DM trying to pull a literal genie

[mehs]

So, we managed to command undead a ghoul. Not wanting to deal with the ****ing literal genie thing, we gave it pretty vague orders. There is apparently the "standard" order packet given for behaving itself in town that town guards require, but otherwise we mostly gave it orders on when to attack. The main order we did give it was "dont act against our interests". It is vague, but that is the point. It can't do anything it believes that we wouldn't want it to do. GM had it escape as soon as it had the chance, somehow reasoning that the ghoul has perfectly convinced itself that it is just scouting ahead. I have problems with this. It shouldn't be able to do anything that it thinks we wouldn't want it to do, but the gm says that it managed to perfectly shape its own belief.

[ciopo]

Well, in the circumstances, I'm kind of agreeing with your gm there.
I don't know why you went for vague wording, vague wording is specifically what enabled to escape in my opinion.
"Don't act against our interests" well you surely didn't tell it to NOT escape, or that you didn't want it to go whatever it is that it is doing, seems perfectly justified to me.
Your character THOUGHT that they got what they MEANT across, ie "don't do anything we wouldn't want you to do", but that is not the order the ghoul got.
And even if they did literally order "do not do anything we wouldn't want you to do" , did they proceed to elencate *everything* that they do not want it to do?

I understand that you were trying to avoid the situation of too detailed orders would result in the ghoul not doing anything unless specifically prompted to do specifically that action, but "loose bindings" is exactly how demons/genies/whathaveyou pursue their own agenda that not necessarily is against their master interest, master didn't say anything about NOT murdering that random hobo they've never met, so surely they don't care about it etcetera

[W3bDragon]

Well, in the circumstances, I'm kind of agreeing with your gm there.

Same here. I might not be inclined to believe the whole "just scouting ahead" bit, but a reading of the Command Undead spell indicates that the control you have over the ghoul is akin to diplomacy instead of something like a Dominate Monster and that the ghoul simply "perceives your words and actions favorably." Accordingly, a very friendly ghoul wouldn't even see it as escape. As far as he's concerned, he's your friend. As his friends, I doubt he would expect that its against your interests for him to persue HIS interests. After all, you didn't give him any kind of mission or task. You just basically asked him to stay out of trouble and not make any trouble for you. That's exactly what he achieved by leaving town.

[Peelee]

I'm with the DM, and I don't even think they needed the "it believed it was scouting" fig leaf; escaping, while not necessarily in the party's interests, is not really against the party's interests.

[Kurald Galain]

Ghouls have above-average intelligence, meaning they can find loopholes; and they're chaotic, meaning they want to find loopholes. So yeah, your GM is on the money here. You give vague orders, you get vague results.

[mehs]

Command undead feat not command undead spell. It is mostly the way the gm is doing it that is getting to me, saying that the ghoul has convinced itself it is just scouting ahead. GM acknowledges that purposefully escaping would be against the orders given, as GM accepts that the ghoul escaping would be counter to our interests, but then is running it equivalent to "im not eating people, im eating corpses that are not dead yet" with the amount of mental gymnastics. Literally the ghouls line of thinking is "im not escaping, im just scouting ahead, and if i get separated, then im merely lost".

The agreed upon effect or the order is that the ghoul cant do anything that it believes we wouldnt want it to do, but it then apparently perfectly manipulated what it believes to allow it to escape.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by mehs
Literally the ghouls line of thinking is "im not escaping, im just scouting ahead, and if i get separated, then im merely lost"

Sounds like the GM is playing an intelligent undead that’s managed to find a way to serve its own interests while paying lip service to the party’s commands. It may be annoying as a player, to feel like your stuff is being taken away—but this is an independently intelligent creature, and it’s perfectly reasonable for it to be working hard to find a loophole like this.

I’m assuming the ghoul’s plan, as decided by the GM, is to run down the clock and remain at large until it makes the necessary will save. Really, if this ghoul were a human escaping an evil sorcerer in a story, he'd be the hero for finding a clever way to escape.

[Rynjin]

Sounds like the GM is playing an intelligent undead that’s managed to find a way to serve its own interests while paying lip service to the party’s commands. It may be annoying as a player, to feel like your stuff is being taken away—but this is an independently intelligent creature, and it’s perfectly reasonable for it to be working hard to find a loophole like this.

I’m assuming the ghoul’s plan, as decided by the GM, is to run down the clock and remain at large until it makes the necessary will save. Really, if this ghoul were a human escaping an evil sorcerer in a story, he'd be the hero for finding a clever way to escape.

This is a pretty dangerous game to play as a GM if you don't want to be a total hypocrite later. I can already imagine a player getting Dominated and then coming up with insane mental gymnastics to determine that any order they receive is "against their nature" to get extra saves every single time they're told to do something.

