What is "Willing" Anyway?

[Trask]

Recently had a game of D&D where my character was attempting to capture a Drow that was lurking in the sewers of the city. I cast dominate person on her and tried to teleport away, assuming that a creature dominated by me would be considered a willing creature for any spells I cast on it.

My DM thought about it and ruled that dominate person cannot be used to make a creature "willing" to do anything, since the spell only allows the dominator to force the victim to make actions, and can't force them to want something that they don't want. I argued that the "total and precise control" gained over the victim of the spell while using your action (I was a sorcerer who could quicken cast teleport so no problems there) would encompass the ability to force it to accept my spell, but my DM countered that the phrase "willing" in the spell description does not imply merely accepting a spell like one would a friend request on Facebook, but rather the person's very will and desires which cannot be thwarted or turned against them. I asked him if there were any spells that could do that, and if willingness could be coerced through any means, magical or mundane, and he said no. In this way he has effectively ruled that it is impossible for anyone to compel the target of their spells to be willing to accept them, regardless of the means they have employed.

In the end, I accepted this and thought it was a fair ruling, but I don't think I would rule the same way if it were me. I am curious to see what you, the community, thinks of it, and how you would rule in this case where a player was trying to force a dominated creature to be considered willing for the purposes of a spell.

EDIT: For the sake of fairness to my DM and to dissuade any criticisms that he was trying to protect the drow npc, my character did end up simply commanding her to lay down, tying her up, and just hauling her away, and that worked fine. So I do think this is his genuine opinion, and not just a cheap way to railroad.

[Tanarii]

Just telepathically tell the target to allow itself to be willing to be teleported by you. No action, and it does it's best to obey per the spell.

Alternatively, if you can't command a target to become willing, the DM might require a Persuasion check (at advantage for Charmed, I'd assume Hostile attitude) to make it willing. But really, it should obey the order without a check.

[Trask]

Just telepathically tell the target to allow itself to be willing to be teleported by you. No action, and it does it's best to obey per the spell.

Alternatively, if you can't command a target to become willing, the DM might require a Persuasion check (at advantage for Charmed, I'd assume Hostile attitude) to make it willing. But really, it should obey the order without a check.

Thats how I might rule it if I were the one DMing, but that's not how my DM saw it. I also doubt that the charmed condition or persuasion skill would have been any use, as I was essentially kidnapping this person.

[Tanarii]

Thats how I might doing it if I were the one DMing, but that's not how my DM saw it. I also doubt that the charmed condition or persuasion skill would have been any use, as I was essentially kidnapping this person.
True, it might be beyond the bounds of a persuasion check.

But as I said, as I see it you should just be able to order them to allow themselves to be teleported.

[Mastikator]

Only semi-relevant but Jeremy Crawford said that unconscious creatures can't consent and therefore are never willing.
Source: https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/707017486223323137

I agree with the DM, a person subject to Dominate Person is explicitly having their will subdued by magic, they can't will and therefore can't be willing. Dominate Person specifically states that the target is charmed for the duration and must obey commands, if it could cast teleport you would be able to make it cast teleport. Charmed outlines only two effects 1) can't attack the charm-ee and the charm-ee has advantage on social ability checks. (https://roll20.net/compendium/dnd5e/Conditions#toc_2)

I'd argue that you should be allowed to try to persuade the dominated person to accept teleportation.

[Addaran]

Recently had a game of D&D where my character was attempting to capture a Drow that was lurking in the sewers of the city. I cast dominate person on her and tried to teleport away, assuming that a creature dominated by me would be considered a willing creature for any spells I cast on it.

My DM thought about it and ruled that dominate person cannot be used to make a creature "willing" to do anything, since the spell only allows the dominator to force the victim to make actions, and can't force them to want something that they don't want. I argued that the "total and precise control" gained over the victim of the spell while using your action (I was a sorcerer who could quicken cast teleport so no problems there) would encompass the ability to force it to accept my spell, but my DM countered that the phrase "willing" in the spell description does not imply merely accepting a spell like one would a friend request on Facebook, but rather the person's very will and desires which cannot be thwarted or turned against them. I asked him if there were any spells that could do that, and if willingness could be coerced through any means, magical or mundane, and he said no. In this way he has effectively ruled that it is impossible for anyone to compel the target of their spells to be willing to accept them, regardless of the means they have employed.

In the end, I accepted this and thought it was a fair ruling, but I'm not sure if I would rule the same way if it were me. I am curious to see what you, the community, thinks of it, and how you would rule in this case where a player was trying to force a dominated creature to be considered willing for the purposes of a spell.

It's a common trope that willing needs to be entirely willing without magical binding. The most known one being selling your soul or doing a contract with a devil. Those usually also include direct threat as clause. ( the devils can't just tell you to give your soul or you die).

I don't remember all the spells, but usually there's an attack version of those spells, often with a save to resist or the spell being higher lvl.

[Unoriginal]

Recently had a game of D&D where my character was attempting to capture a Drow that was lurking in the sewers of the city. I cast dominate person on her and tried to teleport away, assuming that a creature dominated by me would be considered a willing creature for any spells I cast on it.

My DM thought about it and ruled that dominate person cannot be used to make a creature "willing" to do anything, since the spell only allows the dominator to force the victim to make actions, and can't force them to want something that they don't want. I argued that the "total and precise control" gained over the victim of the spell while using your action (I was a sorcerer who could quicken cast teleport so no problems there) would encompass the ability to force it to accept my spell, but my DM countered that the phrase "willing" in the spell description does not imply merely accepting a spell like one would a friend request on Facebook, but rather the person's very will and desires which cannot be thwarted or turned against them. I asked him if there were any spells that could do that, and if willingness could be coerced through any means, magical or mundane, and he said no. In this way he has effectively ruled that it is impossible for anyone to compel the target of their spells to be willing to accept them, regardless of the means they have employed.

To me this sounds like nonsense.

Willingness, in this context, doesn't mean "I want this to happen of my own, free, non-coerced will", but "I am accepting that this affects me".

If a villains says "don't fight the teleportation spell or my agents burn down your home", then it is possible for the person to agree to the teleportation, even if it's under duress.


Thats how I might rule it if I were the one DMing, but that's not how my DM saw it. I also doubt that the charmed condition or persuasion skill would have been any use, as I was essentially kidnapping this person.

Several cham effects can force the person to kill themselves. I think they can make a kidnapping happen.

But if your DM decided something won't happen then it won't, so that's it for this part of the issue.

[ProsecutorGodot]

I definitely wouldn't say it's a "fair" ruling. It says nothing in the spells text about "forcing actions", which I assume your DM interprets as "actions in combat". It says you issue commands, and they do their best to follow those commands.

One of the commands explicitly given as an example is even "run over there" which isn't an action at all. This reasoning against allowing it isn't compelling to me.

A person dominated by you should only require the thought "we're teleporting, come with me" to be considered willing, as their response to this command is that they will do their best to obey. They are willing. A person dominated by you can already be forced to do any physical action they would otherwise be unwilling to do, to the best of their ability, why would their willingness to become a target for one of your spells be any different? It certainly doesn't say anything about how they do it begrudgingly because they know in their heart of hearts that they really don't want to.

No, I don't agree with the ruling at all, I would not have made the same ruling.

[Unoriginal]

It's a common trope that willing needs to be entirely willing without magical binding. The most known one being selling your soul or doing a contract with a devil. Those usually also include direct threat as clause. ( the devils can't just tell you to give your soul or you die).

That is actually untrue for Devil contracts in 5e. Examples seen in the books and modules include:

-People selling their children's souls because they have legal authority over them

-People having their souls sent to the Styx to be turned into devils or harvested into soul coins, due to the action of magic weapons/curses, regardless of what they want or their alignment.

-People having their souls sent to Hell due to being sacrificed by a Devil cult.

-People being tricked into swearing an oath to their rulers, which let said ruler promises their souls to a Devil.

Devils *prefer* given souls. But they don't care if they have to take them, or manipulate the situation into an "do this or else".

In fact one of the typical customer types for Devil deals are desperate people who prefer the non-immediate doom of signing their soul away to what's threatening them right now.

[Samayu]

As for whether someone is a willing target, I would ask that if there was a saving throw involved, would the target willingly fail the save and accept the effect of the spell? You can't force a dominated person to fail the save for a Fireball, so why would they accept the teleport? With Dominate, you can only cause the dominated to take certain actions.

Note that a Transport Via Plant spell would work on them, because "For the duration, any creature can step into the target plant and exit from the destination plant by using 5 feet of movement," and you can make them step.

[Tanarii]

As for whether someone is a willing target, I would ask that if there was a saving throw involved, would the target willingly fail the save and accept the effect of the spell? You can't force a dominated person to fail the save for a Fireball, so why would they accept the teleport? With Dominate, you can only cause the dominated to take certain actions.
You can't automatically fail a save unless a specific feature or spell says you can, and they also usually state willing creatures.

IMO you could also order a dominated target to fail it's save for one of those specific features or spells.

[ProsecutorGodot]

As for whether someone is a willing target, I would ask that if there was a saving throw involved, would the target willingly fail the save and accept the effect of the spell? You can't force a dominated person to fail the save for a Fireball, so why would they accept the teleport? With Dominate, you can only cause the dominated to take certain actions.

Note that a Transport Via Plant spell would work on them, because "For the duration, any creature can step into the target plant and exit from the destination plant by using 5 feet of movement," and you can make them step.

That's not what the spell says, the spell says you issue a command and they follow it to the best of their ability. If you ask them to teleport with you, the best they can do is agree, making them willing.

I don't see much reason in comparing it to spells that force saves, it's as simple as "can they be forced to become a willing target" because that's all Teleport cares about here.

[Addaran]

Regarding you can't willingly fail a dex save... that's exactly the kind of saves you could fail if you want. You just stay there and don't move... the paralyzed condition makes you auto fail str and dex saves afterall.


That is actually untrue for Devil contracts in 5e. Examples seen in the books and modules include:

-People selling their children's souls because they have legal authority over them

-People having their souls sent to the Styx to be turned into devils or harvested into soul coins, due to the action of magic weapons/curses, regardless of what they want or their alignment.

-People having their souls sent to Hell due to being sacrificed by a Devil cult.

-People being tricked into swearing an oath to their rulers, which let said ruler promises their souls to a Devil.

Devils *prefer* given souls. But they don't care if they have to take them, or manipulate the situation into an "do this or else".

In fact one of the typical customer types for Devil deals are desperate people who prefer the non-immediate doom of signing their soul away to what's threatening them right now.

I'm guessing those come from Descent to Avernus? I didn't read/play that adventure. I wasn't necessarily talking DnD or a specific system, just in general. If the GM decide it's how it works in his world, there's not much you can do.

The special magic weapons, from what i heard were made by Amadeus or a similar quasi-divine devil. Rituals might bypass the willing clause in various media, but it's usually cause it takes specific circumstances or great work/power to do them.

[Carpe Gonzo]

For me, since it's a Wisdom save not a Charisma save, I'd rule it probably counts as willing. Since I interpret Wisdom saves that affect the mind as thwarting the creature's perceptions. I.E., you're tricking the creature's mind and senses into doing what you want it to do rather than overpowering its will directly. But that's just my house-ruling.

[ff7hero]

It is possibly the evilest spell in the game, and not necessarily available to you, but I'm curious if your DM would allow Modify Memory to create/compel "willingness."

[ProsecutorGodot]

I'm guessing those come from Descent to Avernus? I didn't read/play that adventure. I wasn't necessarily talking DnD or a specific system, just in general. If the GM decide it's how it works in his world, there's not much you can do.

Not all of them:
The Cassalanter's, worshippers of Asmodeus, sold the souls of all 3 of their children to the hells for wealth and power. The children have no idea that in no time at all they could become a devil and lose their previous existence forever.

They have/had no say in this transaction.
It's also a very common trope for people to be tricked or forced into deals they had no intention of making, usually through magical coercion.


It is possibly the evilest spell in the game, and not necessarily available to you, but I'm curious if your DM would allow Modify Memory to create/compel "willingness."
Modify Memory cant be used to force creatures to remember agreeing to things completely against their nature. If Modify Memory were the attempted spell rather than Dominate Person I think the DM's reasoning would be applicable here, agreeing to be captured would be so nonsensical for this Drow to "remember" that the spell (modify memory) would fail.

[Addaran]

It's also a very common trope for people to be tricked or forced into deals they had no intention of making, usually through magical coercion.
Yeah, both are tropes, so i can see the GM deciding either way.

[Jerrykhor]

Sounds like very bad DMing to me. He makes a poor argument but wants you to accept it anyway because he is the DM, and DM is always right. I think he just don't want players to force his NPCs against their will, because since he outright said nothing will make someone willing, its a '**** you, don't mess with my NPCs'.

Suggestion i would understand, since its arguable what 'reasonable' means. But you are spending a level 5 spell slot to make a level 7 spell work.

[Stabbey]

I would not agree with that DM's ruling at all. If you've cast a Dominate spell, you've explicitly got control over them.

[ff7hero]

Modify Memory cant be used to force creatures to remember agreeing to things completely against their nature. If Modify Memory were the attempted spell rather than Dominate Person I think the DM's reasoning would be applicable here, agreeing to be captured would be so nonsensical for this Drow to "remember" that the spell (modify memory) would fail.

