Dominate person

[zinycor]

on the last comic we see durkula using dominate person (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/dominatePerson.htm) on Belkar with the order: "Jump overboard", which he then did.

Now, Rich can do whatever he wants to advance the story in anyway he wants and if the rules need to be bent a litle in order to do this, that's completely fair.

But regardless of that, the description of the spell states that "self-destructive orders are not carried out", and so, the questions arises: Is "jump overboard" a self-destructive order?

I have seen some people say that it isn't, given that falling damage according to 3.5 (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/environment.htm) isn't that much for a ranger of Belkar's level, and we have seen people surviving similar falls on the comic (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0936.html).

On the other hand we have seen characters die from falling damage (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0443.html).

given this information i think that "jump overboard" was a self-destructing order to belkar at least. He has seen Roy die from a big fall, he knows he is in an airship, and we don't know if belkar knows how to swim, given the chance that he survives the fall. Jumping overboard would be considered a suicide for any character, being belkar no exception to it.

what do you think? is "Jump overboard" a self destructing order?

[Domino Quartz]

When Roy died from falling damage, he had already taken a lot of damage from Xykon.

[zinycor]

When Roy died from falling damage, he had already taken a lot of damage from Xykon.

which doesn't imply that fall damage isn't something self-destructive. Maybe it isn't as fatal an in our world, but it is still self destructing, isn't it?

[Porthos]

Maybe it isn't as fatal an in our world, but it is still self destructing, isn't it?

For a high level adventurer with full hit points?

No... not really. :smalltongue:

The ocean might be a bit more of a problem in this analysis, but honestly falling from this height (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0956.html) would be a minor inconvience to Belkar in his present condition.

[137beth]

First, Durkon did not cast the spell Dominate Person. Clerics do not get Dominate. He used the vampire "Dominate" Special Attack. That also doesn't allow for obviously self-destructive actions. However, because of how hp works in D&D, falling a thousand feet from an airship is not self-destructive unless you are really constitution-drained.

[zinycor]

For a high level adventurer with full hit points?

No... not really. :smalltongue:

The ocean might be a bit more of a problem in this analysis, but honestly falling from this height would be a minor inconvience to Belkar in his present condition.


I don't think he would die fro mthe fall, but i do think thatt it would be more than a minor inconvience, given that they are traveling over the clouds, and he would fall to the sea (and we haven't seen Belkar swim, so he might not know how to swim, or not be very good at it)

[Gemini2257]

My thoughts on the matter are Belkar new ahead of time where the harpoon launchers were in relation to his place on deck. That way, he new ahead of time where to jump so as to catch himself. So even if Durcula intended for him to die with that jump, Belkar new he wouldn't. So he carried it out as though it were non-destructive.

[zinycor]

First, Durkon did not cast the spell Dominate Person. Clerics do not get Dominate. He used the vampire "Dominate" Special Attack. That also doesn't allow for obviously self-destructive actions. However, because of how hp works in D&D, falling a thousand feet from an airship is not self-destructive unless you are really constitution-drained.

it's true, durkula used his apecial attack, didn't see the need to point that out since it works in the same way for the purpose of this discussion.

again, i don't think is fatal, but it is self destructive, you are taking a big damage to the head, it would be like ordering "cast fireball on yourself" which may not kill you, but i also think is self-destructive

[Porthos]

I don't think he would die fro mthe fall...

Then it's not 'obviously self-destructive'. :smallsmile:

Even if it is a major inconvenience (and perhaps I was underselling for effect), that's still OK by the spell/effect. :smallwink:

[zinycor]

Then it's not 'obviously self-destructive'. :smallsmile:

Even if it is a major inconvenience (and perhaps I was underselling for effect), that's still OK by the spell/effect. :smallwink:

i think that it someone orders you "to shoot your own knee" is very self destructive.

[Porthos]

i think that it someone orders you "to shoot your own knee" is very self destructive.

again, i don't think is fatal, but it is self destructive, you are taking a big damage to the head, it would be like ordering "cast fireball on yourself" which may not kill you, but i also think is self-destructive

"I'm you're best friend.... Jump in front of me if someone fires an arrow at me" would be allowable, wouldn't it?

'sides, this isn't the first time a charm effect has been used like this. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0458.html)

And, yes, there was just as much complaining back then as there is now. :smalltongue:

====

ETA to address your second post:

This is pretty much where it comes down to: DM Interpetation/Discretion

Rich has been fairly consistent when it comes to Charm/Dominate. Other DMs/writers might/would/could handle it differently. Such is the boon and bane of D&D. :smallsmile:

[zinycor]

"I'm you're best friend.... Jump in front of me if someone fires an arrow at me" would be allowable, wouldn't it?

'sides, this isn't the first time a charm effect has been used like this. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0458.html)

And, yes, there ws just as much complaining back then as there is now. :smalltongue:


first: great reference :smallbiggrin:

second: "I'm you're best friend.... Jump in front of me if someone fires an arrow at me" would work great for a charm person which alters the perception you have on the caster, on dominate person, the orders are short and simple in order to dominate your actions, not your perception.

third: Nale ordered the guard to give him his swrod, which is very far from asking him to kill himself with the sword, which would have been a self-destructive order

[zinycor]

My thoughts on the matter are Belkar new ahead of time where the harpoon launchers were in relation to his place on deck. That way, he new ahead of time where to jump so as to catch himself. So even if Durcula intended for him to die with that jump, Belkar new he wouldn't. So he carried it out as though it were non-destructive.

very good point, didn't think of that as an option :smallbiggrin:

[Kish]

third: Nale ordered the guard to give him his swrod, which is very far from asking him to kill himself with the sword, which would have been a self-destructive order
That seems an odd place to stand. The obvious, immediately-predictable, immediately-demonstrated consequences for the guard of turning his back on his enemy and handing away his weapon were death. "Very far"? I'd say centimeters away at absolute most.

If you disallow any level of predicting what will result from actions in judging them "self-destructive" or otherwise, then it would seem you can't then argue there's anything wrong with jumping off an airship; predicting that one will land in the ocean, on solid ground, on a fluffy cloud, in an antigravity field, in the mouth of an acid-breathing shark with a laser gun mounted on its head, or on a sheet of diamond all require the prohibited action of predicting what one's actions will lead to a few seconds later. The immediate result of the action was, "Wheeee!"