Even without that, it's ridiculous to claim that the ghoul taking actions which specifically put itself in the position of not performing its role properly isn't "acting against interests". A scout that never reports back is worthless. If you're "scouting" with no intent to report back, you're not actually scouting, you're just wandering off. A ghoul wandering around freely is acting, quite explicitly, against the interests of a party who have a clear stated interest in keeping the ghoul leashed; otherwise Command Undead would never have been used to begin with.

Any action taken where the logical end position is "freedom for the ghoul" is against the interests of a party that quite obviously is interested in anything but that happening.

[Saint-Just]

Command undead feat not command undead spell. It is mostly the way the gm is doing it that is getting to me, saying that the ghoul has convinced itself it is just scouting ahead. GM acknowledges that purposefully escaping would be against the orders given, as GM accepts that the ghoul escaping would be counter to our interests, but then is running it equivalent to "im not eating people, im eating corpses that are not dead yet" with the amount of mental gymnastics. Literally the ghouls line of thinking is "im not escaping, im just scouting ahead, and if i get separated, then im merely lost".

The agreed upon effect or the order is that the ghoul cant do anything that it believes we wouldnt want it to do, but it then apparently perfectly manipulated what it believes to allow it to escape.

I want to say that this is not looking good IMO. To me it sounds like DM is interpreting the rules purposefully antagonistic way. Ghoul definitely was not "obeying your commands to the best of it's ability". It should not have wanted to convince itself in something that is different to the plain readings of your words. I can imagine 101 way in which "do nothing contrary to our interests" would have backfired but it is not one of them.

You should probably try to talk with DM OOC and separately from the game. Sometimes it may lead to the conflict getting resolved. If not - well...

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Rynjin
A ghoul wandering around freely is acting, quite explicitly, against the interests of a party who have a clear stated interest in keeping the ghoul leashed….

This is interpreting the vague commands in the party’s favor. The ghoul is interpreting the vague commands in its own favor. The real trouble here is the vague commands—“interests” as a catchall is simply too broad to be of much practical use.

If the PCs had told the ghoul, “Scout ahead and report back every thirty minutes,” and the ghoul failed to do so, then that would seem more like an issue with the DM. In the absence of any specific, detailed instructions, then the ghoul isn’t strictly violating a command.

As for wandering freely, as long as the ghoul steers well clear of the party then there’s not much of a case that it’s directly acting against them. The ghoul could even convince itself that as a dangerous undead creature, the party is safer without the ghoul around. This is sophistry, of course, but it’s completely plausible for a creature with human intelligence and a darkly cunning streak.

Is the ghoul acting against the party’s wishes? Absolutely. Against their intentions? Seems like. But “interests” is too vague to be effective, and this seems like a classic example of a poorly worded command that can be taken advantage of.

[Saint-Just]

Is the ghoul acting against the party’s wishes? Absolutely. Against their intentions? Seems like. But “interests” is too vague to be effective, and this seems like a classic example of a poorly worded command that can be taken advantage of.
The perk says "fall under your control, obeying your commands to the best of their ability". Wouldn't you agree that it is very close to "interprets commands in party's favour"? It sounds like it was specifically worded to prevent interpretations like the one used by the OP's DM

[Rynjin]

This is interpreting the vague commands in the party’s favor. The ghoul is interpreting the vague commands in its own favor. The real trouble here is the vague commands—“interests” as a catchall is simply too broad to be of much practical use.

If the PCs had told the ghoul, “Scout ahead and report back every thirty minutes,” and the ghoul failed to do so, then that would seem more like an issue with the DM. In the absence of any specific, detailed instructions, then the ghoul isn’t strictly violating a command.

As for wandering freely, as long as the ghoul steers well clear of the party then there’s not much of a case that it’s directly acting against them. The ghoul could even convince itself that as a dangerous undead creature, the party is safer without the ghoul around. This is sophistry, of course, but it’s completely plausible for a creature with human intelligence and a darkly cunning streak.

Is the ghoul acting against the party’s wishes? Absolutely. Against their intentions? Seems like. But “interests” is too vague to be effective, and this seems like a classic example of a poorly worded command that can be taken advantage of.

*shrugs*

Sure, if you/the OP's GM want to run it that way. I'm just saying you'd better be prepared for a whole lot of fierce, tedious arguments to come up when you're running games with the group you pulled this interpretation on any time Dominate or Charm effects come up, and perhaps even beyond that; you've basically invited the idea that torturing the basic spirit of the rules in favor of whatever the most beneficial interpretation of them is for you at any given time is not only allowed in your games, but encouraged.