We don't have a lot of context to go on here, but something like "You and I were just attacked by a pack of wererats. We worked together to escape, but you got bit by one of them. I was able to heal the wound with some basic magic, but you should really see a Cleric to avoid Lycanthropy. I know a guy and can Teleport you to him," could work. I'd think it's close enough for the 5th level slot to fill in the blanks.

With a little more context I could come up with something more convenient. If we know communications from his superiors aren't unthinkable, we can plant a memory of receiving orders to accept a Teleport from this character for example.

Modify Memory isn't a hammer, it's a precise tool. You're not making him consent to being captured, you're changing the context so he doesn't think he's being captured in the first place.

[Trask]

One of the commands explicitly given as an example is even "run over there" which isn't an action at all. This reasoning against allowing it isn't compelling to me.

I didn't mean that he limits dominated creatures to only taking book listed actions, rather they can only be commanded to do things with their active capabilities like moving, fighting, and speaking. He ruled that dominating a creature can't change what it wants or thinks, only what it does. I think he's going for a "prisoner in their own body" idea.


A person dominated by you should only require the thought "we're teleporting, come with me" to be considered willing, as their response to this command is that they will do their best to obey. They are willing. A person dominated by you can already be forced to do any physical action they would otherwise be unwilling to do, to the best of their ability, why would their willingness to become a target for one of your spells be any different? It certainly doesn't say anything about how they do it begrudgingly because they know in their heart of hearts that they really don't want to.
No, I don't agree with the ruling at all, I would not have made the same ruling.



To me this sounds like nonsense.

Willingness, in this context, doesn't mean "I want this to happen of my own, free, non-coerced will", but "I am accepting that this affects me".

If a villains says "don't fight the teleportation spell or my agents burn down your home", then it is possible for the person to agree to the teleportation, even if it's under duress.


I would not agree with that DM's ruling at all. If you've cast a Dominate spell, you've explicitly got control over them.

This is also what I would have said if it were my decision. I don't see the same kind of disconnect between desire and action in the game world, it makes a sort of sense, but in D&D if someone verbally agrees to something, unless they are explicitly trying to lie (which she couldn't because I didn't command her to lie), that would count as willingness to me, coerced or not.


We don't have a lot of context to go on here, but something like "You and I were just attacked by a pack of wererats. We worked together to escape, but you got bit by one of them. I was able to heal the wound with some basic magic, but you should really see a Cleric to avoid Lycanthropy. I know a guy and can Teleport you to him," could work. I'd think it's close enough for the 5th level slot to fill in the blanks.

With a little more context I could come up with something more convenient. If we know communications from his superiors aren't unthinkable, we can plant a memory of receiving orders to accept a Teleport from this character for example.

Modify Memory isn't a hammer, it's a precise tool. You're not making him consent to being captured, you're changing the context so he doesn't think he's being captured in the first place.

Knowing him, I think that would probably work or at least warrant a deception check. It might depend on the kind of NPC, how familiar they are with magic, and how paranoid they are of being caught (this particular drow claimed to be a mere scout) but only because it changes their perception of the past and thus reality, rather than trying to change their thoughts "by force" which is what he has said is impossible.

[Hytheter]

Tell the Drow that the alternative is an order to drown themselves in the sewer water and I'm sure they will be more than willing to be teleported. :smallamused:

I can't say I agree with this ruling either, though.

[hamishspence]

I could see the logic as coming from previous versions of the spell, such as 3.5. Especially in the context of Atonement.


If you commit an "act that requires atonement" under "some form of compulsion (especially, magical)" - that act is considered to have not been "committed willingly" and the spell costs the caster no XP.



So, it would appear that in this DM's eyes, because of this precedent, once under "magical compulsion" the character becomes "Unwilling" by default, to do anything - and all their acts count as "committed unwillingly".

Since "unwillingly willing" is kind of a contradiction in terms, it makes sense that "become willing" is the one order that cannot be issued to someone under a Dominate spell and actually work.

That said, if a command is something the character doesn't actually object to, a case can be made that a dominated character is not required to be resisting it - like here:

https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0800.html


and in those sort of cases, the act might count as "willing" for atonement persons, if the committer chose not to "resist the command".

[CheddarChampion]

Sounds like very bad DMing to me. He makes a poor argument but wants you to accept it anyway because he is the DM, and DM is always right.

Sounds like you're making a few assumptions.
It could just as easily be that the DM had to consider RAW, game balance, and story/seasion flow so they made a decision and asked the OP to go with it for now.


I think he just don't want players to force his NPCs against their will, because since he outright said nothing will make someone willing, its a '**** you, don't mess with my NPCs'.

Same deal as before. Maybe the DM didn't want the topic of willingness and consent to be focused on, maybe they realized it could be used against players and that wouldn't make for a fun game.
Besides, OP still got to kidnap the Drow.

[hamishspence]

5e allows you to specify a general course of action when the dominated creature is not under precise control:

You can specify a simple and general course of action, such as “Attack that creature,” “Run over there,” or “Fetch that object.” If the creature completes the order and doesn’t receive further direction from you, it defends and preserves itself to the best of its ability.


but is "Be willing" a course of action in any meaningful sense?



One of the commands explicitly given as an example is even "run over there" which isn't an action at all.

Run, not walk. That makes it the Dash action.

https://5e.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsinCombat.htm#dash

[Segev]

In this context, I think the DM ruled exactly wrong. "Willing" in this case doesn't mean "wants it to happen." In this case, "willing" means "permits it to happen."

"Unwilling targets" of things like teleport are people who refuse to let themselves be teleported away. If you held a gun to somebody's loved one's head and told them to let themselves be teleported to your villainous lair or you'd send their loved one to the shadow realm, the fact that the person you're coercing doesn't really want to go doesn't make them "unwilling." They can permit themselves to be teleported. They can count as "willing" for this purpose.

Likewise, somebody dominated into cooperating with you can be compelled to permit themselves to be teleported away by the teleport spell.

[hamishspence]

I'd allow someone to choose to go from "unwilling" to "willing" - but going from "unwilling" to "willing" can't be magically forced IMO.

Like in the OOTS example - V can't use magic to make Yukyuk cease resisting V's commands to shoot - but being attacked by his own ally, is enough to make Yukyuk cease resisting commands. But it's Yukyuk making that "cease resisting" decision, not V.

[Segev]

I'd allow someone to choose to go from "unwilling" to "willing" - but going from "unwilling" to "willing" can't be magically forced IMO.

Like in the OOTS example - V can't use magic to make Yukyuk cease resisting V's commands to shoot - but being attacked by his own ally, is enough to make Yukyuk cease resisting commands. But it's Yukyuk making that "cease resisting" decision, not V.

If a dominated creature can be compelled to cooperate with, say, an unpleasantly personal medical exam, I believe it can be compelled to cooperate with teleportation.

[Jerrykhor]

Sounds like you're making a few assumptions.
It could just as easily be that the DM had to consider RAW, game balance, and story/seasion flow so they made a decision and asked the OP to go with it for now.



Same deal as before. Maybe the DM didn't want the topic of willingness and consent to be focused on, maybe they realized it could be used against players and that wouldn't make for a fun game.
Besides, OP still got to kidnap the Drow.

The argument of 'willingness' has come up at my table when someone tried to Dimension Door an unconscious NPC along with them. Being willing is not that you cannot say NO, but you must say YES. And Dominate Person totally can force someone to say YES. That is the whole point of the spell, to force people to do things against their will.

For a DM to bring up the topic of willingness/consent for debate is just poor form, as he is just starting an argument that he knows he will win because he is the DM. Besides, mind altering spells and abilities aren't new, and if it don't work just because the DM says so, then why play at his table?

There are no wrong DMs, only bad ones.

[hamishspence]

The problem is that the form of cooperation is "change from "unwilling creature" to "willing creature"."


That is the whole point of the spell, to force people to do things against their will.


If they are doing something "against their will" then they're doing something "unwillingly".

[Mastikator]

In this context, I think the DM ruled exactly wrong. "Willing" in this case doesn't mean "wants it to happen." In this case, "willing" means "permits it to happen."

"Unwilling targets" of things like teleport are people who refuse to let themselves be teleported away. If you held a gun to somebody's loved one's head and told them to let themselves be teleported to your villainous lair or you'd send their loved one to the shadow realm, the fact that the person you're coercing doesn't really want to go doesn't make them "unwilling." They can permit themselves to be teleported. They can count as "willing" for this purpose.

Likewise, somebody dominated into cooperating with you can be compelled to permit themselves to be teleported away by the teleport spell.

In that situation the NPC could still say "no", and it would be a perfectly legal and correct ruling.



If a dominated creature can be compelled to cooperate with, say, an unpleasantly personal medical exam, I believe it can be compelled to cooperate with teleportation.

An unpleasant medical exam does not require consent. Medical exams have been performed on unconsenting people, people who actively resist and have to be restrained. With teleport that's not the case, as JC said an unconscious creature can't consent and is therefore always unwilling. A medical exam is not a all like a teleportation. You can increase the chances that the creature consents, but ultimately it holds the power to say no.

[hamishspence]

Plus the dominated creature is under the "charmed" condition - which means it can't attack you, and you have Advantage against it when using social skills against it.

It is not "Charm Person plus the Dominate effect" - the dominated creature does not "regard you as a friendly acquaintance".

It will obey straightforward orders, but that's all. And if not under precise control, it can able to take actions of its own:

So if the order was "move over there and remain at that location until ordered otherwise" - then they could move over there - and then pull out a bow and start firing at the Dominator's familiar or cohort or fellow party members or whatever, until ordered to stop.

A Dominated being, I could see wanting to obstruct its Dominator at every turn, whenever orders are unspecific enough to allow for it.

[Hytheter]

It will obey straightforward orders, but that's all. And if not under precise control, it can able to take actions of its own:

So if the order was "move over there and remain at that location until ordered otherwise" - then they could move over there - and then pull out a bow and start firing at the Dominator's familiar or cohort or fellow party members or whatever, until ordered to stop.


I'm not so sure about that.

"If the creature completes the order and doesn't receive further direction from you, it defends and preserves itself to the best of its ability."

That definitely doesn't sound like the creature is able to do anything it pleases to me.

[hamishspence]

"If the creature completes the order and doesn't receive further direction from you, it defends and preserves itself to the best of its ability."

That definitely doesn't sound like the creature is able to do anything it pleases to me.
It's the next part:

You can use your action to take total and precise control of the target. Until the end of your next turn, the creature takes only the actions you choose, and doesn’t do anything that you don’t allow it to do. During this time, you can also cause the creature to use a reaction, but this requires you to use your own reaction as well.


that implies that, without precise control, a Dominated creature can still take actions you don't choose.

So if you were sneaking into a fortress, and dominated a guard, and ordered the guard to follow 5 yards behind you, without ordering the guard to remain silent, then they could yell "Help, Help" at the right moment.

And if you're in a party and haven't specifically issued the order "and don't attack any of my fellow party members" they may be able to do that too.


It may be a tradeoff for the fact that "Obviously self-destructive orders are not carried out" from previous editions has been removed from the spell - you can make your victims do that, now. So the spell is, in that respect, a lot more powerful than it used to be - so victims being able to do annoying things if you haven't issued and worded your orders very carefully, is only fair.

[Hytheter]

that implies that, without precise control, a Dominated creature can still take actions you don't choose.

I take that to be in contrast to the default, which is to defend itself to the best of its ability. IE, while you are precisely controlling it it doesn't defend itself at all unless you permit it.

[Jerrykhor]

I'm not so sure about that.

"If the creature completes the order and doesn't receive further direction from you, it defends and preserves itself to the best of its ability."

That definitely doesn't sound like the creature is able to do anything it pleases to me.

Agreed. There's some very poor lawyering going on here. Nowhere does this mean the target can do anything that you didn't specifically disallow (which would be ridiculous as there are infinite possibilities), it just means the target won't stand still like an AFK video game avatar while hostiles attack it.

[hamishspence]

If there weren't drawbacks to not having precise control, then the precise control option would not be necessary IMO.

The "precise control" option ensures it cannot take any action that you did not specifically allow.

So, that might imply that the "regular mode" option allows actions that you did not specifically disallow.

[Mastikator]

I admit it would be pretty scummy of the DM to have the dominated target scream out for help because you didn't specifically say it shouldn't, if for no other reason that it can be implied that the caster instructed the dominated target not to do so. That said, the dominated target is making will saves and is therefore unwilling. It is compelled in spite of its will to do what you say, it can't be compelled to will what you say.

[Carpe Gonzo]

I admit it would be pretty scummy of the DM to have the dominated target scream out for help because you didn't specifically say it shouldn't, if for no other reason that it can be implied that the caster instructed the dominated target not to do so. That said, the dominated target is making will saves and is therefore unwilling. It is compelled in spite of its will to do what you say, it can't be compelled to will what you say.

They're not making "will" saves, they're making Wisdom saves. According to the PHB, "Wisdom reflects how attuned you are to the world around you and represents perceptiveness and intuition." It says nothing about will. (Indeed, none of the ability scores, not even Charisma, have to do with will explicitly.)

Furthermore, the equation of consent with willingness by JC is ridiculous. Willingness is a part of consent, but it's not the only part. An unconscious person can't consent because they can't affirm their willingness, not because they lack a will.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Run, not walk. That makes it the Dash action.

https://5e.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsinCombat.htm#dash

I sincerely hope you intended sarcasm here.