(No, as a DM, I wouldn't let a player use the "it won't hurt for at least five seconds" argument to tell a Dominate victim to jump to her/his death. But as a DM, I'd have a hard time restraining myself from laughing if a player tried to get a Charmed person who wasn't actually stupid to used-as-a-punchline-in-cartoons levels to, in the middle of a battle to the death, turn her/his back on her/his opponent and hand away her/his weapon.)

[Porthos]

That seems an odd place to stand. The obvious, immediately-predictable, immediately-demonstrated consequences for the guard of turning his back on his enemy and handing away his weapon were death.

Indeed, that was the exact argument given against Nale being 'allowed' to do what he did there.

Charm Person has, more or less, the same restriction that Dominate Person has: (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/charmPerson.htm)


An affected creature never obeys suicidal or obviously harmful orders, but it might be convinced that something very dangerous is worth doing.

Back in the day, there were indeed posters who complained about what happened there. But, at Rich's 'table', it obviously is working in a slightly broader way than it might be at others.

Mind, the counter-arguments were also in force back then. In this case it was "of course a soldier would give up his sword to his new found best buddy who happened to need one in a chaotic situation. Wouldn't YOU give your sword to a companion who needed it?"

They pretty much went round and round back then as well. :smalltongue:

Anyway, I brought that up for precedence's sake. I realize this isn't really a game of D&D, but I'll still relate an old truism: As long as a DM is being consistent and the players know the deal ahead of time, then it's usually all good.

Is Rich being consistent? Looks like it to me.

Did the players know the deal ahead of time? Well since there are no players here, that argument is kinda moot. :smalltongue:

[rodneyAnonymous]

Subjects resist this control, and any subject forced to take actions against its nature receives a new saving throw with a +2 bonus. Obviously self-destructive orders are not carried out. (source (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/dominatePerson.htm))


Anyone the vampire targets must succeed on a Will save or fall instantly under the vampire’s influence as though by a dominate person spell (caster level 12th). (source (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/vampire.htm))

Deciding whether an order is "obviously self-destructive" is not a cold calculus of hit point totals and maximum damage, or it wouldn't be obvious. Giving it that much thought ignores the adverb. It also doesn't really matter how much damage could be taken; "self-destructive" means harming yourself, not necessarily killing yourself, and something can be harmful without doing any hp damage at all. Were I asked to give a short list of examples of orders that usually wouldn't be followed by a dominated subject, "jump overboard" would be on it.

Is it possible that the order wasn't "obviously self-destructive" to Belkar? Sure. Of course it is. Many things are possible. Not probable, though. The rules were probably broken there; no big deal. You can get a dominated subject to destroy itself in ways that are not obvious, anyway. Rich went for more straightforward: an attack-by-domination that is more intelligible to readers who are not familiar with D&D rules, and that conveys "lost his temper" more effectively (and in fewer panels) than an elaborate trick would have.

[SavageWombat]

Clearly, at Rich's table, they follow the Roger Rabbit Modifier - "Only When It's Funny".

[Serafina]

Actually, "self-destructive" is not the same as "suicidal" - it also prevents orders like "stab yourself" or "drink this paralyzing poison" because those do nothing but damage yourself.
The phrase is clearly there to prevent such orders and give the GM a clear reason to prevent such abuse of the spell.

"Walk into that burning house" would not be an acceptable order, but "walk into that burning house to fetch my possessions" might not be (depending on gm-judgement) since it serves a purpose after all.

In the case of the guard handing his sword to Nale, it clearly served the purpose of giving Nale a weapon while he was in combat - a sensible request.
In the case of Belkar jumping off the airship, well Belkar might just be gullible enough while dominated to think it actually served a purpose beyond getting rid of him :smallwink:

[rodneyAnonymous]

I agree, though I think it doesn't matter if "give me your sword" was obviously self-destructive, because the charm person description doesn't say anything about that. That spell makes the target "regard you as its trusted friend and ally", and whether you'd give your sword to a trusted friend and ally in that scenario is clearly an entirely different debate.

Then again, suggestion is only supposed to "influence the actions of the target creature", but it's depicted as turning the target into a slave that must mindlessly obey orders. Those spells work differently in OOTS world, apparently, and also you can command a dominated subject to jump overboard.

[Kareasint]

Clearly, at Rich's table, they follow the Roger Rabbit Modifier - "Only When It's Funny".

On question here for everyone: Did you laugh at the last two panels of comic 957? If the answer is yes, then hang the rules because the Rule of Funny applies here. SW's point is valid.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

Personally, I don't think it was obviously self-destructive. However, I don't think it really matters much either way and using Rule of Funny works equally well.

[Keltest]

My rule of thumb is the "Whats in it for me?" scale. Compare the potential negative consequences against any reasons that the character would want to do the action. If the reason/benefit is good enough, its not self destructive. What is good enough might vary from character to character.

Someone brought up eating a doughnut in the main thread. On the one hand, its mildly unhealthy. On the other hand, its delicious! Whats in it for me? A delicious treat! One doughnut is not self destructive. Now, say its... 400 doughnuts, with no breaks. You still have the delicious treat, only now youre being ordered to do something that would do horrible things to your body long before youre able to finish. At best, you may end up vomiting a lot and/or passing out before you finish them. At worst, you just gave yourself a heart attack and died. So whats in it for me? A delicious treat! for a while, until diminishing returns kicks in. On the other hand, you could easily die! 400 doughnuts all at once could easily be considered self-destructive by more intelligent individuals. Belkar would probably try.

Now then, for jumping off the ship. Whats in it for Belkar? Um... Nothing! He gets no benefit from jumping off the ship, unless he secretly has some sort of massive falling addiction we have not heard of until this moment. The downsides are possible injury and death, guaranteed humiliation, and he might even get left behind. Its Obviously self-destructive.

[evileeyore]

Is it possible that the order wasn't "obviously self-destructive" to Belkar? Sure. Of course it is. Many things are possible. Not probable, though. The rules were probably broken there; no big deal. You can get a dominated subject to destroy itself in ways that are not obvious, anyway.
So it's more preferable for you to believe that Rich "broke the game's rules" in order to make a joke than just accept Belkar thought leaping off the side wasn't a self-destructive act?

Seriously?

[Keltest]

So it's more preferable for you to believe that Rich "broke the game's rules" in order to make a joke than just accept Belkar thought leaping off the side wasn't a self-destructive act?

Seriously?

So if he didn't consider it to be a bad thing, why was he upset with HPoH with making him do it?

[137beth]

There is more than one way to interpret that clause of Dominate, and the Giant chose the interpretation best for his story. Seems pretty straightforwards to me.

[warrl]

So if he didn't consider it to be a bad thing, why was he upset with HPoH with making him do it?

