't constructs at the top of the hate list? After all, Negative Energy plane is natural and many aberrations and undead can occur naturally (or at least as naturally as outsiders for example). A costruct needs to be created and in many cases (most golems) imprisons an elemental spirit within

[Bronk]

Another thought that comes up, since I used a sort of telepathic suggestion, how do I differentiate the fluff between a made and failed save suggestion? Since both of them ensure that the target heard the thought, is the difference adding "you feel compelled to act on it"? That somewhat breaks immersion for me, and may for my players. Though to simplify, I should avoid telepathic suggestions in the future, as it doesn't work that way. Maybe for a psion, but not arcane.

Well, in the specific case of the suggestion spell, it says:



You influence the actions of the target creature by suggesting a course of activity (limited to a sentence or two). The suggestion must be worded in such a manner as to make the activity sound reasonable.

That implies that this isn't a case of confusing the succubus' orders for her own personal thoughts, but a case of the succubus using telepathy to speak to her, with words, and convincing her to do what she says. The druid would know that someone is talking to her, although she wouldn't know for sure where it was coming from.

If the instructions seemed reasonable, and if she failed her saving throw, you would just take over her character for a minute and tell her that she's taking off the amulet, putting it on the ground, then smashing it, and then she would be free.

If the instructions seemed reasonable, but she passed her saving throw, or if the instructions didn't seem reasonable at all (might be a bit of contention about that) she would know that she had resisted some kind of magic:


A creature that successfully saves against a spell that has no obvious physical effects feels a hostile force or a tingle, but cannot deduce the exact nature of the attack.

Since the feeling would come at the heels of the obvious telepathic communication, it would be reasonable for her character to connect the dots.

[lytokk]

honestly, the whole Druids not hating constructs has always thrown me off too. Constructs are as unnatural as aberrations or undead, yet for some reason, they get a pass.

Normally I would allow an experienced player to do whatever they wanted with the fluff. But, as my wife is a first time player playing one of the more complicated and rules heavy classes in the game, I think its necessary to employ more strict guidelines. Tried talking her into the shapeshifter variant, but she didn't like it. Tried wildshape ranger, but she didn't like it. Tried talking her into every other class I had access to, but she wanted druid.

[lytokk]

If the instructions seemed reasonable, and if she failed her saving throw, you would just take over her character for a minute and tell her that she's taking off the amulet, putting it on the ground, then smashing it, and then she would be free.

If the instructions seemed reasonable, but she passed her saving throw, or if the instructions didn't seem reasonable at all (might be a bit of contention about that) she would know that she had resisted some kind of magic:


So the point of the suggestion is that she doesn't get the choice anymore on a failed save, so long as the request is reasonable?

[kellbyb]

honestly, the whole Druids not hating constructs has always thrown me off too. Constructs are as unnatural as aberrations or undead, yet for some reason, they get a pass.

Normally I would allow an experienced player to do whatever they wanted with the fluff. But, as my wife is a first time player playing one of the more complicated and rules heavy classes in the game, I think its necessary to employ more strict guidelines. Tried talking her into the shapeshifter variant, but she didn't like it. Tried wildshape ranger, but she didn't like it. Tried talking her into every other class I had access to, but she wanted druid.

Constructs are simply inanimate objects given motion through arcane energy. Undead are a perverted and desecrated mockery of natural life.

[LordBlades]

Constructs are simply inanimate objects given motion through arcane energy. Undead are a perverted and desecrated mockery of natural life.

Except some undead can occur 'naturally' (like ghosts) while constructs are 100% man made (a wizard's attempt at playing gods and mocking their living creations) and they often require the imprisinment of an elemental spirit to function.

[Mnemnosyne]

Another thought that comes up, since I used a sort of telepathic suggestion, how do I differentiate the fluff between a made and failed save suggestion? Since both of them ensure that the target heard the thought, is the difference adding "you feel compelled to act on it"? That somewhat breaks immersion for me, and may for my players. Though to simplify, I should avoid telepathic suggestions in the future, as it doesn't work that way. Maybe for a psion, but not arcane.Sort of, yes. You basically tell the player, after the suggestion is spoken, something along the lines of, 'your character feels this is a good idea, and now wants to follow through with the recommended course of action.' As for the telepathy thing, the only reason suggestion could even be used without speaking aloud is because the succubus has the telepathy special quality, allowing her to communicate with any intelligent being within 100 feet. Without that, imprisoned in the amulet as she was, and presumably lacking the ability to speak out loud because of lack of mouth, she wouldn't have been able to make use of that SLA.