[hamishspence]

I admit it would be pretty scummy of the DM to have the dominated target scream out for help because you didn't specifically say it shouldn't, if for no other reason that it can be implied that the caster instructed the dominated target not to do so.

A nice DM will warn the dominator first that the best first order is

"Take no actions of any kind, including speaking, until your next order."

and that all subsequent orders should have "do this, and take no other actions, while doing this or afterward" included.


Still, the basic idea that "willing creature" and "magically controlled" are incompatible, is IMO a good one.

[Unoriginal]

Still, the basic idea that "willing creature" and "magically controlled" are incompatible, is IMO a good one.

This ignores the indisputable fact that "willing" has several meanings, some of them context-dependent.

[hamishspence]

This ignores the indisputable fact that "willing" has several meanings, some of them context-dependent.

Well, the "willing your goods to your descendants" meaning and context is definitely not applicable.


In this context, I think the DM ruled exactly wrong. "Willing" in this case doesn't mean "wants it to happen." In this case, "willing" means "permits it to happen."

I don't think there's any meaningful difference in this case.

If a guard is dominated, the order is to "do nothing while I assassinate the king" - and the guard is questioned after the event when the spell wears off,


then the answer to the question "Did you permit the king to be assassinated" will be "No, I was controlled, and a controlled person can't permit anything."


He ruled that dominating a creature can't change what it wants or thinks, only what it does. I think he's going for a "prisoner in their own body" idea.
Works for me.

Presumably, if you told your target, a la Obi-Wan: "You are ordered to now want to go home and rethink your life" absolutely nothing would change in the target's mind,

but "You will now go home and rethink your life" will result in the target leaving.

[Mastikator]

They're not making "will" saves, they're making Wisdom saves. According to the PHB, "Wisdom reflects how attuned you are to the world around you and represents perceptiveness and intuition." It says nothing about will. (Indeed, none of the ability scores, not even Charisma, have to do with will explicitly.)

Furthermore, the equation of consent with willingness by JC is ridiculous. Willingness is a part of consent, but it's not the only part. An unconscious person can't consent because they can't affirm their willingness, not because they lack a will.

The salient point is that the dominated creature is trying (and failing) to resist the magical effect that is forcing them to act against their will. To affirm their willingness would be to break out of the spell. Like I said before you could conceivably persuade and/or deceive them to accept the spell, but an endlessly stubborn NPC may never yield no matter what.

Similarly you can't command them to not make a wisdom save, or to make them continue to obey commands after the spell is over.

[CheddarChampion]

Being willing is not that you cannot say NO, but you must say YES.

I think you and I define 'willing' differently.
To me, if someone does something bad or illegal (e.g. steal someone's wallet) because they wanted to, that's on them. If they do it because another person points a gun at them/their kid and demands they do it, the fault/guilt lies with the person who holds the gun. I say the wallet-stealer from the second hypothetical wasn't willing, only subservient.

I also say the Drow from the OP's post wasn't willing, only subservient.


For a DM to bring up the topic of willingness/consent for debate is just poor form,

Like I said, maybe he didn't want to bring it up. ...So you agree not wanting to bring it up would be a good motivation?

[ProsecutorGodot]

I think you and I define 'willing' differently.
To me, if someone does something bad or illegal (e.g. steal someone's wallet) because they wanted to, that's on them. If they do it because another person points a gun at them/their kid and demands they do it, the fault/guilt lies with the person who holds the gun. I say the wallet-stealer from the second hypothetical wasn't willing, only subservient.

I also say the Drow from the OP's post wasn't willing, only subservient.



Like I said, maybe he didn't want to bring it up. ...So you agree not wanting to bring it up would be a good motivation?

The rules don't recognize any difference between willingness under duress or willingness without duress.

In a world with magical compulsions it makes a lot more sense for willingness to be an agreement rather than some omniscient understanding of someone's true wills.

Or we can just start putting "I have a crippling fear of being targeted by magic" as our flaw that so that if an NPC attempts to trick the party into consenting to magical movement that is intended to harm them that my omniscient unwillingness to do so will trigger and it won't work.

[CheddarChampion]

The rules don't recognize any difference between willingness under duress or willingness without duress.

Okay, maybe there's something I don't know. Where can I find the rules about willingness?
Official content please, e.g. the PHB or the DMG.

Edit:
Thinking about this made me change my mind, at least for now.
I'm guessing that the rules don't define 'willing' anywhere, in which case the definition of willing would be a ruling.
If so, we can't prove what 'willing' means to the rules. We could only explain why we thought to use one definition or another.
This means my idea about coercion/magical influence and 'willingness' is just an idea, not an objective statement on how the rules work.

[hamishspence]

"willing" doesn't exist as a keyword - it certainly isn't in any of the glossaries. So we turn to dictionary definitions.

I would say that when someone has had Dominate Person on them, they will be, by default at least, "not willing" toward that caster - and that's something that can't be taken away with orders. Being willing or unwilling is a state of mind, not an action or a task.

They'll still be "willing", normally, toward their own allies.

So if a dominated person's friends sneak into the kidnapper's camp, to teleport them back to safety (and for some reason they can't yet dispel the Dominate effect), then, even if their last standing order was "do nothing" - when the friend says "I've come to teleport you back to safety - please be willing" they'll be willing despite being incapable of actually doing anything.

[CheddarChampion]

Being willing or unwilling is a state of mind, not an action or a task.

That's what I was trying to think of originally, thank you for putting it into words!

[Addaran]

The rules don't recognize any difference between willingness under duress or willingness without duress.

In a world with magical compulsions it makes a lot more sense for willingness to be an agreement rather than some omniscient understanding of someone's true wills.

Or we can just start putting "I have a crippling fear of being targeted by magic" as our flaw that so that if an NPC attempts to trick the party into consenting to magical movement that is intended to harm them that my omniscient unwillingness to do so will trigger and it won't work.

In a world with physical embodiment of concepts and alignments, and cosmic morality, i don't see a problem with will and unaltered willingness being important to magic and mysticism, if that's how the GM wants to rule it.

Crippling fear of being targeted by magic? Have fun requiring an attack check to receive cure light wounds, never benefiting from haste and resisting levitate with a con check. There's also very little spells that function on whether the target is willing or not, aside from the normal saves.

[Tanarii]

If a dominated creature can be compelled to cooperate with, say, an unpleasantly personal medical exam, I believe it can be compelled to cooperate with teleportation.
Right. "Willing" isn't a question of dominated will vs free will. It's a question of allowing vs not allowing. And the former can be ordered in the case of a dominated creature.

[Segev]

If they are doing something "against their will" then they're doing something "unwillingly".Yes, but that's the wrong contextual definition of "willing," here. The context we're looking at has "willing" be used as shorthand for "actively positively participate." (If we ignore Jeremy Crawford's ruling that unconscious creatures cannot be willing in this context, it could alternatively be "not willfully resisting" or "not refusing to permit it.")

That's why I used the example about being compelled to cooperate with an unpleasant medical procedure as a comparison. "Cooperate" was a specifically-chosen verb; I'll address this further after this quote:


An unpleasant medical exam does not require consent. Medical exams have been performed on unconsenting people, people who actively resist and have to be restrained. With teleport that's not the case, as JC said an unconscious creature can't consent and is therefore always unwilling. A medical exam is not a all like a teleportation. You can increase the chances that the creature consents, but ultimately it holds the power to say no.I chose the verb "cooperate" very deliberately. The medical procedure isn't the important part of the example/comparison. The compulsion to cooperate is.

A dominated creature can be compelled to cooperate with a medical procedure it does not or would not want if given its druthers. If ordered to "cooperate" with it, the creature would be forced to permit itself to be drugged, or bound, or otherwise aid in positioning itself for whatever is required. It would be compelled to answer questions as best it could, to not attempt to escape, and to otherwise actively positively participate in the procedure.

That is the contextual meaning of "willing" in this and similar spells: the creature must be acquiescent to it. It must actively positively accept the effect. This is something it can be compelled to do. It has something to do with whether it is "willing" in a legally-consenting or "free choice" sense only coincidentally, because you could hold a gun to a creature's head and order it to let the mage teleport it away or else you'll kill the creature, and it would be able to choose to be "willing." It's a conscious choice, something the creature does, not a measure of true inner desires.


Right. "Willing" isn't a question of dominated will vs free will. It's a question of allowing vs not allowing. And the former can be ordered in the case of a dominated creature.Exactly this. Much more succinctly said than I managed.

It's a voluntary act to "be willing." As with any voluntary act, dominate can compel the action.

[Stabbey]

"willing" doesn't exist as a keyword - it certainly isn't in any of the glossaries. So we turn to dictionary definitions.

I would say that when someone has had Dominate Person on them, they will be, by default at least, "not willing" toward that caster - and that's something that can't be taken away with orders. Being willing or unwilling is a state of mind, not an action or a task.

Your definition undermines the point of the spell and renders it useless.



They'll still be "willing", normally, toward their own allies.

So if a dominated person's friends sneak into the kidnapper's camp, to teleport them back to safety (and for some reason they can't yet dispel the Dominate effect), then, even if their last standing order was "do nothing" - when the friend says "I've come to teleport you back to safety - please be willing" they'll be willing despite being incapable of actually doing anything.

The dominated person would not be willing to be teleported away with their friends, because at that time, their allegiance is to the one who dominated them.

[Segev]

Your definition undermines the point of the spell and renders it useless.




The dominated person would not be willing to be teleported away with their friends, because at that time, their allegiance is to the one who dominated them.

Agreed.

Because "being willing" in this case is a voluntary act (just like, say, attacking something is a voluntary act), it not only can be compelled by dominate, but dominate forbids it without orders requiring it, since, without orders, dominate victims will only defend themselves. They will not take other voluntary actions without orders telling them to.

[Unoriginal]

So if a dominated person's friends sneak into the kidnapper's camp, to teleport them back to safety (and for some reason they can't yet dispel the Dominate effect), then, even if their last standing order was "do nothing" - when the friend says "I've come to teleport you back to safety - please be willing" they'll be willing despite being incapable of actually doing anything.

So according to you, accepting or not accepting a spell is not "doing something"?

Which, if one follow your reasoning, means that the caster of the Dominate effect wouldn't be albe to impose "refuse and try to resist all spells cast on you by anyone except me"?

[hamishspence]

without orders, dominate victims will only defend themselves. They will not take other voluntary actions without orders telling them to.

That's not actually what the spell states . It states that (without precise control) once orders are completed, a character will defend themselves. It does not specifically state that the character will commit no other acts than their orders and self-defence.


So according to you, accepting or not accepting a spell is not "doing something"?

Which, if one follow your reasoning, means that the caster of the Dominate effect wouldn't be albe to impose "refuse and try to resist all spells cast on you by anyone except me"?

Pretty much, yes. It's not "accepting a spell" vs "not accepting a spell" it's "being a willing creature" vs "being an unwilling creature."




The dominated person would not be willing to be teleported away with their friends, because at that time, their allegiance is to the one who dominated them.

A dominated person's allegiances do not change. The only thing dominate does is prevent them from attacking the caster, and force them to obey orders given by the caster. The dominated person is still friendly to their original friends, and still hostile to whoever they're normally hostile to. It's just that the orders given to them, may prevent them from showing this.

[Tanarii]

That's not actually what the spell states . It states that (without precise control) once orders are completed, a character will defend themselves. It does not specifically state that the character will commit no other acts than their orders and self-defence.
In the context, "it does X" is an exclusionary statement.

[hamishspence]

"being willing" in this case is a voluntary act (just like, say, attacking something is a voluntary act),

In the context of 3.5, where the atonement spell is affected by whether an act was committed willingly or under some form of magical compulsion, then acts committed "under some form of magical compulsion, are, by definition, acts that were committed unwillingly.


Similar principles apply here. Magical compulsion is magical compulsion, regardless of the edition it's taking place in.


As such, it's logical, that all acts committed by a dominated person under orders, are involuntary acts, and unwilling acts, not voluntary acts, or willing acts.


Your definition undermines the point of the spell and renders it useless.

There's plenty of things a dominated person can be compelled to do. But the point is that they are compelled - that their acts lack volition - they are involuntary and unwilling - and so is the character.

[Segev]

That's not actually what the spell states . It states that (without precise control) once orders are completed, a character will defend themselves. It does not specifically state that the character will commit no other acts than their orders and self-defence.Are you alleging that, "it defends and preserves itself to the best of its ability," is a useless clause? Because if it can do anything it wants to once it's completed some general orders, there's no need to specify that it defends and preserves itself. The context here - and 5e, due to its colloquial style and "rulings, not rules" paradigm, is all about context and understanding what the rules are emulating - is that the creature will do that without further orders because, without further orders and without that clause, it might be reasonably believed to not do anything at all, including defend itself.

This clause means that, once it's killed "that creature," it will try to run away from a lava flow, or to avoid detection by the creature's buddies who might want revenge, or anything else that qualifies as "defending and preserving" itself. If this clause is necessary, then that means that, without it, the creature would be presumed NOT to do such things. The context cues tell us that a dominated creature doesn't do a whole lot on its own accord. Without orders, it doesn't do much other than defend and preserve itself.