[Psychoalpha]

*shrugs*

Sure, if you/the OP's GM want to run it that way. I'm just saying you'd better be prepared for a whole lot of fierce, tedious arguments to come up when you're running games with the group you pulled this interpretation on any time Dominate or Charm effects come up, and perhaps even beyond that; you've basically invited the idea that torturing the basic spirit of the rules in favor of whatever the most beneficial interpretation of them is for you at any given time is not only allowed in your games, but encouraged.

If a DM pulled this for the monster but then balked when a PC pulled it in turn, any of my groups would be voting the DM off the island and playing something else.

On the flipside, if the DM would be fine with it if a PC did the same thing, I can't complain too much. I still don't like it, but as long as they're consistent it's not a game breaker for me.

[False God]

Attempting to avoid a "genie situation" is probably the quickest way to get into one.

[Jay R]

The main order we did give it was "dont act against our interests". ...
It can't do anything it believes that we wouldn't want it to do.

Those two sentences do not mean the same thing. There might be things that you want it to do that it believes are against your interests. The ghoul may know something that you don't know. Or it might be mistaken about your interests.

Maybe it knew that there's a paladin that slays all undead and their owners. In that case, staying with you is against your interests.

Maybe it heard you say that you wished you had a Ring of Invisibility. In that case, looking for such a ring is in your interest.

It's possible that the DM is setting up some interesting session when it returns, having brought you something that it believes is in your interest.

If the game has been enjoyable up to now, I recommend that you keep playing, and suspend judgment until you have more information.

The DM always knows more about why an NPC did something than you do.

[Saint-Just]

Those two sentences do not mean the same thing. There might be things that you want it to do that it believes are against your interests. The ghoul may know something that you don't know. Or it might be mistaken about your interests.

Maybe it knew that there's a paladin that slays all undead and their owners. In that case, staying with you is against your interests.

Maybe it heard you say that you wished you had a Ring of Invisibility. In that case, looking for such a ring is in your interest.

Yes, that would be very plausible ways for that instruction to go wrong, however



The DM always knows more about why an NPC did something than you do.

And unless I have gravely misunderstood OP DM has shared his knowledge with him. And that knowledge was "Ghoul convinced itsself that it was scouting ahead and so it will scout until the end of the world (or until the control lapses)". That not how highly intelligent being obeying commands to the best of their ability looks. That how intelligent being obeying commands to the worst of their ability (i.e. actively looking for every loophole to subvert commands) looks.

[Quertus]

So… exact wording on the Command Undead feat?

Your GM's reasoning strongly indicates that your GM has a screw loose, because that line of thought does not compute.

Could they have gotten to the same outcome (ghoul runs off) through some other, more reasonable line of thought. Probably so (depending on the wording of the feat). But what they *actually* did was nonsense.

Alternately, what they did made sense, but how they explained it to you was nonsense… which is as least as bad, because the GM is the eyes and ears of the PCs, and if they cannot explain simple things like this, they cannot be counted on to perform their primary role as interface between the players and the game world.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Saint-Just
It sounds like it was specifically worded to prevent interpretations like the one used by the OP's DM….

Except the OP stated that the commands were deliberately vaguely worded, which I think is the source of the problem, both in- and out of game.

We haven't heard the OP claim that the party ordered the ghoul to stay within a certain radius, or to check in on a certain schedule. Absent strict, specific controls on its movements, it's perfectly reasonable for a clever, intelligent creature to exploit any possible loopholes.


Originally Posted by Psychoalpha
On the flipside, if the DM would be fine with it if a PC did the same thing, I can't complain too much. I still don't like it, but as long as they're consistent it's not a game breaker for me.

Agreed. This is where the history of the group comes in, as well as the existing trust (or lack thereof) developed between GM and players.

We don’t know how long the group has been with the GM and, critically, how consistent he’s been in applying rules to PCs and monsters alike. If he’s done this sort of thing before, and adjudicated issues evenly in the past, then there’s less of a “problem” in this situation, annoying to the players though it may be.

If he has a history of lopsided decisions and rules contortions that always leave the party at a disadvantage, that’s another matter, but we haven’t heard anything from the OP suggesting this is the case.

On the face of it, this seems like one of those situations where the GM is playing a creature effectively and the party is cranky about it. I’m not prepared to vilify the GM just on that basis.


Originally Posted by Jay R
The DM always knows more about why an NPC did something than you do.

Preach it, brother. Preach it.

Few things can be more frustrating as a GM then having detailed and nuanced NPC motivations, carefully mapped out in accordance with the rules, which are challenged by players with an extremely limited understanding of the overall situation, but who insist—based on that limited understanding, plus a healthy dose of self-interest—that the NPC couldn’t possibly do this or that, when you’ve worked it out carefully beforehand.