Bad things are not necessarily self-destructive. They can be distasteful ("eat this brussels sprout") or inconvenient ("drop that task you really want to get done, and do this other thing you don't care about") or contrary to your morals ("throw this brick through that shop window and steal what's on the display"). There are surely other forms of bad-but-not-self-destructive that don't occur to me at the moment.

Belkar obviously DOES consider his current situation to be a bad thing - he's at some small risk of needless harm, and he's unable to do much of anything at the moment; at best it's going to take him a couple rounds to get back on board the ship, at worst he's stuck there until rescued.

[evileeyore]

...at worst he's stuck there until rescued.
No, it's worse than that.

He looks foolish and the Sexy Shoeless God of War (Of Romancin) has to be rescued.

Like one of them there damsels. That are in distress.





It's possible that this was destructive to his sense of self.

[rodneyAnonymous]

So it's more preferable for you to believe that Rich "broke the game's rules" in order to make a joke than just accept Belkar thought leaping off the side wasn't a self-destructive act?

Once again, the word "obviously" is absent, and the wording of the order is changed.

Yes. Rich has said he will break D&D 3.5 rules when they get in the way of storytelling. If the best thing for the story would be if Durkon lost his temper and ordered Belkar to do something that might (might!) hurt him (and have no apparent reward, "pointlessness" seems to be an agreed-upon metric), then the rules got in the way of storytelling, because they say you can't do that. That is a pretty small rule to break, there are ways to get around it anyway; dominate person can be used to get someone to be self-destructive in ways that are not obvious. And there was a clear storytelling reason to do it: those limitations exist so the spell is not too powerful during gameplay, but such limitations aren't that important when one person is in control of all the characters, and having Durkon command Belkar to do something obviously self-destructive made way more sense there. "Durkon uses his dominate ability to attack Belkar" was conveyed in only one panel, too. I have now probably put much more thought into it than Rich did.

Yes I think that is much more likely (and aesthetically preferable) than somehow contriving that "jump overboard" is not an obviously self-destructive order.

[zinycor]

So it's more preferable for you to believe that Rich "broke the game's rules" in order to make a joke than just accept Belkar thought leaping off the side wasn't a self-destructive act?

Seriously?

Yeah, because if IMC something like that were to happen it would be considered a self-destructive act. BUT, given that this isn't a campaign of DnD but a story on a DnD setting i do prefer for rich to bend the rules however he wnts in order to give a better story.

I don't want to criticize the comic on this regard, just know if this action would be within the rules according to your interpretations of said rules. I think it was outside of the rules, but want to know what do everyone else think.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

Bad things are not necessarily self-destructive. They can be distasteful ("eat this brussels sprout") or inconvenient ("drop that task you really want to get done, and do this other thing you don't care about") or contrary to your morals ("throw this brick through that shop window and steal what's on the display"). There are surely other forms of bad-but-not-self-destructive that don't occur to me at the moment.

Belkar obviously DOES consider his current situation to be a bad thing - he's at some small risk of needless harm, and he's unable to do much of anything at the moment; at best it's going to take him a couple rounds to get back on board the ship, at worst he's stuck there until rescued.

I agree with this analysis. Keltest's rule of thumb works for determining whether or not doing something is bad, but not whether it is self-destructive.

Honestly, I'm surprised at how much debate is popping up over this topic (this thread and the majority of the main one), but compared to other debates this one is a good alternative.

[Keltest]

I agree with this analysis. Keltest's rule of thumb works for determining whether or not doing something is bad, but not whether it is self-destructive.

Honestly, I'm surprised at how much debate is popping up over this topic (this thread and the majority of the main one), but compared to other debates this one is a good alternative.

I interpret Self-Destructive as intentionally doing something bad (if were going with that word) to oneself, so theres a fair bit of overlap.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

I interpret Self-Destructive as intentionally doing something bad (if were going with that word) to oneself, so theres a fair bit of overlap.

I read self-destructive as harmful to one's self, so things along the lines of suicide. This is a subset of "bad", but not everything that is bad is self-destructive.

[Porthos]

Yeah, because if IMC something like that were to happen it would be considered a self-destructive act. BUT, given that this isn't a campaign of DnD but a story on a DnD setting i do prefer for rich to bend the rules however he wnts in order to give a better story.

I don't want to criticize the comic on this regard, just know if this action would be within the rules according to your interpretations of said rules. I think it was outside of the rules, but want to know what do everyone else think.

Honestly? It's been years since I actively played, but I'll have to give something of a cop-out answer: It Depends.

For instance, if you told someone who had, I dunno, three levels of commoner to do that, yeah that's seriously 'obviously self-destructive'. On the other hand, if you told that to Joe McEpic Fights-A-Lot (he of level 30 or so), no, not so much.

I hate to play the 'depends on what is is' card, but it really does come down to how one defines the words 'obviously' and 'self-destructive'. There really is a wide lattitude in there. And a lot of that lattitude for me would come down to: Would Belkar think such a fall would kill him? If not, then it isn't 'obviously self-destructive'.

Now if one interpets 'self-destructive' as meaning 'hurts themselves (greatly)', then there is room for more argument. But how much HP loss is hurting oneself greatly? 3/4ths on average? Half? 1d6 or less? How destructive does it have to be for it to be self-destructive?

There really is no universal answer here. As I said it mostly depends on what triggers it for the person. Which is why I said near the beginning this pretty much has to be a DM Interpetation thing. :smallsmile:

[rodneyAnonymous]

It's up to the DM. I have been arguing for "probably", not "certainly".

[Keltest]

I read self-destructive as harmful to one's self, so things along the lines of suicide. This is a subset of "bad", but not everything that is bad is self-destructive.

Would you consider a heavy duty drug addiction self destructive? What about a habbit of chewing your fingernails all the way off? An extreme coffee addiction? Im trying to get a sense of where the boundaries lie. The suicide example is textbook self destructive behavior, true, but its also such an extreme case that I would disregard the opinions of anyone who DIDNT consider it self-destructive behavior.

[rodneyAnonymous]

Im trying to get a sense of where the boundaries lie.