Pretty much, yes. It's not "accepting a spell" vs "not accepting a spell" it's "being a willing creature" vs "being an unwilling creature."I'm not going to deny that you COULD give it that reading, but it very clearly is a bad reading from context. The teleport spell's wording is all about not permitting you to use it offensively, not about analyzing the true will and inner desires of the targets.

If Rodney MacKay is an arrogant coward who hates going into gross, dangerous situations and generally thinks he's too good for it, and the party is going to teleport into an Aboleth's den, Rodney MacKay can still be teleported along with them if he chooses. He can choose to "be a willing creature," as you put it, even though, given his druthers, he'd never ever be teleported into such a disgusting and hazardous situation.

This is because, again, teleport only affects "willing" creatures because it's not a kidnapping spell and it's not an offensive spell. It basically is saying "any creature that wants to automatically succeeds on a saving throw to resist this spell." Now, the end result - particularly with JC's ruling - is not exactly that, but JC's ruling is still within the ballpark. What neither JC's ruling nor teleport say is that teleport can only work if somebody would want to be teleported with no coercion whatsoever.

If Rodney MacKay is dominated by the teleporting wizard into coming with him to the aboleth's lair to help defeat the aboleth, Rodney MacKay is going to count as "willing" to be teleported there for purposes of the teleport spell.

[ProsecutorGodot]

In the context of 3.5, where the atonement spell is affected by whether an act was committed willingly or under some form of magical compulsion, then acts committed "under some form of magical compulsion, are, by definition, acts that were committed unwillingly.


Similar principles apply here. Magical compulsion is magical compulsion, regardless of the edition it's taking place in.



If we were talking about 3.5e this might have relevance, but we're not and it doesn't.

How about this, consider the opposite. A creature under domination is ordered to remain at a designated spot until ordered otherwise. This command prevents them from leaving this spot.

Their ally attempts to dimension door away with them. Would you honesty say that they would be allowed to consent to being moved in this way when they are under order not to move?

[hamishspence]

A teleport only affects "willing" creatures because it's not a kidnapping spell and it's not an offensive spell. It basically is saying "any creature that wants to automatically succeeds on a saving throw to resist this spell."

And a dominated person doesn't want to do anything their caster is making them do, normally.

A teleport spell only works on people who want to be teleported.



If you want to kidnap someone with teleporting, instead of casting Dominate on them, you disguise yourself as someone they trust, and tell them they need to come with you on a matter of vital importance.


If we were talking about 3.5e this might have relevance, but we're not and it doesn't.

"Unwilling" in 3.5 is extrapolated from "Unwilling" in real-world dictionary definitions . Real-world dictionary definitions are applicable to any edition, when a word does not have an "edition-unique definition".

[Segev]

And a dominated person doesn't want to do anything their caster is making them do, normally.

A teleport spell only works on people who want to be teleported.

Then it is impossible for a party who is being extorted into a task to be teleported to the location of their task?

[hamishspence]

Then it is impossible for a party who is being extorted into a task to be teleported to the location of their task?

Possibly - unless they become willing and the extortion ceases to be a factor in their mind, yes.



consider the opposite. A creature under domination is ordered to remain at a designated spot until ordered otherwise. This command prevents them from leaving this spot.

Their ally attempts to dimension door away with them. Would you honesty say that they would be allowed to consent to being moved in this way when they are under order not to move?

"Consenting" isn't really an action in this sense. If the orders were "stand here and do not walk away" they will obey -

but they haven't specifically been ordered "do not "count as willing" to anyone other than me, who casts a spell - because orders like that are too complex and too dependant on changing the person's mental state - which can't be done.

You can't order someone "Be in love with this guy" - because that's a mental state and mental states are not orderable. So why should "Be willing" or "Be unwilling" be orderable?

[ProsecutorGodot]

"Unwilling" in 3.5 is extrapolated from "Unwilling" in real-world dictionary definitions . Real-world dictionary definitions are applicable to any edition, when a word does not have an "edition-unique definition".

Sure, but the dictionary definition of willing also means "ready eager and prepared to do something" so when you are magically compelled to accept a teleportation request you fulfill all 3 of those requirements.


We could use a few other definitions of you like.
"Done, borne, or accepted by choice or without reluctance"
"Prompt to act or respond"
Yes, you've been ordered to accept and are going to do so to the best of your ability.

So it's not incorrect to say that in this context "willingness" is whether or not you agree.



but they haven't specifically been ordered "do not "count as willing" to anyone other than me, who casts a spell - because orders like that are too complex and too dependant on changing the person's mental state - which can't be done.

they've been ordered not to move from that spot, they can't be a willing target for any effect that moves them from that spot otherwise you're directly ruling that such a command fails, which is entirely unreasonable.

[hamishspence]

it's not incorrect to say that in this context "willingness" is whether or not you agree.And a dominated person normally won't be agreeing to anything.

[Unoriginal]

In the context of 3.5, where the atonement spell is affected by whether an act was committed willingly or under some form of magical compulsion, then acts committed "under some form of magical compulsion, are, by definition, acts that were committed unwillingly.


Similar principles apply here. Magical compulsion is magical compulsion, regardless of the edition it's taking place in.


How 3.5 did something has no bearing on 5e.

Furthermore, you're once again ignoring that "willingness" means several different things depending of the context.

You're basically arguing that if Dr Evilton has taken Captain Careful's sidekick in hostage and says "you either accept to be teleported or your sidekick dies", Captain Careful would be *impossible* to teleport, because you can't be willing if coerced.

[ProsecutorGodot]

And a dominated person normally won't be agreeing to anything.

That's quite the point of domination isn't it. There's a reason people dislike mind control abilities across all genres. They do agree, because you make them.

[hamishspence]

You're basically arguing that if Dr Evilton has taken Captain Careful's sidekick in hostage and says "you either accept to be teleported or your sidekick dies", Captain Careful would be *impossible* to teleport, because you can't be willing if coerced.

It may be odd, but it's logical. It's still within Captain Careful's remit to start thinking "Now, I want to be teleported" - but until they start thinking that, the spell won't work.


you can't be willing if coerced.

I believe that's how the law defines whether someone did something willingly or not. So why can't D&D define it that way?

[Unoriginal]

It may be odd, but it's logical. It's still within Captain Careful's remit to start thinking "Now, I want to be teleported"

You're contradicting yourself.

Either Captain Careful cannot be willing, because they're coerced and coercion prevents willingness, or they can be willing in the "I wouldn't to do it otherwise but I prefer doing it than have my sidekick die" sense or in the "I'll play along for now and turn the table later" sense.

[hamishspence]

Either Captain Careful cannot be willing, because they're coerced and coercion prevents willingness, or they can be willing in the "I wouldn't to do it otherwise but I prefer doing it than have my sidekick die" sense or in the "I'll play along for now and turn the table later" sense.
Might depend on the DM's precise handling of it. But "coercion prevents willingness" is the general principle, for acts.


If someone is coerced into doing anything, and later asked "Were you willing", then "no" is an honest answer.


IMO, you can't coerce a state of mind. That's not how it works. You can say "Be in love or else" but the character will not be in love, no matter how convincingly they fake it.

Same applies to "Be willing or else" normally - the person has to choose whether or not to be willing.

However "state of mind" is separate from "acts" - Captain Careful can enter a willing "state of mind" to permit himself to be teleported - but if you order him to attack someone and he does it, that act can still be "carried out unwillingly".

[Tanarii]

That's quite the point of domination isn't it. There's a reason people dislike mind control abilities across all genres. They do agree, because you make them.
Agreed. They agree to do the activity because they are mentally compelled to, and do it. Thats willingness.

That doesn't mean they have to like it.

(Please note that this has nothing to do with modern legal culpability definitions.)

[hamishspence]

Any definition of "willing" that goes against modern legal culpability defences is going to be problematic in the eyes of the players IMO.

Whatever the system the players and DM use, it needs to be able to prevent

"They were willing (because I used coercion/magical compulsion) therefore what I did was no crime - only they committed any crime"

arguments from a villain.




"Willing" in the magical sense, needs to remain in the same territory as "willing" in the legal sense.

The system needs to be set up in such a way that anyone who kills under orders from someone using dominate person, cannot be fairly convicted of murder, for example - with, instead, the caster of the spell being convictable of murder.

[Hytheter]

Any definition of "willing" that goes against modern legal culpability defences is going to be problematic in the eyes of the players IMO.

Whatever the system the players and DM use, it needs to be able to prevent


"They were willing (because I used coercion/magical compulsion) therefore what I did was no crime" arguments from a villain.




"Willing" in the magical sense, needs to remain in the same territory as "willing" in the legal sense.

The system needs to be set up in such a way that anyone who kills under orders from someone using dominate person, cannot be fairly convicted of murder, for example.

There's a difference between being willing and being culpable or responsible.

[hamishspence]

There's a difference between being willing and being culpable or responsible.And coercion and compulsion (but especially compulsion) compromise "willingness" - and not just "culpability".


"Were you willing" (regarding whatever relevant act comes up) needs to be possible to answer with the honest answer "no".

[Hytheter]

And coercion and compulsion (but especially compulsion) compromise "willingness" - and not just "culpability".

I disagree. If you put a gun to my head and tell me to commit a crime, I am likely to be willing. But the law would recognise that I was under duress and absolve me of responsibility. That doesn't mean I was unwilling, it just means the fact I was willing doesn't make me guilty of the crime.

[hamishspence]

There are times when duress can only partially absolve people. In these cases they'll usually be convicted but given a much lighter sentence than normal.

But the term "unwilling" rather than "willing" is still valid.

Otherwise, it wouldn't be mentioned - the phrase would not be "to act against their will".



"Committed under duress" means "committed against their will" - and means "committed unwillingly".


And compulsion goes beyond duress.

[Unoriginal]

I believe that's how the law defines whether someone did something willingly or not. So why can't D&D define it that way?


Might depend on the DM's precise handling of it. But "coercion prevents willingness" is the general principle, for acts.


If someone is coerced into doing anything, and later asked "Were you willing", then "no" is an honest answer.

Once again, there are many meanings to the concept of willingness. Someone saying "I was not willing to kill my boss, but my kids where threatened so I had to do it" won't led to them avoiding being charged with the crime of murder.

Because in the end they *were* willing to do it in order to avoid having their kids die. For a specific meaning of "willing".

Same way that if X makes an offer of $100'000 to buy Y's heirloom jewelednecklace, and Y agrees to it, Y cannot turn around and sue X by saying "I was not willing to sell my necklace, but I needed 100'000 to cure my life-threatening illness at the time."



IMO, you can't coerce a state of mind. That's not how it works. You can say "Be in love or else" but the character will not be in love, no matter how convincingly they fake it.

Same applies to "Be willing or else" normally - the person has to choose whether or not to be willing.

You can't choose to be in love, period, but you can choose to comply with a demand. And you can be made to comply with a demand via mind control.

[hamishspence]

But the demands have to be:


"a simple and general course of action, such as “Attack that creature,” “Run over there,” or “Fetch that object.”



Someone saying "I was not willing to kill my boss, but my kids where threatened so I had to do it" won't led to them avoiding being charged with the crime of murder.

It can, however, result in a massive reduction to sentence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duress_in_American_law

A successful affirmative defence means not that a criminal act was justified, but that the act was not criminal at all. But if no affirmative defence of duress is available, then the duress may be considered as justifying a lighter sentence, typically in proportion to the degree of duress. If the duress is extreme enough, for example, the defendant might be found guilty of murder but given a minimal, or even trivial, sentence.

In some rare cases, a successful argument of duress -- even when not an affirmative defence -- might result in the jury nullifying the charge by refusing to convict.

The basis of the defense is that the duress actually overwhelmed the defendant's will and would also have overwhelmed the will of a person of ordinary courage (a hybrid test requiring both subjective evidence of the accused's state of mind, and an objective confirmation that the failure to resist the threats was reasonable), thus rendering the entire behavior involuntary. Thus, the liability should be reduced or discharged, making the defense one of exculpation.

[Talakeal]

Sounds like very bad DMing to me. He makes a poor argument but wants you to accept it anyway because he is the DM, and DM is always right. I think he just don't want players to force his NPCs against their will, because since he outright said nothing will make someone willing, its a '**** you, don't mess with my NPCs'.

Suggestion i would understand, since its arguable what 'reasonable' means. But you are spending a level 5 spell slot to make a level 7 spell work.


Do keep in mind that this ruling also applies to PCs.

Personally, I would need to look at the precise wording of dominate to see if the 5e version is actually rewriting your thoughts or simply piloting you around like a meat puppet.

[Unoriginal]

But the demands have to be:


"a simple and general course of action, such as “Attack that creature,” “Run over there,” or “Fetch that object.”

"Accept and don't resist the spells I'm casting on you" sounds like a simply and general course of action, to me.



Let me ask you this question: If a spellcaster succesfully casts Dominate Person on a bandit, then a spell that affects "the caster and up to X allies", would you rule that the bandit cannot be affected by the spell because they didn't actually ally themselves with the caster and are compelled to help?

[Segev]

But the demands have to be:


"a simple and general course of action, such as “Attack that creature,” “Run over there,” or “Fetch that object.”


"Come with me."