And yes, suggestion means that if the target fails their saving throw, they have no choice but to comply. Keep in mind, however, that the exact course of action taken in order to comply is still up to the target, unless that was specified in the suggestion. 'Soandso is plotting against you and will betray you in five minutes, kill him before he has a chance!' will force the subject to attempt to kill Soandso within 5 minutes, but the method by which he will accomplish it is still left up to the subject of the spell. Since suggestion causes the subject to believe they are acting voluntarily (simply accepting the very good advice they just received) the subject should not try to subvert the command, as they would with a dominate spell, so the player should be made to give it their best effort if they are refusing to play out the results of the suggestion correctly.

[kellbyb]

Except some undead can occur 'naturally' (like ghosts) while constructs are 100% man made (a wizard's attempt at playing gods and mocking their living creations) and they often require the imprisinment of an elemental spirit to function.

Yeah, those are two grey areas where the rules as strictly written break down a bit and things get confusing.

[VoxRationis]

honestly, the whole Druids not hating constructs has always thrown me off too. Constructs are as unnatural as aberrations or undead, yet for some reason, they get a pass.


I think more than anything else it's because constructs are rarely relevant to a druid hanging out in their forest. Aberrations and undead have ways of proliferating, sometimes at dangerous rates, and do so of their own volition. Constructs, while even more unnatural, are either constructed one at a time by wizards at tremendous cost and probably don't travel far from the wizard's base, or are constructed on the plane of Mechanus, where they are totally irrelevant to a druid.

[Bronk]

Also, undead are powered by negative energy and have a corrupting influence on the land, even when not using taint rules.

Also also, there are constructs that are druid only, even if they are for evil druids... scouring constructs from MM5.

[LordBlades]

Also, undead are powered by negative energy and have a corrupting influence on the land, even when not using taint rules.

Also also, there are constructs that are druid only, even if they are for evil druids... scouring constructs from MM5.

Negative energy which is every bit as natural as positive energy,having it's own plane and stuff. Also, where exactly is it stated that undead corrupt the land ?

Personally I find druid fluff to be up to WotC's standard (oversimplified and stereotypical), and what irks me most isn't the 'what druids hate' bit but Reincarnate (a class supposed to be about balance and life-death cycle gets the only resurrection spell that allows you to live forever)

[Boci]

I think more than anything else it's because constructs are rarely relevant to a druid hanging out in their forest. Aberrations and undead have ways of proliferating, sometimes at dangerous rates, and do so of their own volition. Constructs, while even more unnatural, are either constructed one at a time by wizards at tremendous cost and probably don't travel far from the wizard's base, or are constructed on the plane of Mechanus, where they are totally irrelevant to a druid.

And what about outsider, like demons or archons? They can proliferate too, but summoning in more of their kind, and exerting their influence on the animals (fiendish and celestial templates).

[Bronk]

Negative energy which is every bit as natural as positive energy,having it's own plane and stuff. Also, where exactly is it stated that undead corrupt the land ?

Negative energy has its own plane, and that's where its supposed to stay. Both Negative and Positive energy are dangerous... negative energy damages and kills, while too much positive energy heals you until you pop.

The undead corruption stuff is in a bunch of places (I don't know them all), but especially Libris Mortis page 7 (under 'negative energy as a draining force') and Heroes of Horror page 68 (tainted locations).

[VoxRationis]

And what about outsider, like demons or archons? They can proliferate too, but summoning in more of their kind, and exerting their influence on the animals (fiendish and celestial templates).

The players' handbook sort of assumes people will want to resist demonic incursions. As for why they aren't specifically listed as druidic foes, they are usually found on another plane—hence the term "outsider"—and thus fall under the same logic as the inevitables.
And I'm pretty sure fiendish and celestial creatures are not due to outsiders "exerting their influence" on local wildlife. They are the extraplanar equivalents of the same creatures on the Material Plane, and are natively found on the Outer Planes.

[Boci]

The players' handbook sort of assumes people will want to resist demonic incursions.

And archons or eldarin? Chaotic/Lawful Good are also against the druid's alignment. Why aren't they mentioned?


As for why they aren't specifically listed as druidic foes, they are usually found on another plane—hence the term "outsider"—

And since planar travel is near impossibly in 3.5...no actually its pretty common.

Also, aberrant wildshape exists, and the druid doesn't fall or lose regular wildshape for taking it.


And I'm pretty sure fiendish and celestial creatures are not due to outsiders "exerting their influence" on local wildlife. They are the extraplanar equivalents of the same creatures on the Material Plane, and are natively found on the Outer Planes.

Fiendish and celestial aren't (although they could be seen as a mockery of nature). Half-fiend and half-celstial however are, they are the result of outsiders breeding with non-outsiders.