No boundaries. No lines to cross. Like many things, it's a gradient. Some stuff (like commanding someone to drink coffee) is on the light side, and other stuff (like commanding someone to jump out of a moving vehicle) is over on the dark side. My argument is not bolstered by the fact that I can come up with a scenario where, no, I could not successfully force a dominated subject to drink coffee. Nor is it undermined by someone coming up with a scenario where "jump overboard" is not an obviously self-destructive order. Probably nothing is absolutely always or never a "legal" dominate command. That does not mean that the command itself doesn't matter. For almost any subject in almost any vehicle, "jump overboard" is an obviously self-destructive command that will not be carried out by a dominated subject. It would be silly of me to claim that nothing else matters, but it is equally silly to claim that it doesn't matter at all.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

Would you consider a heavy duty drug addiction self destructive? What about a habbit of chewing your fingernails all the way off? An extreme coffee addiction? Im trying to get a sense of where the boundaries lie. The suicide example is textbook self destructive behavior, true, but its also such an extreme case that I would disregard the opinions of anyone who DIDNT consider it self-destructive behavior.

I think Porthos says it pretty well with "it depends". With any of the questions you posed, it depends on how much harm is being dealt to the person.

[warrl]

Would you consider a heavy duty drug addiction self destructive? What about a habbit of chewing your fingernails all the way off? An extreme coffee addiction? Im trying to get a sense of where the boundaries lie. The suicide example is textbook self destructive behavior, true, but its also such an extreme case that I would disregard the opinions of anyone who DIDNT consider it self-destructive behavior.

In 4E, for a level-30 character with certain Epic Destinies, suicide might be a shortcut to home. :smile:

[Keltest]

In 4E, for a level-30 character with certain Epic Destinies, suicide might be a shortcut to home. :smile:

Yeah, but that's 4th edition. Theyre all strange over there.

[Doug Lampert]

In 4E, for a level-30 character with certain Epic Destinies, suicide might be a shortcut to home. :smile:

3.5 the same is true with any of at least 3 spells in core alone cast in advance. (Clone, Astral Projection, Contingency+Gate or Greater Teleport)

[Vladier]

My stance on the matter is that for Belkar "jumping overboard" wouldn't really count as "obviously" self-destructive. He has a Ring of Jumping +20 (and I suppose that counts as intentionally jumping down), so he would easily take 10 feet less of falling damage, and he is very likely to survive the fall anyway, because he falls into deep water - thus negating damage on succesful Swim or Tumble check. Danger of prolonged swimming and possibility of being left behind don't really matter - I don't really think that counts as "obvious" enough, it requires conscious thought to be noticed.

Really, all Belkar would face is 20d6 damage at 200 feet (of which I think there are less, based on the previous strip). The first 20 do no damage thanks to water, the next 20 feet are 2d3 of non-lethal damage, since the jump is deliberate, the next 1d6 is non-lethal, another 10 feet is non-damage thanks to easily passed Jump check, yet another is 1d6 non-lethal. All that remains is 14d6 lethal damage. And every single digit of damage is negated by a check of Swim or Tumble of DC 35. And I would think that Belkar has Swim, if not Tumble, as his skill.

And there is also a matter of context. I suppose "obviousness" of self-destruction also depends on wording, like with Suggestion. By making the latter sound reasonable enough one can get away with melting a person in an acid bath ("How about a nice bath?") or make a paladin defend an ancient evil lich from the former's own companions ("Would you kindly help me, an old frail man, deal with these people, who want to kill me and take my belonings?"). I would say that "Jump overboard" is rather reasonable - it's neutral in wording and doesn't convey any realistic danger, if you forget about it being an airship and not a normal ship.

[rodneyAnonymous]

Note that landing on water from high up is about the same as landing on solid ground.

[Darth Paul]

Note that landing on water from high up is about the same as landing on solid ground.

People go cliff-diving. For fun.

It's amazing what people will do to themselves in the name of sport.

[Aisper]

When determining if a character would perform a certain action while charmed/dominated, could one consider the character's wisdom score? I haven't played much D&D but it seems to me that what Belkar considers self-destructive might be vastly different than what Roy/Durkon would consider self-destructive. Belkar is short-sighted and impetuous enough that I could more easily see him jumping overboard with glee without considering the consequences than the wiser party members who might realize the consequences.

[xyzchyx]

For a high level adventurer with full hit points?

No... not really. :smalltongue:

The ocean might be a bit more of a problem in this analysis, but honestly falling from this height (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0956.html) would be a minor inconvience to Belkar in his present condition.Only if you consider requiring being rescued by somebody else "minor".

Belkar, I think, tends to be a little bit too self-centered to think of how others would actually react to his jumping overboard anyways, let alone actively expecting anyone else to really save him. They will probably try, to be sure, but Belkar would need to be capable of understanding or at least willing to think of how other people might feel and think to recognize that. Not because Belkar is stupid, but because Belkar is too preoccupied with thinking about himself to make any kind of serious effort to do so.

[Darth Paul]

When determining if a character would perform a certain action while charmed/dominated, could one consider the character's wisdom score? I haven't played much D&D but it seems to me that what Belkar considers self-destructive might be vastly different than what Roy/Durkon would consider self-destructive. Belkar is short-sighted and impetuous enough that I could more easily see him jumping overboard with glee without considering the consequences than the wiser party members who might realize the consequences.

And that or something similar has been pointed out in the other thread, I believe. Belkar might just do it because of how frikkin' cool he would look on the way down. "Wheeeeee!!"

[Kish]

Only if you consider requiring being rescued by somebody else "minor".

Belkar, I think, tends to be a little bit too self-centered to think of how others would actually react to his jumping overboard anyways, let alone actively expecting anyone else to really save him.
His entire scheme to make Miko fall hinged on Durkon rescuing him when in a position where Durkon would not actually have had the ability to do so, remember? His self-centeredness pushes him in the other direction than you're saying: Instead of assuming he's always on his own, he assumes that the "Good" alignment can be safely treated as "sucker who will attempt to help me no matter what I do." (That briefly came back to bite him when Haley told him her concept of Goodish was compatible with kicking him out of the Order and letting him deal with the Mark of Justice alone.)

[xyzchyx]

His entire scheme to make Miko fall hinged on Durkon rescuing him when in a position where Durkon would not actually have had the ability to do so, remember? His self-centeredness pushes him in the other direction than you're saying: Instead of assuming he's always on his own, he assumes that the "Good" alignment can be safely treated as "sucker who will attempt to help me no matter what I do." That's a good point... One I had not previously considered.

Although given the unpopularity of his antagonistic stance towards Durkon at the moment with other members of The Order, I'm still not convinced he was actually counting on anyone else to really save him from doing this; although certainly I think that may be the only way anyone can form a rational basis for suggesting that the command to jump overboard was not somehow self-destructive.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

And that or something similar has been pointed out in the other thread, I believe. Belkar might just do it because of how frikkin' cool he would look on the way down. "Wheeeeee!!"