[hamishspence]

Personally, I would need to look at the precise wording of dominate to see if the 5e version is actually rewriting your thoughts or simply piloting you around like a meat puppet.

https://5e.d20srd.org/srd/spells/dominatePerson.htm
You attempt to beguile a humanoid that you can see within range. It must succeed on a Wisdom saving throw or be charmed by you for the duration. If you or creatures that are friendly to you are fighting it, it has advantage on the saving throw.

While the target is charmed, you have a telepathic link with it as long as the two of you are on the same plane of existence. You can use this telepathic link to issue commands to the creature while you are conscious (no action required), which it does its best to obey. You can specify a simple and general course of action, such as “Attack that creature,” “Run over there,” or “Fetch that object.” If the creature completes the order and doesn’t receive further direction from you, it defends and preserves itself to the best of its ability.

You can use your action to take total and precise control of the target. Until the end of your next turn, the creature takes only the actions you choose, and doesn’t do anything that you don’t allow it to do. During this time you can also cause the creature to use a reaction, but this requires you to use your own reaction as well.

https://5e.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#charmed
A charmed creature can’t attack the charmer or target the charmer with harmful abilities or magical effects.
The charmer has advantage on any ability check to interact socially with the creature.


The "precise and total control" version goes way into "meat-puppet" territory.

[Unoriginal]

But the demands have to be:


"a simple and general course of action, such as “Attack that creature,” “Run over there,” or “Fetch that object.”




It can, however, result in a massive reduction to sentence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duress_in_American_law

A successful affirmative defence means not that a criminal act was justified, but that the act was not criminal at all. But if no affirmative defence of duress is available, then the duress may be considered as justifying a lighter sentence, typically in proportion to the degree of duress. If the duress is extreme enough, for example, the defendant might be found guilty of murder but given a minimal, or even trivial, sentence.

In some rare cases, a successful argument of duress -- even when not an affirmative defence -- might result in the jury nullifying the charge by refusing to convict.

The basis of the defense is that the duress actually overwhelmed the defendant's will and would also have overwhelmed the will of a person of ordinary courage (a hybrid test requiring both subjective evidence of the accused's state of mind, and an objective confirmation that the failure to resist the threats was reasonable), thus rendering the entire behavior involuntary. Thus, the liability should be reduced or discharged, making the defense one of exculpation.


Yes, it may result in a lighter sentence, and in some rare case may even result in a jury refusing to convict. Because law and its application are both context dependent and subjective.

The law can also decide that the way the defendant was coerced isn't enough to even lessen their culpability.

[hamishspence]

Let me ask you this question: If a spellcaster succesfully casts Dominate Person on a bandit, then a spell that affects "the caster and up to X allies", would you rule that the bandit cannot be affected by the spell because they didn't actually ally themselves with the caster

An interesting question. The rules never define "ally" so different tables might rule differently.



Yes, it may result in a lighter sentence, and in some rare case may even result in a jury refusing to convict. Because law and its application are both context dependent and subjective.

And so are words. So one table might define acts carried out by dominated characters as "unwilling" and others might not.


But what's likely to be the most broadly accepted definition of "unwilling"?

[Segev]

Do keep in mind that this ruling also applies to PCs.

Personally, I would need to look at the precise wording of dominate to see if the 5e version is actually rewriting your thoughts or simply piloting you around like a meat puppet.

It's not saying that it rewrites thoughts, but it does compel behavior and obedience to whatever general course of action is ordered.

I look at it this way: the context of "willing" for teleport is the same as the context of "willingly" getting on a boat as it sets sail. "Do we have to drag you, or will you go willingly?" Domination is not physically dragging; it is compelling "willing" participation.

[hamishspence]

Domination is not physically dragging; it is compelling "willing" participation.

"Compelling" and "Willing" don't really work well together.

With the way the English language works, it just makes more sense to use the phrase "unwilling act" instead of "compelled willing act".

At least in this case.


With more powerful magic, such as Wish, and in different editions, it might make more sense to use "willing act" because the character's mind really has been rewritten - in which case "willing but not culpable" then works.

[Unoriginal]

It's not saying that it rewrites thoughts, but it does compel behavior and obedience to whatever general course of action is ordered.

I look at it this way: the context of "willing" for teleport is the same as the context of "willingly" getting on a boat as it sets sail. "Do we have to drag you, or will you go willingly?" Domination is not physically dragging; it is compelling "willing" participation.

Indeed.

To use an actual 5e example, the Succu/Incubus's entry in the MM states:


The succubus or incubus resorts to charming a victim magically only when necessary, usually as a form of self-defense. A charmed creature isn't responsible for its actions, so forcing it to behave against its will won't bring the fiend closer to the ultimate prize: the victim's soul.

While the victim isn't *responsible* for the actions or "willing" in the sense "has decided to do it", they can in fact be made to accept any non-suicidal order without a chance to resist. "Let yourself be teleported" is such a order.

[hamishspence]

Yup - it's not Dominate Person, but an improved version of Charm Person.

Charm Person causes creature to regard you as "friendly acquaintance" - Succubus Charm causes creature to regard succubus as "beloved master" - but Dominate Person doesn't cause any change in "regards".

[Stabbey]

I believe that's how the law defines whether someone did something willingly or not. So why can't D&D define it that way?

Because (A) the rules of literal magic in a fictional fantasy game have absolutely nothing to do with the real-life penal code, and (B), if it did, then there should be no such thing as any "Dominate X" spell because there already exist "Charm X" spells which have lesser effects which allow for more semblance of free will and resistance.

[hamishspence]

But the "rules of the English language" heavily influence both what words in the real-life penal code mean, and what words in a D&D book mean.


When players capture a Dominated person, they're likely to ask questions like "Did you do this willingly" and choose their appropriate response accordingly.

If they're used to the idea that Dominated beings do everything unwillingly - then they might not even object to the idea that therefore, Dominated beings cannot be teleported around by their Dominators.

[DwarfFighter]

To what extent is the character's commitments and loyalties wiped out by being dominated?

-DF

[hamishspence]

To what extent is the character's commitments and loyalties wiped out by being dominated?

-DF

My personal view is that they don't change in any way - but because the spell restricts the victim's actions so much (to obeying their controller's orders) this will not be apparent on the surface.

If the caster orders the dominated person to answer the question honestly "Are you loyal to your original party" they will always answer "yes".

If the caster asks "who are your foes" then they will likely list the caster among them - the caster is a foe - just a foe that they cannot attack or disobey.



Let me ask you this question: If a spellcaster succesfully casts Dominate Person on a bandit, then a spell that affects "the caster and up to X allies", would you rule that the bandit cannot be affected by the spell because they didn't actually ally themselves with the caster and are compelled to help?


On careful consideration - I've concluded that, for "who is an ally" only the caster's perspective matters.

If the caster has decided that someone is an ally, then such a spell works on that someone.

But if the someone has decided that the caster is a foe, then any spell cast by that someone, that only works on allies, will not work on those the someone sees as foes.



So, if you dominate a spellcaster and order them to cast an ally-affecting spell that includes you - then because they regard you as a "foe that they cannot attack or disobey orders from - not an ally" - then the ally-affecting spells just won't take effect on you.

Dominated spellcasters seeing you as Not An Ally, but a Foe They Must Obey Orders From, is a interesting limiting effect.

[Segev]

"Compelling" and "Willing" don't really work well together.

With the way the English language works, it just makes more sense to use the phrase "unwilling act" instead of "compelled willing act".

At least in this case.


With more powerful magic, such as Wish, and in different editions, it might make more sense to use "willing act" because the character's mind really has been rewritten - in which case "willing but not culpable" then works.

The trouble with all of this is the insistence that the word "willing" must mean only one thing, in all contexts.

"That was clean," means something different if you're talking about a room you just walked out of vs. a magician's card trick. I assure you that nobody is discussing the dirt or lack thereof involved in the magician's card trick, unless it's an unusual trick indeed.

The word "hot" does not mean the same thing in the following sentences: "The fire is hot," "That bikini is hot," and, "That ghost pepper ice cream is hot."

Yes, there's related concepts involved, or derivatives that make sense. The same is true for "willing" in the sense of "actively wanted to do this" versus "took voluntary action."

In teleport, it is the "voluntary action" definition. In all the other things being brought up, it's the "actively wanted to do this" definition. They're closely related, but they're not the same thing.

Once again, there is absolutely no indication that teleport operates by examining the deepest, truest desires of the soul. The context of it is one of preventing you from using it for kidnapping or offensively, and is more related to requiring somebody to get on board a transport than it is to making sure they really, honestly wanted to get on board it. You can't use teleport to physically grab somebody and drag them off; you can use teleport if the person didn't really want to go, but took the voluntary action necessary to permit themselves to be taken (i.e., metaphorically, got on board the transport).

[hamishspence]

You can't use teleport to physically grab somebody and drag them off; you can use teleport if the person didn't really want to go, but took the voluntary action necessary to permit themselves to be taken (i.e., metaphorically, got on board the transport).
And, IMO, all orders obeyed by Dominated characters are involuntary action - because most of the character's volition has been taken away.

While TV Tropes suggests that "Dominated Persons Are People Puppets" is a thing in older editions -

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PeoplePuppets

Older editions of Dungeons & Dragons make this possible with the Dominate Person or Dominate Monster spells. In spell compendium there is a spell called puppeteer that does this.

IMO there's an element of this here in 5e as well.

You're not so much issuing orders to their mind, but to their body.

[ProsecutorGodot]

You're not so much issuing orders to their mind, but to their body.

It's pretty clear that there's some mental influence, you know on account of the charmed condition that prevents them from attacking you even when they were previously hostile.

That and the fact that they can't actively harm themselves either, if you issue no commands they focus on self preservation above all else.

[hamishspence]

Actually, as written, unlike in 3e, a Dominated person can be ordered to harm themselves, because the "will not obey obviously self-destructive orders" line has been removed.

They just get a save each time they take damage.

[Stabbey]

Like the legal code, TV Tropes interpretations have nothing to do with the 5e rules.


And, IMO, all orders obeyed by Dominated characters are involuntary action - because most of the character's volition has been taken away.

In my interpretation, that's completely and totally false. I would say that the dominated creature's normal will and preferences are overridden by the one who cast the Domination for as long as the condition lasts, and because of that, the orders they obey are "voluntary", even though the character would normally be unwilling.

That's the point of the Domination spell existing. To make someone do things they would normally be unwilling to do. The Charm spells make the target friendlier to you, but they can not force someone to do things they would normally be unwilling to do. That's why those are considered two different spells.

[hamishspence]

My view is that those acts are still "things the character is unwilling to do" even when magic is making the character do them anyway.

If you order a dominated person to "act with arbitrary violence"

Chaotic evil (CE) creatures act with arbitrary violence, spurred by their greed, hatred, or bloodlust.

they will do it - but they won't change alignment merely because of the spell. Because they personally aren't "spurred by greed, hatred, or bloodlust".

[Segev]

And, IMO, all orders obeyed by Dominated characters are involuntary action - because most of the character's volition has been taken away.

While TV Tropes suggests that "Dominated Persons Are People Puppets" is a thing in older editions -

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PeoplePuppets

Older editions of Dungeons & Dragons make this possible with the Dominate Person or Dominate Monster spells. In spell compendium there is a spell called puppeteer that does this.

IMO there's an element of this here in 5e as well.

You're not so much issuing orders to their mind, but to their body.

Wrong. You can issue general orders that they bust carry out. "Pick that lock," is a valid order, and they will use their own proficiencies to try to do it. Their expertise applies, not your. "Investigate find out who stole the Thayan Egret, and report back to me when you know," will take a lot of mental activity. So will, "Convince the king to hire you as a guard."

You absolutely compel the mind as well as the body.

And you remain stuck on trying to claim "willing" means the same thing in all contexts, and have not addressed my point that it doesn't.

[hamishspence]

You absolutely compel the mind as well as the body.


To a point - tapping into memories and skills. But you're not changing the person's thoughts and attitudes.

There are spells and powers that can do that (Charm-type spells, mostly). But I don't think that there is sufficient evidence yet to be sure that 5e's Dominate spells count.



And you remain stuck on trying to claim "willing" means the same thing in all contexts, and have not addressed my point that it doesn't.

After reading 3e's definition of "willing creature" I will concede this one.

[Talakeal]

I don’t think that there is a clear answer here, period.

If its any consolation, we never figured this out in 3E either, where people claimed that because an unconscious creature was always willing, and you could willingly forego saving throws or immunities, then the moment you went to sleep you were fair game for every spell and effect in the book.

[Segev]

To a point - tapping into memories and skills. But you're not changing the person's thoughts and attitudes.
Agreed. My position is that you don't need to change thoughts and attitudes to make the count as "willing" in the context of Teleport.

Teleport is not asking about the attitude with which the subject goes along. Only that the subject be willing in the same sense he would "willingly" board a boat if ordered to. The Teleport spell, like the boat, can't reach out and grab someone against his will. But if he gets on board, it can take him. Ordering the Dominated creature to go with the teleport is all that is needed, just as ordering him onto the boat would be all that was needed.



After reading 3e's definition of "willing creature" I will concede this one.

Okay.