Again, it comes down to trust in your GM. We need more information on this GM's history before we can make any claims about whether he has any screws loose.

[Batcathat]

Sounds like the GM is playing an intelligent undead that’s managed to find a way to serve its own interests while paying lip service to the party’s commands. It may be annoying as a player, to feel like your stuff is being taken away—but this is an independently intelligent creature, and it’s perfectly reasonable for it to be working hard to find a loophole like this.

But it didn't find some sort of clever loophole, it just managed to brainwash itself so it could break its orders without thinking it was breaking them, which isn't a thing people - nor ghouls - can normally do.

By the same logic, the ghoul could've killed one of the party members in their sleep, having "convinced" itself out of nowhere that that person was a threat to the rest of the party.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Batcathat
But it didn't find some sort of clever loophole, it just managed to brainwash itself so it could break its orders without thinking it was breaking them, which isn't a thing people - nor ghouls - can normally do.

Social research tells us that the best liars are people who manage to convince themselves that their lies are in some way true. Self-deception is sadly universal among humans, and we often stretch facts and logic to the breaking point in order to justify what we want.

[Batcathat]

Social research tells us that the best liars are people who manage to convince themselves that their lies are in some way true. Self-deception is sadly universal among humans, and we often stretch facts and logic to the breaking point in order to justify what we want.

True, but there's a difference between seeing the world as we want to see it and outright tricking ourself to the point that it fools a magical compulsion.

I'm all for the GM in this situation to think of some clever way the ghoul could "misintrepret" its orders, the literal genie is a classic trope for a reason. But this solution feels lazy, like you asking a wish granting genie to make you rich and being given a dollar, because the genie had convinced himself that a dollar was lot of money.

[Sapphire Guard]

'Don't do anything against your interests' isn't a prohibition on escape until it acts against the party.

Did the ghoul know it was a prisoner? If not, it could feasibly decide 'well, obviously they didn't want me to just stand here doing nothing, there's no point in having an undead servant and commanding it to do nothing' and decide to go scouting because doing nothing is acting against the party interests.

'Don't do anything against our interest' =/= 'do nothing unless commanded'

[Keltest]

'Don't do anything against your interests' isn't a prohibition on escape until it acts against the party.

Did the ghoul know it was a prisoner? If not, it could feasibly decide 'well, obviously they didn't want me to just stand here doing nothing, there's no point in having an undead servant and commanding it to do nothing' and decide to go scouting because doing nothing is acting against the party interests.

'Don't do anything against our interest' =/= 'do nothing unless commanded'

For that matter, it doesn't even require that the ghoul stay with the party. They arent having it do anything specific, so as long as it avoids knowingly making trouble for the party, the command doesn't even require that it stick around. And as long as the ghoul cant be linked back to the party, even going about its normal business and getting caught isn't necessarily acting against their interests, since its only causing problems for the ghoul that they arent doing anything with. The "scouting ahead" loophole was, if anything, far more complicated an escape than it needed to be.

[mehs]

But it didn't find some sort of clever loophole, it just managed to brainwash itself so it could break its orders without thinking it was breaking them, which isn't a thing people - nor ghouls - can normally do.

By the same logic, the ghoul could've killed one of the party members in their sleep, having "convinced" itself out of nowhere that that person was a threat to the rest of the party.

This is pretty much the reason that it is annoying me.

[Quertus]

The way that this thread reads to me:


OP: "OK, we've made it to the ice cream parlor. Pick a flavor, and I'll but you a cone."
*Ghoul child leaps over counter, kills the attendant, scoops out his brains, mixes in milk & sugar, points at their new flavor*
OP: But… she knew I was lactose intolerant. Why didn't she pick a flavor that I could share with her?
P1: You totally left yourself open for that. She could have picked regular chocolate.
P2: Or strawberry.
P3: or pineapple plum pumpernickel.
P4: this isn't Ebeneezer Bleezer's.
P3: the OP didn't specify that this wasn't Ebeneezer Bleezer's.
Me: that child's behavior indicates some serious psychological issues…
P5: nah, I think it shows great creativity, initiative, and problem-solving skills. She knew what she wanted, and went for it.
P6: if she didn't want to share, there were so many ways that she could manage not to share. She could have eaten it all in one bite, or run and hid until she finished it.
P7: the OP didn't even specify a single-dip cone. She probably could have picked a mixed flavor, like "chocolate/strawberry", and ended up with a multi-dip cone.

Yes, it was easy - trivial, even - for the ghoul to subvert the order. I'm just glad I'm not the only one who can see how the train of thought behind this particular implementation of such subversion had issues - I was beginning to fear I might be febrile.