I don't know about cool. Perhaps hilarious would work better. :smallwink:

[Jay R]

... and we don't know if belkar knows how to swim,...

Swimming is a skill you can do whether you have ranks in it or not, and it's based on Strength. A high-level Ranger/Barbarian should be moderately competent at it.

[Keltest]

Swimming is a skill you can do whether you have ranks in it or not, and it's based on Strength. A high-level Ranger/Barbarian should be moderately competent at it.

Still, if he is operating on strength bonus alone (ill be generous and assume that he isn't wearing armor right now) there is at least a plausible chance of him going under the water. Even if he doesn't, the ship is going to be moving away from him quite quickly, which means if V doesn't react almost immediately (if he is, for example, below decks again) Belkar would get lost quite easily.

[zinycor]

Swimming is a skill you can do whether you have ranks in it or not, and it's based on Strength. A high-level Ranger/Barbarian should be moderately competent at it.

He also should have many points on survival, be moderately competent at spot checks and be able to cast spells, but this is Belkar we are talking about :)

[Kish]

He also should have many points on survival, be moderately competent at spot checks and be able to cast spells, but this is Belkar we are talking about :)
Did you miss the "whether you have ranks or not" part of the post you were responding to...or are you seriously suggesting that Belkar has a low Strength?

[Keltest]

Did you miss the "whether you have ranks or not" part of the post you were responding to...or are you seriously suggesting that Belkar has a low Strength?

To be fair, there is a case to be made. Jump is a skill that Belkar actually felt was of value, and he was apparently not content with his current ability to jump when he grabbed that ring of jumping. Its not a strong case, sure, but its not out of the question that his str bonus is not worth bragging about. Plus, as I recall, Halflings have a racial strength penalty. He might very well be using weapon finesse with a high Dex score instead.

[darlingt]

Here's my $0.02 question, to reignite the debate from a few posts ago. Are all self-injurious acts self-destructive, or does there exist a set of self-injurious acts that are not obviously self-destructive? I would argue for the latter -- that is, by RAW, I could get a dominated character to perform an act that would injure them, so long as it would not obviously destroy them (e.g., kick a metal statue.)

By my interpretation, Rich hasn't broken the rules at all. Bent them, maybe. Massaged them a little bit. (And even if he had, Rules of Funny/Cool trumps Rules As Written.)

[Keltest]

Here's my $0.02 question, to reignite the debate from a few posts ago. Are all self-injurious acts self-destructive, or does there exist a set of self-injurious acts that are not obviously self-destructive? I would argue for the latter -- that is, by RAW, I could get a dominated character to perform an act that would injure them, so long as it would not obviously destroy them (e.g., kick a metal statue.)

By my interpretation, Rich hasn't broken the rules at all. Bent them, maybe. Massaged them a little bit. (And even if he had, Rules of Funny/Cool trumps Rules As Written.)

Unsurprisingly, it depends. Kicking a metal statue would probably not qualify, but ordering someone to break their foot doing so would.

[Bulldog Psion]

Well, Durk Malackssen could have ordered him to sit on the rail facing out, which is not obviously self-destructive, and then given him a nice, hard shove. However, showing it this way is more concise, and therefore better for a comic in particular.

[Jay R]

He also should have many points on survival, be moderately competent at spot checks and be able to cast spells, but this is Belkar we are talking about :)

All true, and all irrelevant. I will rephrase to make my point clearer:

Any high-level strength-based character should be moderately competent at swimming, even with no ranks in it.

[xroads]

Yes it is self destructive. Suffering damage of any sort is destructive in nature. Just because it doesn't kill your character doesn't mean it wasn't destructive.

But then again, this is a story. And Belkar probably has the willpower of a kid in a candy store. Probably thinks he's immortal anyways (or at least a "sexy shoe less god"). :smallwink:

~XRoads

[Jay R]

If this thread (along with the parallel discussion in the Strip 957 thread) has shown us anything, it's that this is a judgment call on which various DMs will disagree.

[Amphiox]

When HPoH dominated Tarquin's soldiers and ordered them to turn around and fight their fellows and be essentially a living arrow shield for Belkar, while 1) extremely outnumbered 2) with disadvantage of the low ground 3) subject to an arrow storm, that, for any trained soldier, is to me a far more "obviously" self-destructive instruction than ordering an adventurer of Belkar's level (and demonstrated affinity for jumping around) to jump overboard.

Since the first was accepted with nary an argument, so should the second.

[Keltest]

When HPoH dominated Tarquin's soldiers and ordered them to turn around and fight their fellows and be essentially a living arrow shield for Belkar, while 1) extremely outnumbered 2) with disadvantage of the low ground 3) subject to an arrow storm, that, for any trained soldier, is to me a far more "obviously" self-destructive instruction than ordering an adventurer of Belkar's level (and demonstrated affinity for jumping around) to jump overboard.

Since the first was accepted with nary an argument, so should the second.

Nobody is arguing that it shouldn't be accepted. The debate is purely about whether or not it violates the rules and Rich doesn't care because Story, or if it is an action that could legitimately be ordered under the RAW.

[Lissibith]

If this thread (along with the parallel discussion in the Strip 957 thread) has shown us anything, it's that this is a judgment call on which various DMs will disagree.

Pretty much. My group wouldn't bat an eye if what happened in this comic happened in the campaign.

Now if the order were to jump overboard and swim to the bottom of the ocean, then the red flag would fly. :)

There's nothing wrong with GMing it either way, I think. Either way is fine.

[Deepbluediver]

The debate is purely about whether or not it violates the rules and Rich doesn't care because Story, or if it is an action that could legitimately be ordered under the RAW.
I'm pretty sure that The Giant has said multiple times that he tries to avoid egregious story/rules conflicts, but when the two meet and one has to give way, the rules will always lose. Especially since only a fraction of the readers are geeky enough to know when something is wrong AND care about it.

If you apply only the strictest interpretation of the RAW (which we should all acknowledge as being just a terrible idea in the first place) "jump overboard" doesn't include the phrase "and let yourself fall". "Jump overboard and grab onto the side of the boat" would be a cool stunt for someone with good reflexes, not a suicidal action.

Overall I'd say it's ambiguous.


Edit: Isn't the boat over water anyhow? Does the RAW differentiate for falling damage if it's not over a solid surface?