[hamishspence]

As to the question that's occasionally preoccupied me:

"is a person who has, under Dominate Person's effect, obeyed orders to kill somebody, guilty of a crime? Or is the person giving the orders, guilty of the crime?"

the Defending Kilgrave article in Law and the Multiverse is of interest:

https://lawandthemultiverse.com/2016/01/08/defending-kilgrave/

Short version - the person who is compelled (by a virus in this case rather than a spell, plus instructions - but the effect of the virus is exactly the same as the effect of the spell - to make it impossible for the victim to disobey orders) to do the killing is not guilty of any crime, and the person who gave the instructions is guilty of murder.


A ruling that's worth using, if ever the issue comes up.

It would mostly come up in 3.5 games - and be reframed as:

"If you are magically compelled to commit an evil act, the moral taint of the act does not land on you in any way, and only on the caster"

So people who mind control paladins and make them commit acts, are not going to be able to get the paladins to fall - all they'll be doing is piling corruption up on their own heads - the paladin's soul remains squeaky-clean. No Fall, no Atonement required.

[ProsecutorGodot]

As to the question that's occasionally preoccupied me:

"is a person who has, under Dominate Person's effect, obeyed orders to kill somebody, guilty of a crime? Or is the person giving the orders, guilty of the crime?"

the Defending Kilgrave article in Law and the Multiverse is of interest:

https://lawandthemultiverse.com/2016/01/08/defending-kilgrave/

Short version - the person who is compelled (by a virus in this case rather than a spell, plus instructions - but the effect of the virus is exactly the same as the effect of the spell - to make it impossible for the victim to disobey orders) to do the killing is not guilty of any crime, and the person who gave the instructions is guilty of murder.


A ruling that's worth using, if ever the issue comes up.

I'm not seeing the relevance this has to whether ordering someone dominated by you to teleport with you makes them a willing target for teleport. Teleport is a spell, it doesn't know, follow, comprehend or understand laws.

If the basis for your argument hinges on real criminal law and not a reasonable reading of the words "willing target" from the rules in a tabletop RPG filled with flying 2 ton lizards, I don't really feel all that convinced by your argument.

[hamishspence]

The fact that the "involuntary action" defence applies, is relevant:


Hope herself has a few solid defenses: involuntary action, legal insanity, duress, and involuntary intoxication.


So if someone has given you instructions you can't disobey (because of a virus in this case), then your actions are involuntary, not voluntary.


Is "involuntary" synonymous with "unwilling"? could be.

[ProsecutorGodot]

The fact that the "involuntary action" defence applies, is relevant:


Hope herself has a few solid defenses: involuntary action, legal insanity, duress, and involuntary intoxication.


So if someone has given you instructions you can't disobey (because of a virus in this case), then your actions are involuntary, not voluntary.


Is "involuntary" synonymous with "unwilling"? could be.

In a legal context, sure, but 5E isn't intended to be read as a legal code of law. Your argument is to read these rules like something they aren't intended to be, which nobody can say is explicitly wrong in the same way that you can't say that anyone who disagrees with you is explicitly wrong.

What I can reasonably say is that I think your argument is not very (or at all in my case) persuasive because your supporting sources for your reasoning are very much outside the scope of what a cursory reading of "a willing target" means in the context of fifth edition dungeons and dragons.

[hamishspence]

In a legal context, sure, but 5E isn't intended to be read as a legal code of law. 5e never tells what "willing" means (be it "willing target" or "willing action") - so one has to figure it out from context. Which is distinctly lacking in the rulebooks - so "real world logic" and "dictionary definitions" and so on, have to come into play.

I'd be willing to concede "willing target" rules being different from "willing action" rules.




But when it comes to "willing action" IMO the action of anyone under compulsion is unwilling and involuntary, by definition.

[ProsecutorGodot]

5e never tells what "willing" means (be it "willing target" or "willing action") - so one has to figure it out from context. Which is distinctly lacking in the rulebooks - so "real world logic" and "dictionary definitions" and so on, have to come into play.
If we'd stopped at dictionary definitions, sure, but you pulled out legal definitions. The dictionary supported a viewpoint alternate to your own, so you dismissed it. "Real world logic" isn't applicable either, the scenario in question is based on magical compulsion, something not real and not something we can't understand except by the given context in the games rules.


I'd be willing to concede "willing target" rules being different from "willing action" rules.
I would hope so, linking terms and their meanings just because they sound similarly is pretty faulty reasoning.


But when it comes to "willing action" IMO the action of anyone under compulsion is unwilling and involuntary, by definition.
You haven't provided sufficient evidence to discredit the idea that a command of "teleport with me" being followed to the best of someone's ability is not "ready, eager or prepared to do something" or "given or done readily" which are dictionary definitions of "Willing".

And just to be absolutely clear, please carefully note that this is "willing" in the form of an adjective, modifying the word "creature" and not a verb.

[Unoriginal]

Can a caster under the effect of Dominate Person, with the Teleport spell and a spell slot of sufficient level available, be made to cast Teleport on themselves and the Dominate Person caster?

[Ettina]

And a dominated person doesn't want to do anything their caster is making them do, normally.

They do want to do it. That's what enchantment is all about - it's magic that changes what you want to do to match what the caster wants you to do.

[hamishspence]

They do want to do it. That's what enchantment is all about - it's magic that changes what you want to do to match what the caster wants you to do.

But according to the DM in the OP's example:


He ruled that dominating a creature can't change what it wants or thinks, only what it does. I think he's going for a "prisoner in their own body" idea.

[Segev]

I would not agree that dominated creatures are made to want to do anything. They're compelled to. But that doesn't make them "unwilling targets" for teleport's purposes: they are compelled to voluntarily be teleported.

I can't say this enough: teleport is not examining the deep and secret desires of the heart. It is simply failing to forcibly grab somebody who doesn't accept its travel pass. The boat analogy is, in my opinion, a solid one: you can compel a dominated person to get on the boat, so when the boat sails, the person goes with it. IT doesn't matter if the person doesn't want to go, he goes "willingly" in the sense that he cooperates with what's needed to do so, because he's compelled to. The boat isn't going to reach out with its anchor and drag somebody aboard, though.

Same with teleport: it isn't an offensive spell, so you can't use it on an enemy who refuses to be teleported. It is a transport spell, so anybody "willing" - in the sense that they're accepting the travel - goes along. And such "willingness" can be compelled. Because, again, it's not reading their secret desires; it just has a save DC of -5 to resist being teleported, but you can voluntarily fail the save. And can be compelled to do so.

[hamishspence]

How about "ally" - is that something that can be compelled too?

Do you rule that a dominated spellcaster's "spells that work on allies" always affect the being that did the dominating?

[Segev]

How about "ally" - is that something that can be compelled too?

Do you rule that a dominated spellcaster's "spells that work on allies" always affect the being that did the dominating?
If the compelled behavior would cause the caster and his own allies to be "allies" to the compelled being, yes.

"Allies" is a combination of willingness on the allies' part and choice on the caster's.

[hamishspence]

Only semi-relevant but Jeremy Crawford said that unconscious creatures can't consent and therefore are never willing.
Source: https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/707017486223323137

This is what threw me on this whole issue.


In 3.5, since unconscious creatures are "willing" :


I don’t think that there is a clear answer here, period.

If its any consolation, we never figured this out in 3E either, where people claimed that because an unconscious creature was always willing, and you could willingly forego saving throws or immunities, then the moment you went to sleep you were fair game for every spell and effect in the book.



I would have definitely insisted that "willing (magically), is most definitely not "willing (morally)"

But because they'd changed it by 5e - I'd been given the impression that "designer intent, is that willing (magically) is now the same as "willing" (morally) .

This impression may be wrong, but it's understandable that the OP's DM would rule that way.



I can't say this enough: teleport is not examining the deep and secret desires of the heart.

True - but the OP's DM thought that it was. And I can see why they might think that way - it may be an error of interpretation but it's an honest error.

[Mastikator]

True - but the OP's DM thought that it was. And I can see why they might think that way - it may be an error of interpretation but it's an honest error.

I think it's wrong to call it an error, DND5e does not ever specify what "willing" means, the closest nugget of truth we have is that unconscious creatures cant consent and therefore aren't willing. That means that consent and willingness highly related.
Secondly the Teleport spell doesn't stipulate what it means by willing either and to say that it doesn't see into your heart to decide if you're truly willing is a ruling, it could easily be the case that it does look into your very soul to decide if you're truly willing. The game doesn't say one way or the other. I think the reason the boat analogy doesn't work is that you don't need someone's consent to put them on a boat, you can physically force them. They don't have to be awake to be put on a boat. They have to be awake to be teleported, it is not possible to teleport an unconscious creature.
Thirdly, I think dominate person is quite clear in that it doesn't alter your will or opinions, it's not Alter Memory or Charm Person. It just overrides it, thus taking willingness and consent out of the question, a dominated person is in my opinion more like an unconscious person- a meat puppet moving around.

So the ruling that the OP's DM made is just that, a ruling based on vague information. He could've ruled the other way and it would have been equally within the bounds of the game. The game is ambiguous and you have to make a choice, just because you prefer one choice over the other doesn't mean the one you dislike is in error.

Edit- I should say that I do prefer the DM's ruling because of the implications, dominate person is not Inception.

[hamishspence]

They don't have to be awake to be put on a boat. They have to be awake to be teleported, it is not possible to teleport an unconscious creature.

Yup - and this was not true in 3e, and it is a big change. It's just that extrapolating beyond that change might be uncalled for.

As to the fact that a dominated person has full access to all their own memories and skills and may use them to the fullest extent in the service of their controller, Locutus of Borg in Star Trek TNG may typify this - he's controlled by the Borg, but they get all his tactical skill too.

[Mastikator]

Yup - and this was not true in 3e, and it is a big change. It's just that extrapolating beyond that change might be uncalled for.

As to the fact that a dominated person has full access to all their own memories and skills and may use them to the fullest extent in the service of their controller, Locutus of Borg in Star Trek TNG may typify this - he's controlled by the Borg, but they get all his tactical skill too.

My point is that you have to extrapolate one way or the other. If you say that you can use dominate person to make them accept teleportation then that is an extrapolation too. You can't just decide that you would've ruled differently and so it's an erroneous ruling.

[MoiMagnus]

Any definition of "willing" that goes against modern legal culpability defences is going to be problematic in the eyes of the players IMO.

In the eyes of some players, certainly. But our table went with "unconscious is always willing" the first time sometimes tried to dimensional door with a dying NPC to save them, nobody objected, and I would never have known that some peoples were ruling otherwise before reading this thread.

As for domination, IMO, while the wording is different, the choice should be the same as for Calm Emotion (and other spells that allows you to willingly fail a saving throw). If you can order someone to resist calm emotion, or at the contrary to accept calm emotion, the same should be possible for Dimensional Door.

By the way, I might have missed some message, but the question for dominate is also true in this other way around: if you are dominated, and a friend come to save you and Dimensional Door with you, you can be ordered to do whatever is possible to avoid it, but does this make you no longer "willing"?

[ProsecutorGodot]

Edit- I should say that I do prefer the DM's ruling because of the implications, dominate person is not Inception.

I still think reasoning that an inherent unwillingness to do something being a permission slip to avoid being tricked or forced into accepting such effects is a poor interpretation.

To use an intentionally ridiculous example, say Barbarian has a character trait that says "I will never willingly be teleported to a surprise birthday party" and his friends are unaware of how he tragically killed his parents after they attempted to throw him a party, and in a surprise rage he panicked and killed them both.

It's a surprise though, so they tell him they're teleporting to a remote ruin to collect a dangerous artifact. They do the usual "ready" check, which is the consent for the spell. The spell fails to teleport Barbarian though, because in his mind he would never consent to being teleported to a surprise birthday party, and apparently the spell teleport can recognize between given consent and forced/tricked consent.

[Segev]

I think it's wrong to call it an error, DND5e does not ever specify what "willing" means, the closest nugget of truth we have is that unconscious creatures cant consent and therefore aren't willing. That means that consent and willingness highly related.In fact, it makes willingness an active thing.

Secondly the Teleport spell doesn't stipulate what it means by willing either and to say that it doesn't see into your heart to decide if you're truly willing is a ruling, it could easily be the case that it does look into your very soul to decide if you're truly willing.It could, but that would be rather silly, and changing it from being a transport spell to being a philosophical examination of the nature of desire, with the DM freely deciding that some PCs and NPCs can't be teleported, no matter how badly the players want them to be, because deep down, they don't "really want to."

It changes the spell in nonsensical ways to accommodate a ruling that seems to serve no purpose other than to nerf a separate spell through annoying inconvenience. If this is somehow for "balance," it definitely falls afoul of Grod's Law. But I don't think it's some hugely game-shaking exploit to be able to dominate a creature and then teleport with them. So it's not even "for balance," but just ... frankly, it feels like a DM making a ruling against the players just to eke out a situational "win," in the OP's case.


I think the reason the boat analogy doesn't work is that you don't need someone's consent to put them on a boat, you can physically force them. They don't have to be awake to be put on a boat. They have to be awake to be teleported, it is not possible to teleport an unconscious creature.
Then you're missing the actual analogy and substituting another one.

The only thing "you" can do in the boat analogy is tell the target to get on the boat. You're piloting the boat and guiding it out to sea. The boat, like the teleport spell, cannot reach out and grab the person. It actually works better as an analogy than 3.5's version where unconscious creatures are automatically "willing targets," because you can't teleport with an unconscious creature. Again: your boat can't grab somebody to drag them aboard.