[Rynjin]

The way that this thread reads to me:

[Indent][I]OP: "OK, we've made it to the ice cream parlor. Pick a flavor, and I'll buy you a cone."
*Ghoul child leaps over counter, kills the attendant, scoops out his brains, mixes in milk & sugar, points at their new flavor*


"Pick a flavor" is not the same order as "make a new flavor". Which is really the core of the issue. The ghoul was given an order, however vague, and invented a new order that only exists to itself instead of following it.

[torrasque666]

If you didn't want to deal with Literal Genie stuff, why did you give it a vague, open ended orders? Those are the exact kind of orders a Literal Genie lives to screw with​

[Jay R]

No matter how "vague" the orders were, they were specific words. The DM heard those words, and (if he is any good) paid strict attention to the exact wording.

"Don't act against our interests?" The ghoul is not acting against your interests. He's not acting for your interests, either, but if you didn't tell him to, then he isn't required to do so.

The DM responded to the exact words you spoke. If he's any good, he remembered the crucial aspect of what you said. And he knows what the ghoul knows that you don't.

You simply haven't given us the data needed to second-guess the DM. We don't know your exact words to the ghoul, and we don't know other information the DM has.

For instance, did you tell the ghoul not to cause trouble in town? This might be the most effective way to carry out that order.

But the crucial point is this. We don't have the data to second-guess the DM -- and neither do you.

I know of a group of players whose characters were turned to stone. They were then rescued by a paladin, but they discovered that none of their magic items worked. They kept complaining to the DM that that shouldn't have affected their magic. If, instead, they had trusted the DM, they might have figured out that the "paladin" who had rescued them was in fact an evil fighter, who stole their items and left duplicates. But because they didn't trust the DM, they spent their time second-guessing him instead of investigating their problem.

If you trusted the DM last week, then continue to trust him. You have no reason not to.

If you didn't trust him a week ago, why are you playing in his game?

[Peelee]

"Pick a flavor" is not the same order as "make a new flavor". Which is really the core of the issue. The ghoul was given an order, however vague, and invented a new order that only exists to itself instead of following it.

No it didn't. So long as it doesn't attack or otherwise antagonize the party or anyone or anything it knows the party cares about, it's not acting against the party's interests. In the Venn Diagram of "against the party's interests," "in the party's interests," and "neither," the "neither" circle is massively bigger than the other two, and the ghoul has only been commanded to stay out of the one circle. It is very much doing that.

Again, I don't think the DM needed that fig leaf justification (and I think we can agree on that point at the very least), but the action itself is perfectly cromulent.

[Batcathat]

If you didn't want to deal with Literal Genie stuff, why did you give it a vague, open ended orders? Those are the exact kind of orders a Literal Genie lives to screw with​

I agree. But the ghoul/GM didn't screw with those orders, it just brainwashed itself into believing it was doing something it didn't. Vague, open-ended orders should offer any number of opportunities to subvert them but instead the GM pulled what's basically a deus ex machina.

[torrasque666]

Oh yes, the DM's reasoning was utter minotaur droppings. But the Ghoul could have done that anyway because running around isn't necessarily "against their interests". Keltest outlined several examples and situations above that would have worked.

"Don't go against our interests" doesn't even forbid "turn them into ghouls" since there are a number of benefits to being undead, and thus it wouldn't be against their interests. Unless one is a Paladin.

[Jay R]

... but instead the GM pulled what's basically a deus ex machina.

We don't know that. There may be a straightforward explanation that the player doesn't know, because the character doesn't know.


Oh yes, the DM's reasoning was utter minotaur droppings.

Again, we don't know that. The player's re-wording of the DM's spoken explanation doesn't seem convincing, but:
1. It wasn't a direct quote. We don't know what the DM said. And in this kind of situation, exact wording matters.
2. The DM only told the player as much as the PC should know. There are possible explanations that the PC wouldn't know about. Maybe the exact wording of the PCs' orders to the ghoul combined with something the ghoul knew and the PCs didn't. Maybe another spell interfered with theirs. We have only heard one side.

Suppose it knows about a religious order that slays all undead and their masters. Then staying in town with the PCs would be acting against their interests.

We just don't know.

But we can't fairly and justly decide against somebody whose we don't know.

We cannot condemn the DM without hearing from him.

[Batcathat]

We don't know that. There may be a straightforward explanation that the player doesn't know, because the character doesn't know.

Maybe, but the fact that the OP said that the GM was "saying that the ghoul has convinced itself it is just scouting ahead" sounds like they were given an explanation out of character. If there was some better explanation, why would the GM give them this bad explantion instead of just saying that their characters doesn't know how the ghoul left?