[Keltest]

I'm pretty sure that The Giant has said multiple times that he tries to avoid egregious story/rules conflicts, but when the two meet and one has to give way, the rules will always lose. Especially since only a fraction of the readers are geeky enough to know when something is wrong AND care about it.

If you apply only the strictest interpretation of the RAW (which we should all acknowledge as being just a terrible idea in the first place) "jump overboard" doesn't include the phrase "and let yourself fall". "Jump overboard and grab onto the side of the boat" would be a cool stunt for someone with good reflexes, not a suicidal action.

Overall I'd say it's ambiguous.


Edit: Isn't the boat over water anyhow? Does the RAW differentiate for falling damage if it's not over a solid surface?

I believe they allow you to use your swim skill to negate damage (or make it worse if you drown!)

[Deepbluediver]

I believe they all you to use your swim skill to negate damage (or make it worse if you drown!)
I looked it up and there are INDEED rules for falling a long distance into water! They are as follows:

Falling into Water
Falls into water are handled somewhat differently. If the water is at least 10 feet deep, the first 20 feet of falling do no damage. The next 20 feet do nonlethal damage (1d3 per 10-foot increment). Beyond that, falling damage is lethal damage (1d6 per additional 10-foot increment).

Characters who deliberately dive into water take no damage on a successful DC 15 Swim check or DC 15 Tumble check, so long as the water is at least 10 feet deep for every 30 feet fallen. However, the DC of the check increases by 5 for every 50 feet of the dive.
If we assume that the water is fairly deep and that by "jumping" the dive is deliberate, then so long as he can make a moderate Tumble check Belkar would be safe falling from at least a hundred feet up, probably more.

[thereaper]

Strictly speaking, the fact that Belkar didn't hit the water and took no damage implies that the command wasn't actually self-destructive; just highly inconvenient. It might have been a different story had that spear not been there.

Also, let's not forget Rich rarely reads the rules any more, because he simply doesn't care.

[Keltest]

Strictly speaking, the fact that Belkar didn't hit the water and took no damage implies that the command wasn't actually self-destructive; just highly inconvenient. It might have been a different story had that spear not been there.

Also, let's not forget Rich rarely reads the rules any more, because he simply doesn't care.

As has been mentioned, the actual results don't really matter. The only thing that matters is what the victim thinks will happen. You couldn't order someone to go activate what they think is a lethal trap, even if it actually gives them candy and a hug.

[Gandalf]

So the standard of "obviously self-destructive" is the action is certain to cause the death of the character? I find that illogical. You could order someone with 5 hitpoints to cast fireball on themselves on the grounds that they could roll minimum damage, stabilize, and live.

More importantly, with regard to the argument that the fall wouldn't kill Belkar to his classes and level: hitpoints need to be abstract for the game world to be a semi-sane place. If they are abstract then you would say "the person survives the fall by timely jamming his shield into the ground" or some other stretch that is close to consistent with the laws of physics, but jumping off the tallest tower in the world will kill someone no matter how many orcs they killed beforehand (in theory). And under this philosphy, you have don't have logic glitches like "jumping from an airship isn't obviously self-destructive."

[Porthos]

So the standard of "obviously self-destructive" is the action is certain to cause the death of the character? I find that illogical. You could order someone with 5 hitpoints to cast fireball on themselves on the grounds that they could roll minimum damage, stabilize, and live.

More importantly, with regard to the argument that the fall wouldn't kill Belkar to his classes and level: hitpoints need to be abstract for the game world to be a semi-sane place.

It's well established that characters know their hit point total (more or less) in OotSWorld.

And since when is OotSWorld 'semi-sane'? :smalltongue:

ETA:::


or some other stretch that is close to consistent with the laws of physics

To paraphrase what I said in the main thread, what does the 'laws of physics' have to do with the price of tea in China anything at all that happens in The Order of the Stick? :smallconfused:

[Keltest]

It's well established that characters know their hit point total (more or less) in OotSWorld.

And since when is OotSWorld 'semi-sane'? :smalltongue:

Well, when you compare it to the world of 8-bit theater, where stuff like blocking fall damage works...

[Porthos]

If they are abstract then you would say "the person survives the fall by timely jamming his shield into the ground" or some other stretch that is close to consistent with the laws of physics, but jumping off the tallest tower in the world will kill someone no matter how many orcs they killed beforehand (in theory). And under this philosphy, you have don't have logic glitches like "jumping from an airship isn't obviously self-destructive."

I want to address this one more time, in full, actually. And more seriously.

Please feel free to run any games you are a part of in this way. It's a perfectly fine way of doing it.

The Order of the Stick is as about as far from that as possible though.

For instance, people get run through with swords and shake it off as more or less no big deal.

People can, literally be paralyzed (with only [semi-]automatic functions working), while at the center of a blast explosion strong enough to blow apart a castle, then be thrown hundreds of feet in the air before smashing into the ground and survive. If barely. :smallwink:

People can walk through a raging firestorm and laugh it off.

This is, in the words of the author, a 'crazy fantasy comedy' where 'unbelievable stuff will happen, like, a lot.'

Part and parcel of the comic, I'm afraid. :smalltongue:

[JustWantedToSay]

For Tarquin's soldiers, keep in mind that sentences in the same paragraph relate to each other:

"Subjects resist this control, and any subject forced to take actions against its nature receives a new saving throw with a +2 bonus. Obviously self-destructive orders are not carried out. Once control is established, the range at which it can be exercised is unlimited, as long as you and the subject are on the same plane. You need not see the subject to control it."

Because it's one paragraph, it suggests that Obviously self-destructive might be an additional criterion tacked on to 'against its nature.'

So, if an order is well within the subject's nature, then it doesn't matter whether or not it's self-destructive.

[Keltest]

For Tarquin's soldiers, keep in mind that sentences in the same paragraph relate to each other:

"Subjects resist this control, and any subject forced to take actions against its nature receives a new saving throw with a +2 bonus. Obviously self-destructive orders are not carried out. Once control is established, the range at which it can be exercised is unlimited, as long as you and the subject are on the same plane. You need not see the subject to control it."

Because it's one paragraph, it suggests that Obviously self-destructive might be an additional criterion tacked on to 'against its nature.'

So, if an order is well within the subject's nature, then it doesn't matter whether or not it's self-destructive.

Im not sure about that. It is rather vague, but the same paragraph also deals with range limits (or lack there of).

[TurtlesAWD]

I think that along with whether "jump overboard" is a self destructive command, it is also worth considering whether or not Belkar as a character would consider it a self-destructive command. When he was going to be used as the carrot on a stick, so to speak, for the giant worm he was all for it. He was willing to die to make Miko fall, although that was under the assumption that he was going to be getting resurrected.