If the person uses his own actions (not in a game-term "you have one action per turn" sense, either) to move onto the boat, he goes with you when you set sail. If you order him to, he still has to choose whether to do so or not. If you've got him magically compelled, he is compelled to move onto the boat. It still isn't the boat physically forcing him aboard. It still isn't you somehow picking him up and carrying him aboard when you're unable to do that because all you physically control, here, is the boat.

Once again, the purpose of the "willing" clause is strictly to keep teleport as a transport spell rather than an offensive "send him to the corn field" spell. It's not a better version of banishment.

[Tanarii]

In fact, it makes willingness an active thing.
Right. If unconscious characters can't choose to be willing, then the companion ruling to that is dominated creatures can be ordered to be willing to do something.

If unconcious characters can be willing or unwilling, then the companion ruling is domination cannot change the deep down true desires or a creature.

Can you teleport/dimension door an unconscious character? I wouldn't think they were capable of being willing.

[Kvess]

My gut reaction as a DM would be to rule that a dominated creature could be ordered to allow themselves to be teleported, but reading arguments in this thread have convinced me that there isn’t anything in the text of Dominate Person that would affect a creature’s willingness to be teleported — if willingness is internal and not lack of outward resistance, as unconscious creatures being considered unwilling would seem to indicate.

I would still allow the creature to be a passenger for spells like Dimension Door at my table, because to me that’s a lot of spellslots for me to invalidate with a poorly defined term, but I also feel there is enough justification to say it would not work. Would love to see errata on this.

[Segev]

My gut reaction as a DM would be to rule that a dominated creature could be ordered to allow themselves to be teleported, but reading arguments in this thread have convinced me that there isn’t anything in the text of Dominate Person that would affect a creature’s willingness to be teleported — if willingness is internal and not lack of outward resistance, as unconscious creatures being considered unwilling would seem to indicate.

I would still allow the creature to be a passenger for spells like Dimension Door at my table, because to me that’s a lot of spellslots for me to invalidate with a poorly defined term, but I also feel there is enough justification to say it would not work. Would love to see errata on this.

See, this seems internally inconsistent, to me, as you've laid it out.

If unconscious creatures can't be willing, then willingness can't be "internal," because unconscious creatures can't make choices. Willingness has to be a conscious decision. Essentially, it is taking an affirmative action, even if it's a free one. This is what can be compelled by dominate.

Again: nothing in the text of the spell suggests teleport is examining your deep desires. And assuming it does, such that one cannot be ordered via domination to go along with a teleport, this leads to the really ridiculous notion that a DM could say that the party rogue can't be teleported out of the collapsing dungeon with the others because, deep down, he isn't willing to leave without the treasure. Or that the party bard can't be teleported to the quest location because, deep down, he doesn't want to go to the icky place.

You could say the DM is being unfair if he does that, but if the spell requires you to be willing on some deep down level that you can't be ordered to consciously change, as opposed to "willing" merely meaning "cooperative," you're stuck with this interpretation.

In the end, I reject that interpretation of it because it changes teleport from a transport spell to a divination that delves your deepest soul.

[Kvess]

In the case of the rogue, you can want to get out of a dungeon to avoid immediate harm — and be a willing target of a spell — while regretting that you can’t get all the treasure. In the case of Dominate Person, there’s nothing in the text to say that it affects what the creature thinks or wants at all. It controls their actions, and without a definition provided we have no reason to conclude (or deny) that being a willing target of a spell is an action you can force someone to take.

I would be generous as a DM, especially because I don’t feel like there is a definite answer, but I feel you’re presenting a tortured interpretation.

[MoiMagnus]

In the case of Dominate Person, there’s nothing in the text to say that it affects what the creature thinks or wants at all.

Dominate Person include the charmed status, which gives advantage to the person dominating to social skill checks when interacting with the dominated. I think that's a clear indication that it "affects what the creature thinks" to some degree.
[So yes, you can use dominate person just to make it easier to convince someone to agree with you on one point, and you even get a telepathic link as a bonus! Just because you cast dominate person on someone doesn't mean you plan on making them act against their will.]

[Jerrykhor]

Just because you cast dominate person on someone doesn't mean you plan on making them act against their will.]

Yes, they just hate you a bit less for that.

[Kvess]

There’s also nothing in the text of the charmed condition to say that it directly affects what the creature thinks or wants.

That does, however, get us into territory that is better defined in 5e: I would suggest that you could use that influence to attempt to persuade the creature to be a willing target, with advantage. This would still be subject to the limitations of the persuasion skill.

[Stabbey]

There’s also nothing in the text of the charmed condition to say that it directly affects what the creature thinks or wants.

That does, however, get us into territory that is better defined in 5e: I would suggest that you could use that influence to attempt to persuade the creature to be a willing target, with advantage. This would still be subject to the limitations of the persuasion skill.

But that does not apply to a Domination spell, which is explicit that the caster has control. You do not need to persuade a creature whose will you have suppressed with your own. That's the point of the spell, and why the Dominate spell is different and costs more resources (higher level spell slots) than the Charm spell which does only grant advantage.

[Tanarii]

if willingness is internal and not lack of outward resistance, as unconscious creatures being considered unwilling would seem to indicate.

Unconscious characters being unable to be willing indicates that it's an action, not internal desires

[Kvess]

Unconscious characters being unable to be willing indicates that it's an action, not internal desires
I disagree with your interpretation. An unconscious creature doesn’t know they are being affected by a spell or who is casting it, and therefore has no preference in the matter, and can’t be willing. Being willing could be dependant on context that an unconscious creature is unaware of without it being an action.

If you can’t do something while you are unconscious, it doesn’t categorically mean that you can always do it while you are conscious.

[Segev]

In the case of the rogue, you can want to get out of a dungeon to avoid immediate harm — and be a willing target of a spell — while regretting that you can’t get all the treasure. In the case of Dominate Person, there’s nothing in the text to say that it affects what the creature thinks or wants at all. It controls their actions, and without a definition provided we have no reason to conclude (or deny) that being a willing target of a spell is an action you can force someone to take.

I would be generous as a DM, especially because I don’t feel like there is a definite answer, but I feel you’re presenting a tortured interpretation.

I actually feel the tortured interpretation is the one that says teleport can't take a dominated person who, given his druthers, would not be cooperating with the person who has him dominated. The torture is in deciding "willing" means it examines the deep desires of the soul rather than simply checking whether the target is failing to cooperate.

[Tanarii]

If you can’t do something while you are unconscious, it doesn’t categorically mean that you can always do it while you are conscious.
That sounds almost like some kind of basic logic statement. 😂

Okay, granted the above statement is definitely true, but what the unconciousness standard does prove is it requires actionable willingness.

I agree that doesnt tell us that it automatically follows that dominate can order actionable willingness. That has to be a seperate argument to show. But it does show its not ruled out.

[Segev]

That sounds almost like some kind of basic logic statement. 😂

Okay, granted the above statement is definitely, but what is does prove is it requires actionable willingness.

I agree that doesnt tell us that it follows that dominate can order actionable willingness.

It also just doesn't track narratively with what dominate and teleport are doing that it would be impossible to compel a dominated target to go along with a teleport. And any interpretation where that is allowed opens the door to "nah, your PC has reservations, so isn't willing." If you can't be ordered to be "willing," then you can't be extorted into it, and you arguably can't voluntarily become so.

[Kvess]

I actually feel the tortured interpretation is the one that says teleport can't take a dominated person who, given his druthers, would not be cooperating with the person who has him dominated. The torture is in deciding "willing" means it examines the deep desires of the soul rather than simply checking whether the target is failing to cooperate.
Why is there insistence on examining the “deep desires of the soul” when we can just look at the creature’s surface thoughts? You could imagine someone saying: “I can’t control my actions, but I am not willing to be teleported.”

The term’s not defined in 5e, which is why we’re running into problems, but don’t necessarily need to get too metaphysical to talk about willingness.

You can also have reservations about a course of actions and still be willing to do something.

[Tanarii]

Why is there insistence on examining the “deep desires of the soul” when we can just look at the creature’s surface thoughts? You could imagine someone saying: “I can’t control my actions, but I am not willing to be teleported.”without conceding the point ...

At the least, this should allow an attempt to persuade/decieve/intimidate through the telepathic link, at advanatage due to charmed state. It may automatically fail without a check, but it should be a theoretical possibility.

[Kvess]

That’s very close to what I have said in a previous post.

[Segev]

Why is there insistence on examining the “deep desires of the soul” when we can just look at the creature’s surface thoughts? You could imagine someone saying: “I can’t control my actions, but I am not willing to be teleported.”

The term’s not defined in 5e, which is why we’re running into problems, but don’t necessarily need to get too metaphysical to talk about willingness.

You can also have reservations about a course of actions and still be willing to do something.

The issue is that you're effectively removing the ability to compel behavior from dominate, when that's its whole purpose.

Dominate can compel thought, and action that is purely thought-enacted. It can compel a Telekinetic feat-bearer to use mage hand without components. It can compel a pixie to turn invisible. It can compel a Linguist to decipher an encrypted message. It can compel a spellcaster to use identify and to give a detailed analysis of a magical item and all of its functions. It can compel MacGyver to build an airplane out of shoestring and chewing gum, and then fly everyone out of the cliffside cave prison he'd put them in before being dominated to get them out safely.

It can compel somebody to get on a boat that the pilot (who is issuing the order) is too busy getting ready to sail to be able to physically drag him aboard. IT can even compel that person to use whatever sailor skills they have to aid in the casting off and sailing of the boat.

The notion that it can't compel them to cooperate with being teleported implies that teleport is looking at "true desires" rather than looking for cooperation/acquiescence. That means that, if the person isn't actually willing, without any coercion, the person can't choose to become willing. Which means it's not just surface thoughts. If it were "just surface thoughts," he could be ordered to think to himself, over and over again, "I want to be teleported. I want to be teleported," and that would be enough. It would still be dumb, because it's gamism getting in the way of narrative.

The cleanest interpretation is to simply say teleport requires as much willingness as picking a lock. The dominate spell says you can compel a course of action that will be carried out. "Come with me as we teleport back to my base," is a course of action that can be compelled.

[Kuu Lightwing]

Oh, 5e and it's "natural language" strikes again. Personally, I'd actually disagree with Crawford and his "consent" statement. To me it makes more sense if the question of willingness is related to being able to resist the effect, if they want to. I did play some 3.5e, so maybe that's where it comes from. In the matter of fact, here's what I found out regarding "willing creature" in 3.5e srd (ah, so refreshing to see some actual definitions):


Some spells restrict you to willing targets only. Declaring yourself as a willing target is something that can be done at any time (even if you’re flat-footed or it isn’t your turn). Unconscious creatures are automatically considered willing, but a character who is conscious but immobile or helpless (such as one who is bound, cowering, grappling, paralyzed, pinned, or stunned) is not automatically willing.

So in 3.5e unconscious creatures were considered willing automatically, presumably with the same reason I mentioned before. Otherwise being willing or not seems to be up to the creature to decide. It obviously doesn't have to work the same way in 5e, but it could be used as a basis for something given that 5e didn't bother to define it. So in our example... It does seem like Dominated person can be compelled to designate themselves as willing via Dominate spell.

[Kvess]

I think there’s a pretty clear difference between asking someone if they are willing to do something and ordering someone to say that they are willing to do something, which doesn’t require reaching into the deepest recesses of one’s soul.

[KorvinStarmast]

What's Willing? Linda can tell you (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJHcD0kHTGk).
So can Lowell (I used to listen to that station (whfs version))
Album version (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTmFFMfXyV4)

[Doug Lampert]

I think there’s a pretty clear difference between asking someone if they are willing to do something and ordering someone to say that they are willing to do something, which doesn’t require reaching into the deepest recesses of one’s soul.

Yep, to me, the 3.5 definition where unconscious was willing, meant that you could order willingness through dominate because unwilling was the "active" state that required an act of will and dominate largely suppresses the target's will.

The 5th thing that unconscious is unwilling says that willing is the one that requires something, and it's NOT an action, so it can't be ordered. Suppressed will means you can't give consent. You can order someone to take an action, you can order them to claim to be willing, but the claim that you can order them to actually be willing removes any meaning from the words.

This isn't in any sense reading the deepest recesses of your soul. "A spell is forcing me to do this" is pretty close to be DEFINITIONALLY unwilling.

[Segev]

I think there’s a pretty clear difference between asking someone if they are willing to do something and ordering someone to say that they are willing to do something, which doesn’t require reaching into the deepest recesses of one’s soul.

But neither apply, here. If you ask the guy being held at gunpoint if he wants to get on the ship, he would truthfully answer "no," but he could be scad into lying and saying "yes" and he will walk under his own power on board at the behest ofhe gunman.

He could be said to have "willingly" gotten aboard because he didn't force them to drag him, kicking and screaming.

That is the level of "willingness" in question. It is not a mind-reading spell.

[MoiMagnus]

I just realised that this whole debate also applies to summoned/conjured creatures that you order around.

If dominate cannot force someone be willing, you cannot either force your conjured/summoned creatures to be willing. While most spells say that the creature is friendly to you, willingness is not ensured.
(And since they seems to have self-preservation instinct, a very annoying GM could decide that the creature is afraid of the teleportation and hence is unwilling, and since you can't order them to be willing, you can't dimensional door with them without first having to convince them that it is ok)

In particular, in the case of controlled undead, which are not even friendly, they definitely hate you and will try to kill you as soon as your control stop, so I doubt they are willing to help you in any way, so probably no Dimensional door with one of your undead creatures, and same for other spells that require willingness.