But we can't fairly and justly decide against somebody whose we don't know.

We cannot condemn the DM without hearing from him.

Sure, but that's true of almost any post here where someone complains about or questions the actions of a GM or player. We obviously can't say for certain, but we can discuss based on the information provided.

[trtl]

This is why I hate this genie mentality. Everywhere else people have no trouble saying that a gm vs. player mindset is bad, but the second the party gets a wish, all rules are off the table. In my opinion, your the GM, if the party attains a wish, you let them have a wish, if your party has an undead minion, you let them have an undead minion. Now, as the GM, you have to deal with any difficulties the wish/undead minion/whatever poses for your campaign.

I know genies tricking people is a common trope, but in the trope, the reason the wish goes south is because of the foolishness of the person making the wish or the fact the person doesn't actually want what the person thought they wanted. In DnD games, the reason the wish goes south is almost always unsatsifactory.

Alright, rant over, while my rant sort of answered your question, I'd like to add that I don't get to hear the GMs side of the story, maybe the ghoul running off was actually a perfectly reasonable action. Either way, while it has been said a million times, you really should approach your GM with your complaint.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Jay R
…in this kind of situation, exact wording matters.

We cannot condemn the DM without hearing from him.


Originally Posted by Batcathat
We obviously can't say for certain, but we can discuss based on the information provided.

As Jay just pointed out, this is a much different situation than usual, because in this case the precise wording at the time is crucial, and we don’t have that.

[Batcathat]

As Jay just pointed out, this is a much different situation than usual, because in this case the precise wording at the time is crucial, and we don’t have that.

Fair enough, but unless the OP completely misunderstood the situation or misrepresented it here, I don't think there's a precise wording that would convince me that "the ghoul tricked itself into thinking it wasn't running away when it was running away" is a satisfying explanation. I'm open to being proven wrong, though.

[Keltest]

Fair enough, but unless the OP completely misunderstood the situation or misrepresented it here, I don't think there's a precise wording that would convince me that "the ghoul tricked itself into thinking it wasn't running away when it was running away" is a satisfying explanation. I'm open to being proven wrong, though.

Running away implies intent to create distance for its own sake. But they left the ghoul to its own devices, so of course its going to go explore. It just has to avoid knowingly causing problems for the party while doing so. Its a ghoul, not a skeleton, so it has its own mind and desires its going to act on if the party doesn't specifically give it something else of higher priority to do.

[Psyren]

*shrugs*

Sure, if you/the OP's GM want to run it that way. I'm just saying you'd better be prepared for a whole lot of fierce, tedious arguments to come up when you're running games with the group you pulled this interpretation on any time Dominate or Charm effects come up, and perhaps even beyond that; you've basically invited the idea that torturing the basic spirit of the rules in favor of whatever the most beneficial interpretation of them is for you at any given time is not only allowed in your games, but encouraged.

I think there's middle ground between drafting up a painstaking contract for every minion you control, and giving orders so vague they're basically useless. How is a ghoul to know what the party's "interests" are? That can be interpreted in so many undesirable ways. The party doesn't want ghouls near civilians, so escaping is in their interests. The party clearly wants ghouls, so i should make as many out of random passersby as I can. The party thinks undead are dangerous to have around, so I should destroy myself immediately. You can come up with more detailed instructions or restrictions that preclude these sorts of actions, but by the time you realize they might be needed it's often too late.

The golden rule I use is that you should specify what you want an intelligent minion to do for you, and for how long - this works for most forms of control of intelligent creatures, including binding. Don't try for open-ended timeframes, vague instructions, or limitless authority. If you truly want an indefinite minion, spend the resources to get a true cohort that shares your goals (and get explicit GM permission), rather than trying to artificially expand a short-term binding or control effect into something longer.

[Demidos]

This seems like a breakdown in communication:

Your position is that "don't act against our interests" should make the ghoul do everything it can to make you happy.

Your DM's position is that creatures that are intelligent can brainwash themselves to believe that leaving with no notice, never coming back, and doing whatever the heck it wants is exactly the same as scouting and therefore the command undead did basically nothing except prevent it from slitting your throats in the night.
----------------------
There's 3 ways to rule charm effects -- generously, indifferently, and adversarially.

Generously means that the character is effectively under your control for the duration of the effect. This appears to be what you expected.

Indifferently means that the character does what you want but grudgingly, and doesn't put in any effort beyond the minimum required by the spell.

Adversarially means that the character attempts to find and exploit any minute error in the instructions, and abuses it to the best of their ability.

None of these are wrong, but it is the responsibility of the group to make a gentleman's/gentlewoman's agreement regarding how all effects should be played, both on the player's side and the DM's side.