Belkar is interested in self-preservation but I think he has a pretty good intuitive sense for what's actually a danger to him and what's just... physical comedy from the bumbling sidekick. He was a little off in the Miko case. but generally his "actual danger" to "humorous outcome" scales seem to be pretty decently calibrated.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

I think that along with whether "jump overboard" is a self destructive command, it is also worth considering whether or not Belkar as a character would consider it a self-destructive command. When he was going to be used as the carrot on a stick, so to speak, for the giant worm he was all for it. He was willing to die to make Miko fall, although that was under the assumption that he was going to be getting resurrected.

Belkar is interested in self-preservation but I think he has a pretty good intuitive sense for what's actually a danger to him and what's just... physical comedy from the bumbling sidekick. He was a little off in the Miko case. but generally his "actual danger" to "humorous outcome" scales seem to be pretty decently calibrated.

I'd add that he also doesn't seem too concerned about his safety sometimes.

:belkar:: Let me tell you, "safe" is for NPCs. I live on the edge.

[thereaper]

As has been mentioned, the actual results don't really matter. The only thing that matters is what the victim thinks will happen. You couldn't order someone to go activate what they think is a lethal trap, even if it actually gives them candy and a hug.

That just makes it even more believable that Belkar would do it.

[The DeathKnight]

I think that as we have seen in comic #0936 that, presuming the airship is at the same altitude as in #0956, that Belkar can not only survive the fall but also have a better chance of taking less damage than Tarquin, due to his ring of jumping +20 and his ranger skills, aswell as falling into water, which we know he can swim in because of basic checks and in comic #0188, pannel 3, he is seen in the hidden tunnel which is only accessible by water since Hayley found no other entrance in the previous comic. So adding these up, maybe Belkar felt this option less self-destructive than staying on a ship with a vampire who, apart from himself, has convinced the rest of the people on board the ship that he is Durkon and not "being driven around like a stagecoach by an evil spirit"

[Jay R]

So the standard of "obviously self-destructive" is the action is certain to cause the death of the character?

Nobody has said anything that can be fairly and honestly characterized as "the action is certain to cause the death of the character".

We're arguing that it isn't "obviously self-destructive" if it will most likely cause no permanent or even long-term ill effect. One quick rescue and some healing potions. - all effects would likely be gone within an hour.

This is significantly less "obviously self-destructive" than his normal lifestyle, and enormously less obviously self-destructive than telling soldiers to betray Tarquin, which worked just fine in the big battle.

[rodneyAnonymous]

So the standard of "obviously self-destructive" is the action is certain to cause the death of the character?

Absolutely not. Killing yourself is the most extreme possible act of self-destruction. It can be way less than that, and it doesn't have to do any damage at all. Putting out a candle flame with your fingertips is self-destructive. I think part of this disagreement comes from some people drawing that "line" way further in than "obviously fatal", but at least some people are using that standard instead.

[TurtlesAWD]

Absolutely not. Killing yourself is the most extreme possible act of self-destruction. It can be way less than that, and it doesn't have to do any damage at all. Putting out a candle flame with your fingertips is self-destructive. I think part of this disagreement comes from some people drawing that "line" way further in than "obviously fatal", but at least some people are using that standard instead.

Actually I'm not so sure killing oneself would be the ultimate act of self destruction within the OOTS universe. The metaphysics of the soul and the afterlife are much more tangible not to mention better understood within that world. Doing something like jumping into the snarl, which could unmake a creature's soul, would be more self destructive. This may sound like I'm being pedantic but recall Roy and Celia's conversation about the afterlife and how Roy figures it's the reason humans (and humanlike creatures) act recklessly. Although part of the joke in the strip is the irony that even humans in our world act recklessly without the same capability to plane shift over to see the afterlife, it's also a telling strip about how the OOTS-verse's denizens see the nature of life and death.

In fact, we know from Belkar trying to make Miko fall that he hardly considers suicide (or suicide by paladin) to be greatly self-destructive at all. Miko's loss of paladin status was arguably more self-destructive, due to how core it was to her identity and the chance she was going to get redemption. Up against a simple death and resurrection... I think Belkar figured Miko had much more to lose.

[Keltest]

Actually I'm not so sure killing oneself would be the ultimate act of self destruction within the OOTS universe. The metaphysics of the soul and the afterlife are much more tangible not to mention better understood within that world. Doing something like jumping into the snarl, which could unmake a creature's soul, would be more self destructive. This may sound like I'm being pedantic but recall Roy and Celia's conversation about the afterlife and how Roy figures it's the reason humans (and humanlike creatures) act recklessly. Although part of the joke in the strip is the irony that even humans in our world act recklessly without the same capability to plane shift over to see the afterlife, it's also a telling strip about how the OOTS-verse's denizens see the nature of life and death.

In fact, we know from Belkar trying to make Miko fall that he hardly considers suicide (or suicide by paladin) to be greatly self-destructive at all. Miko's loss of paladin status was arguably more self-destructive, due to how core it was to her identity and the chance she was going to get redemption. Up against a simple death and resurrection... I think Belkar figured Miko had much more to lose.

To be fair to Belkar (eww) he was under the impression that he could get better right away.

[rodneyAnonymous]

Belkar's willingness to commit suicide has no effect whatsoever on whether suicide is self-destructive. He is willing to be self-destructive to get a paladin to fall.

[Vinyadan]

It depends on how you read "self-destructive".

If self-destruction is a gradual thing, then yes, it is. Even stabbing his own hand would be it, even though it wouldn't do much damage, or starting headbutting the deck.

If self-destruction is a complete & utterly definitive thing, like photobombing someone who's using the Death Star as a camera, then no, it wasn't.

You should be proton-torpedoing him, not photo-bombing.

:smallwink:

[rodneyAnonymous]

It depends on how you read "self-destructive".

If self-destruction is a gradual thing, then yes, it is. Even stabbing his own hand would be it, even though it wouldn't do much damage, or starting headbutting the deck.

If self-destruction is a complete & utterly definitive thing, like photobombing someone who's using the Death Star as a camera, then no, it wasn't.

If you are reading speaking and thinking in English, it is the first one, except it doesn't have to do any damage. From the Wikipedia article on the subject: "The term comes from objective psychology, wherein all apparent self-inflicted harm or abuse toward oneself is treated as a collection of actions, and therefore as a pattern of behaviour." Any kind of self-harm or self-abuse is self-destructive. Yes it is up to the DM where the line is, but the range is somewhere in the first definition, not somewhere between the first and the second definition.