I think although the DM certainly had adversarial methods to have it escape (you told it to not act against you, not to act for you) brainwashing itself is obviously ridiculous and way beyond even adversarial as it would negate the purpose of any and all charm effects. The feat in question says that the undead is "enslaved" and that intelligent undead get a save to resist every day, meaning that the DM's method of the undead escaping control due to their intelligence is already spelled out. If the DM wants to play it that way, then be clear that you expect to be able to make the same mental gymnastics as a player, and that any charm effect he uses on you will be faced with similar levels of brainwashing decisions. If he doesn't like that, then I would suggest making an agreement about which charm ruling you are using, and let him off the hook this once by saying the undead made it's save -- just to quell bad feelings and let the story progress.

[Quertus]

@JayR: you and I are certainly on opposite sides of the "GM trust" issue. Well, sort of. Afaict, (correct me if I'm wrong) we both strongly agree that GM trust is essential for certain styles of play - and we both have strongly positive things to say about those styles.

(Darn senility - are you the origin of my "while opposites, red and green are more similar than red and penguin" comment? Regardless, it certainly applies here - we're much more similar than we are different.)

While I would love to discuss the nature of trust in gaming with you, in this case, our difference is much easier to pinpoint:



If you trusted the DM last week, then continue to trust him. You have no reason not to.

My contention is that the GM's line of thought, as given by the OP as Literally the ghouls line of thinking is "im not escaping, im just scouting ahead, and if i get separated, then im merely lost". is sufficient reason not to trust him.

Which, of course, makes me curious: if you don't think that that constitutes sufficient reason, then what do you consider sufficient for a GM to lose your trust?

(EDIT: ah, I'm behind on the thread - you don't trust the OP to have relayed the story with sufficient fidelity, right?)

[Batcathat]

Running away implies intent to create distance for its own sake. But they left the ghoul to its own devices, so of course its going to go explore. It just has to avoid knowingly causing problems for the party while doing so. Its a ghoul, not a skeleton, so it has its own mind and desires its going to act on if the party doesn't specifically give it something else of higher priority to do.

I can see the ghoul "justifying" scouting ahead but "scouting ahead" requires coming back. Again, these sort vague orders are begging to be subverted but the way the GM explained it (according to the OP) is in my opinion a ridiculous and lazy way of doing it.

Hell, as a player I would've been less frustrated (though still frustrated) if the GM just said something vague about the ghoul having escaped their control somehow. At least that would just be unsatisfying and not this outright silly.

[Sapphire Guard]

So how did this develop, OP? Did the ghoul ever try to come back?

[mehs]

So how did this develop, OP? Did the ghoul ever try to come back?

He ran 100 ft aheady through one of a set of chained teleportation circles. We were going that way anyway so went there. When we stepped through, we saw the ghoul step back on the teleportation circle immediately to go to another random location in dungeon, and we decided "we are not going to ****ing benny hill it through a dungeon". The ghoul has not attempted to come back, and according to gm is both trying and not trying to get disoriented enough such that it cant find a way back.

[Peelee]

we decided "we are not going to ****ing benny hill it through a dungeon".

Note to self: new dungeon idea, hallway of randomized teleportation doors. Monsters include four humans, a dire dog, and a fifth unrelated human with max ranks in Disguise.

[Sinner's Garden]

according to gm is both trying and not trying to get disoriented enough such that it cant find a way back.

This is the most asinine thing I've seen all day, congrats. If he doesn't want you to have a ghoul, then he has infinite solutions that aren't this heaping pile of garbage.

[Batcathat]

This is the most asinine thing I've seen all day, congrats. If he doesn't want you to have a ghoul, then he has infinite solutions that aren't this heaping pile of garbage.

Indeed.


Note to self: new dungeon idea, hallway of randomized teleportation doors. Monsters include four humans, a dire dog, and a fifth unrelated human with max ranks in Disguise.

Awesome idea. I think it'd be best if you played it completely serious and didn't give the players any indication, just to see how long it took them to realize what was going on.

[Psyren]

I agree that if he just wanted you to lose it, simply saying "it's already gone" would waste a lot less of everyone's time than Scooby-Doo/Benny Hillling the party through a bunch of teleportation circles. Doing so is somewhat passive-aggressive so that might be worth an out of game conversation.

[Jay R]

Which, of course, makes me curious: if you don't think that that constitutes sufficient reason, then what do you consider sufficient for a GM to lose your trust?

Getting all the information first. Maybe another caster also cast a spell on the ghoul.
Maybe the ghoul knows that a zealot who kills undead and their masters is coming to town.
Maybe the ghoul will return with a magic item that is in the party's interest.