[Jay R]

If you are reading speaking and thinking in English, it is the first one, ...

If you can read, speak, or think in English, then you know that almost every word has more than one definition. The Oxford English Dictionary has 35 definitions and sub-definitions for "the".

In the case of "self-destructive", dictionary.com has two definitions.

self-destructive (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/self-destructive)
adjective
1. harmful, injurious, or destructive to oneself: His constant arguing with the boss shows he's a self-destructive person.
2. reflecting or exhibiting suicidal desires or drives: Careless driving may be a self-destructive tendency.

Both definitions exist; both definitions are used in normal everyday speech.

Therefore, I would have to interpret the phrase "obviously self-destructive" to mean only those actions that you don't have to pick or choose definitions to justify.

If you use the other definition, then a command to enter into a melee against Tarquin's forces wouldn't work, which it clearly did.

[Keltest]

If you can read, speak, or think in English, then you know that almost every word has more than one definition. The Oxford English Dictionary has 35 definitions and sub-definitions for "the".

In the case of "self-destructive", dictionary.com has two definitions.

self-destructive (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/self-destructive)
adjective
1. harmful, injurious, or destructive to oneself: His constant arguing with the boss shows he's a self-destructive person.
2. reflecting or exhibiting suicidal desires or drives: Careless driving may be a self-destructive tendency.

Both definitions exist; both definitions are used in normal everyday speech.

Therefore, I would have to interpret the phrase "obviously self-destructive" to mean only those actions that you don't have to pick or choose definitions to justify.

If you use the other definition, then a command to enter into a melee against Tarquin's forces wouldn't work, which it clearly did.

I feel like using prior instances of Dominate being used as support for either side is extremely silly, simply because Rich doesn't care about the rules when they get in the way of the plot, so it cant be used as a yard stick. It very well could be that with Belkar Rich was following the rules, but with the soldiers he wasn't. Thus, unhelpful.

[rodneyAnonymous]

Posts on this forum often destroy an argument that nobody made. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man)


self-destructive (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/self-destructive)
adjective
1. harmful, injurious, or destructive to oneself: His constant arguing with the boss shows he's a self-destructive person.
2. reflecting or exhibiting suicidal desires or drives: Careless driving may be a self-destructive tendency.

Both of those definitions are consistent with Vinyadan's first reading and not with the second. The question there was not what the definition of the phrase is, it is how it is used, and in both cases it is used to refer to a pattern of behavior, not "a complete & utterly definitive thing". Note the example given for #2 is careless driving, which may be a manifestation of suicidal desires, but is not an explicit suicide attempt. "Self-destructive" absolutely can (must, I think) include outright suicide, but under no circumstances (and under no definition, unless we are free to just make them up) is it limited to that only.

Obviously (?) "self-destructive" can mean suicide, but it doesn't have to. It may have various definitions but as far as I know none of them are "literally suicidal actions only".

[dancrilis]

I think if we take this to its extremes we have the following.

Scenario 1
Order: "Place your head on the cutting block".
Subject does so.
Order: "Now pull the lever to release the guillotine and let the blade hit you".
Subject does so. Subject dies
This is not self destructive as the blade falling did the damage not following the orders.
Result: Dominate can make you do anything.


Scenario 2
Order: "Here is a pouch of gold, do whatever you want with it".
Subject is not compelled to follow the order
Acting under mental control would result in harm to sense of self, as such it is self-destructive.
Result: Dominate can make you do nothing.

I personally think that either one of those is a fair reading - but a middle ground might be preferred most of the time, and in fact on one target you might get one result and on another you might get the other - due to one being a slavishly obedient follower and incapable of thinking about there own harm, and the other having requiring a sense of utter control at all times and that losing that would be destructive to them.

[Reddish Mage]

I feel like using prior instances of Dominate being used as support for either side is extremely silly, simply because Rich doesn't care about the rules when they get in the way of the plot, so it cant be used as a yard stick. It very well could be that with Belkar Rich was following the rules, but with the soldiers he wasn't. Thus, unhelpful.

1) I think the Giant cares, the comic cares, about the rules. There is an awful lot of lampshading and explaining the rules in comic.
2) I think Rich, as a professional D&D author, and long time player and DM, knows these rules and their wording better than most people on the forums, and at this point knows that every single time anyone uses their abilities in the comic (and often times when they don't) people on the forum are going to criticize the use of their abilities (or lack thereof).
3) Its useless to argue with a lot of people on the forum since they are interested in making their point and few are deterred by the author coming out and saying "this is what it says and my official interpret ion."

There isn't anything wrong with coming on the forums and pointing out all the geeky nuances of the spells which may or may not disallow stuff in comic or suggest better ways for the characters to do things. However, there is often an implication that the comic did something wrong when it flat out didn't. It is only very rare that the comic actually breaks the rules, and it is even more rare it happens accidentally (Anti-Magic field removing Force Cage, slave-Durkula using detect magic which Durkon didn't have that day), more often it is explicitly lampshaded (Durkon using Control Weather to destroy Lurky's trees with sonic damage).

Belkar jumping is a possible grey area where ones interpretation may be different, but given the clearly non-fatal damage Belkar would take from falling, Rich is on very firm ground (no pun intended).

[Jay R]

The D&D answer is clear, and has been clear for nearly two weeks. And the complete, true answer is this:

Some DMs would rule it one way, some DMs would rule it the other way. And both would point to the rulebook to justify their decision.

Nobody will ever convince everyone that the command was "obviously self destructive", because many people believe that it was not. Nobody will ever convince everyone that the command was not "obviously self destructive", because many people believe that it was.

The DM will make the final ruling, and this discussion shows that different DMs will rule this one differently.

That has always been, and will always be, part of D&D as actually played.

[b_jonas]

I too think that Belkar jumping overboard was only a minor inconvenience and humiliation for him. Belkar has a ring of jumping +20, and both Belkar and Durkon knows how well Belkar can jump with it. Belkar simply jumps overboard but makes sure he gets caught in the giant spear, then in a few turns he'll pull himself up and jump or climb from the spear to the ship. Thus, the command is not self-destructive and the spell allows it.

Durkon didn't intend to kill Belkar (immediately) with the order either, he just wanted to warn or threaten Belkar to make him stop.

[Mike Havran]

Durkula commanded Belkar only to jump overboard, not ''jump overboard and be jubilant about it''. The grin and wheee part was all Belkar, so in his state he was perfectly fine with the command.