We just don't know enough right now.


(EDIT: ah, I'm behind on the thread - you don't trust the OP to have relayed the story with sufficient fidelity, right?)

That's half of it. He's paraphrasing, which means it isn't the DM's words; it's his understanding of them, which may or may not have been accurate. More importantly, he doesn't know all of it in any case.

[Batcathat]

That's half of it. He's paraphrasing, which means it isn't the DM's words; it's his understanding of them, which may or may not have been accurate. More importantly, he doesn't know all of it in any case.

True. But from what it sounds like the GM did give the party some sort of OOC explanation, otherwise I don't see how they could even know that "the ghoul has perfectly convinced itself that it is just scouting ahead" (I suppose it's possible the OP just assumed that was the reasoning without hearing anything from the GM but that seems unlikely).

Even paraphrased, I don't see how it could be a satisfying explanation in there somewhere.

[Jay R]

Even paraphrased, I don't see how it could be a satisfying explanation in there somewhere.

I agree with this completely. Where we disagree is on the next step.

Here is the logical syllogism:

I don't see how it could be a satisfying explanation.
I have all the information necessary to see a satisfying explanation if there is one.
Therefore there is no satisfying explanation.

We agree on the major premise. But I can't reach the conclusion you want without the minor premise, which is not true.

[Quertus]

I agree with this completely. Where we disagree is on the next step.

Here is the logical syllogism:

I don't see how it could be a satisfying explanation.
I have all the information necessary to see a satisfying explanation if there is one.
Therefore there is no satisfying explanation.

We agree on the major premise. But I can't reach the conclusion you want without the minor premise, which is not true.

The issue is more: "I don't have an exact count on the enemy ships, but I'm pretty sure it's over a million."

"Based on that, there's no reason for our 3 ships to retreat yet."

We cannot imagine a way "probably over a million" could be a sufficient misrepresentation for it not to be "overwhelming odds" for our 3 ships.

I mean, sure, you could attempt to provide helpful advice on how to measure the number of ships, on how to get a better answer, but, unlike your paladin example, the player already has a GM-provided explanation of the underlying mechanics.

[Jay R]

The issue is more: "I don't have an exact count on the enemy ships, but I'm pretty sure it's over a million."

"Based on that, there's no reason for our 3 ships to retreat yet."

We cannot imagine a way "probably over a million" could be a sufficient misrepresentation for it not to be "overwhelming odds" for our 3 ships.

I mean, sure, you could attempt to provide helpful advice on how to measure the number of ships, on how to get a better answer, but, unlike your paladin example, the player already has a GM-provided explanation of the underlying mechanics.

I understand how you could see it this way.

I think the issue is fairness. I won't choose one side over another without hearing from the other side. Even if I have heard what the first side thinks the other side is, that's still only hearing from one side.

I can't see what the other side might be, but without hearing from both sides, I can't choose in favor of the only side that got to present its case.

[Batcathat]

I can't see what the other side might be, but without hearing from both sides, I can't choose in favor of the only side that got to present its case.

Again, that's true but that's true of almost any player/player or player/GM conflict that's posted about in these forums.

[Buufreak]

My biggest takeaway from all of this would have to be the dm let you actually take a feat that controls undead, just so this could happen. So not only are you cheated out the minion, you are also cheated out a rare feat slot.

[Quertus]

I understand how you could see it this way.

I think the issue is fairness. I won't choose one side over another without hearing from the other side. Even if I have heard what the first side thinks the other side is, that's still only hearing from one side.

I can't see what the other side might be, but without hearing from both sides, I can't choose in favor of the only side that got to present its case.


Again, that's true but that's true of almost any player/player or player/GM conflict that's posted about in these forums.

I guess it's hard to look at "trust your GM" as being inherently any less biased than "don't trust your GM". Or, "always trust your GM" as being less biased than "in this case, sounds like you shouldn't trust your GM". There are instances where the GM should be trusted, and times when they shouldn't be. I have found the latter far, far more common than the former - and, given the number of different, incompatible things that Playgrounders advocate trusting the GM to do, distrust seems the mathematically superior strategy, all things being equal.

Then there's the question of "voicing an opinion" / "taking sides" vs not. True, the internet is generally under informed for being overly opinionated. True, the internet could probably do with more, "here's some helpful advice on how to count ships" / "here's some questions I have about this scenario / here's some follow-up questions you should ask your GM". I am less certain if the internet would be more valuable if you removed all of our opinions ("trust your GM", "bail", etc), and replaced them exclusively with neutral content designed to teach the reader how to make their own, informed opinions on subjects.

In short, you *are* taking sides, and I'm not sure that "taking sides" is the inferior position.