[ProsecutorGodot]

.

This isn't in any sense reading the deepest recesses of your soul. "A spell is forcing me to do this" is pretty close to be DEFINITIONALLY unwilling.

The crux of this issue is that this interpretation relies on Teleport having an ability to sense whether given consent is done under duress or not, teleport has no such power.

To argue that "willing" here means anything other than to accept, period, means you're also saying that teleport has the ability to sense emotions, mental state are thoughts.

[Telok]

I can want to be in better shape but be unwilling to go to the gym. I can be willing to go to the gym but not want to exercise.

Dominate can override my willingness to go to the gym, but does not seem to be able to make me want to do so. The spell can force someone to betray their friends, but not make them want to.

Is the ability to override a person's will count as making them willing to do something? Can I change my not wanting to eat bubblegun-kimchee-walnut-sour-cherry-fried-frog-legs-raw-onions-and-liver ice cream? Probably not. Can I change my willingness to do so? Yes, I can make a decision, I can act, to be willing to do that... Given sufficient motivation. That ice cream sounds pretty nasty.

Dominate wouldn't change my dislike of such an ice cream. It would override my will to not eat it. Interesting... I think I just talked myself into having Dominate eliminate will from the equation, leaving the question of willingness with a null result. The question then becomes equal to "if I flip a coin and a bird catches it & flies off, never to be seen again, do I say it was heads or tails?".

Of course an alternate option is that Dominate does not exert control through the victim's mind, but rather runs them like a puppet while basing it's decisions on their knowledge. Although that would imply the inability to control purely mental activity.

A third option could be to check all "willing" spells and see which ruling results in more nonesense & trope breakage. Then use the other ruling. Tedious, but useful and probably best.

The total ******* rules lawyer move is to note that the spell doesn't prevent anything but attacking the caster. Therefore any actions available during my turn that are not required to fulfill a command are mine to use as I like. Including free actions.

[Xetheral]

At my table the willingness of a conscious character is determined by the player of that character (or the GM, in the case of an NPC). Magical compulsion can never take that choice away unless the spell explicitly gives control over the target's state of mind. Dominate does not explicitly give control over the target's state of mind. Ergo, at my table, the player of the targeted character gets to decide if their character is willing to be teleported.

Unconscious characters lack any state of mind, so at my table they lack the willingness required by teleport.

To my understanding, my approach is consistent with both the text and JC's tweet, but it's not the only such approach.

[Tanarii]

Dominate does not explicitly give control over the target's state of mind.
Except for them being Charmed. But I suspect you mean no direct control, as opposed to influential control.

Despite disagreeing with the willing argument of the OP's DM and others here, I'd have no problem with a DM that told another player a theoretical ability check (with advantage from charmed) was possible to change willingness via telepathic convincing ... but its an automatic failure for this particular enemy.

(I might have an issue if a DM told me that prior to this thread, but that would have been because I was too invested since it was my character. Now if it ever comes up I'll deal.)

[jas61292]

My first thought when I saw this situation was that, of course dominate can make you willing. But the more I have thought about it, the more I have come to believe the opposite. The reason for this is base on the fact that Dominate is all about forcing a creature to DO something. It has no effect on their inner thoughts. Indeed, the existence of spells like Modify Memory, and Charm Person, which both explicitly effect thoughts in ways that Dominate does not, confirms this fact to me.

Yeah, this does then come down to how you are defining willing. To me though, willing will always, first and foremost be about what a person wants. Dominate explicitly can't affect that, as far as I am concerned, so I probably would not let it force someone to accept a spell that one must be willing for.

[Stabbey]

My first thought when I saw this situation was that, of course dominate can make you willing. But the more I have thought about it, the more I have come to believe the opposite. The reason for this is base on the fact that Dominate is all about forcing a creature to DO something. It has no effect on their inner thoughts. Indeed, the existence of spells like Modify Memory, and Charm Person, which both explicitly effect thoughts in ways that Dominate does not, confirms this fact to me.

Yeah, this does then come down to how you are defining willing. To me though, willing will always, first and foremost be about what a person wants. Dominate explicitly can't affect that, as far as I am concerned, so I probably would not let it force someone to accept a spell that one must be willing for.

If willingness is important, then can someone who is Dominated refuse the order to "walk 10 feet to your left?" If not, why not? What's the difference between refusing the dominator's order to teleport with them, and walking?

Can someone who is dominated just outright refuse to obey any command? I mean, that sure would be a great buff for the PC's when the DM has a creature dominate your PC and give them orders, but somehow I don't think the DM would be impressed with that argument.

If they CAN refuse the order, then what - if any - orders can someone who is Dominated NOT refuse?

[jas61292]

If willingness is important, then can someone who is Dominated refuse the order to "walk 10 feet to your left?" If not, why not? What's the difference between refusing the dominator's order to teleport with them, and walking?

Can someone who is dominated just outright refuse to obey any command? I mean, that sure would be a great buff for the PC's when the DM has a creature dominate your PC and give them orders, but somehow I don't think the DM would be impressed with that argument.

If they CAN refuse the order, then what - if any - orders can someone who is Dominated NOT refuse?

Dominate explicitly gives you the ability to control a creatures actions. Thoughts and actions are two different things. In my interpretation, willingness to be affected by a spell is not an action one takes. It is a state of mind. Dominate is body control, not mind control, and so it cannot make you want or accept something you do not want or accept. It can just make you physically do something. If a physical action is not enough to accomplish a task, Dominate is not sufficient to make it happen.

[Stabbey]

Dominate explicitly gives you the ability to control a creatures actions. Thoughts and actions are two different things. In my interpretation, willingness to be affected by a spell is not an action one takes. It is a state of mind. Dominate is body control, not mind control, and so it cannot make you want or accept something you do not want or accept. It can just make you physically do something. If a physical action is not enough to accomplish a task, Dominate is not sufficient to make it happen.

Hard disagree here. In my interpretation, Dominate imposes your will on the creature, temporarily suppressing their normal thoughts for as long as the condition lasts. Their "inner self" can object as much as they want, but until their inner self is restored to control by a successful save or the termination of the spell, they are obliged to cooperate with the orders of the one who has dominated them. If that will includes teleporting away, they must teleport away.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Dominate explicitly gives you the ability to control a creatures actions. Thoughts and actions are two different things. In my interpretation, willingness to be affected by a spell is not an action one takes. It is a state of mind. Dominate is body control, not mind control, and so it cannot make you want or accept something you do not want or accept. It can just make you physically do something. If a physical action is not enough to accomplish a task, Dominate is not sufficient to make it happen.

It explicitly gives you the ability to issue commands, which they follow to the best of their ability. It says nothing about physical or mental limitations.

If you issue them a command "think of nothing but cheese for one minute" they will do their best to think of nothing but cheese for one minute. You do, in fact, have control over some aspects of their thoughts.

So if I instead issue the command "think of nothing but how much you want to teleport away with me" then what do we do?

[jas61292]

It explicitly gives you the ability to issue commands, which they follow to the best of their ability. It says nothing about physical or mental limitations.

If you issue them a command "think of nothing but cheese for one minute" they will do their best to think of nothing but cheese for one minute. You do, in fact, have control over some aspects of their thoughts.

So if I instead issue the command "think of nothing but how much you want to teleport away with me" then what do we do?

While I admit that I guess you could have it exert at least some effect over someone's thoughts, for me it ultimately comes back to what was pointed out earlier in the thread. The entire point of dominate is to make someone do something against their will. Sure, technically you could order something that they might want to do anyways, but for the most part, that is not going to happen. The person does not want to do what you want them to do, but you make them do it anyways, against their own will.

But doing and willing are different. If you are doing something against your own will, you are unwilling. And you cannot be unwillingly willing. That is a contradiction.

And I think this is the crux of the matter. I don't think people on either side are likely to convince each other because it comes down to a different understanding of willing. I think by definition, if you are being forced to do something against your will, you cannot ever be willing. Other people think that is not the case. That is fine, but I don't think you can ever find consensus on this.

[Segev]

And again, the colloquial, contextual way teleport is using "willing" refers not to the true desires the character harbors, but rather the level of cooperation the character will give. It isn't a mind-reading spell. It's a spell that just doesn't work if you don't let it.

If "willing" means "truly want to be teleported," then, again, you can fail to be teleported even if you will regret the failure because of extortion or the like, because you're not truly "willing."

If "willing" can be coerced by, say, holding a gun to your head or the head of a loved one, then the work-around for dominate would be to threaten, "Come along willingly with this teleport or I'll order you to make your friends' lives miserable, brutish, and short." Or some other threat that coerces cooperation. With the Advantage on social rolls, this should work pretty reliably. It just is awkward and makes the interaction feel like part of a metagame rather than a natural expectation of how these effects work, narratively.

And I find trying to force gamism to the detriment of narrative flow and verisimilitude to be undesirable, unless it really improves the gameplay significantly. The "you must be willing to teleport and dominate can't compel willingness" interpretation...doesn't improve the gameplay at all.

[Mastikator]

In fact, it makes willingness an active thing.
DND5e doesn't make it anything. It has to be made either active or passive by the DM. The DM has to make it one or the other. And the game doesn't give you any reason to pick one over the other. You have to extrapolate.

It could, but that would be rather silly, and changing it from being a transport spell to being a philosophical examination of the nature of desire, with the DM freely deciding that some PCs and NPCs can't be teleported, no matter how badly the players want them to be, because deep down, they don't "really want to."
Wait, so your whole contention against the ruling, the whole basis of thinking it's an erroneous ruling rather than one you merely wouldn't have made yourself, is that it's silly?


It changes the spell in nonsensical ways to accommodate a ruling that seems to serve no purpose other than to nerf a separate spell through annoying inconvenience. If this is somehow for "balance," it definitely falls afoul of Grod's Law. But I don't think it's some hugely game-shaking exploit to be able to dominate a creature and then teleport with them. So it's not even "for balance," but just ... frankly, it feels like a DM making a ruling against the players just to eke out a situational "win," in the OP's case.


Then you're missing the actual analogy and substituting another one.

The only thing "you" can do in the boat analogy is tell the target to get on the boat. You're piloting the boat and guiding it out to sea. The boat, like the teleport spell, cannot reach out and grab the person. It actually works better as an analogy than 3.5's version where unconscious creatures are automatically "willing targets," because you can't teleport with an unconscious creature. Again: your boat can't grab somebody to drag them aboard.

If the person uses his own actions (not in a game-term "you have one action per turn" sense, either) to move onto the boat, he goes with you when you set sail. If you order him to, he still has to choose whether to do so or not. If you've got him magically compelled, he is compelled to move onto the boat. It still isn't the boat physically forcing him aboard. It still isn't you somehow picking him up and carrying him aboard when you're unable to do that because all you physically control, here, is the boat.

Once again, the purpose of the "willing" clause is strictly to keep teleport as a transport spell rather than an offensive "send him to the corn field" spell. It's not a better version of banishment.

D&D 5e offers many ways to change someone's willingness to accept spells that depend on the willingness of the target. Persuasion and Deception come to mind. Charm person should (depending on the situation) also work due to how it explicitly changes the targets attitude. Modify memory should also work.

But by saying that dominate person allows you to change someone's willingness you are extrapolating at least one of two things:

Spells that rely on willingness can be tricked, an enchanted will can substitute a real one and it works.
Dominate person can change your mind inception/alter memory style. You can author their thoughts with dominate person and it really counts as their thoughts


Nothing in D&D 5e says that either of those things are true. Nor do they say they are false. But YOU have to say they are true in D&D5e to make this ruling this way.

[Hytheter]

"willing" refers not to the true desires the character harbors, but rather the level of cooperation the character will give. It isn't a mind-reading spell. It's a spell that just doesn't work if you don't let it.

100%. People are putting more stock in the word willing than is at all warranted.

[Tanarii]

But by saying that dominate person allows you to change someone's willingness you are extrapolating at least one of two things:

Spells that rely on willingness can be tricked, an enchanted will can substitute a real one and it works.
Dominate person can change your mind inception/alter memory style. You can author their thoughts with dominate person and it really counts as their thoughts



By saying it cannot change willingness, you are extrapolating one of two things:
- spells that require willingness can judge if someone truly wants to do a thing, as opposed to simply following an order to do a thing, ruling out any and all forms of coercion.
- dominate person cannot give any order that requires doing something that can be resisted by not actually wanting to do it.

Edit: I'm assuming most folks here in agreement with the OP's DM believe the former.

Personally I think Segev's example is pretty spot on: if you can be ordered to get on a boat, you can be ordered to accompany a teleport. Both require the same 'kind' of willingness ... that you'll do the thing ordered. Wanting or not wanting doesn't enter into it.

[Xetheral]

By saying it cannot change willingness, you are extrapolating one of two things:
- spells that require willingness can judge if someone truly wants to do a thing, as opposed to simply following an order to do a thing, ruling out any and all forms of coercion.
- dominate person cannot give any order that requires doing something that can be resisted by not actually wanting to do it.

Edit: I'm assuming most folks here in agreement with the OP's DM believe the former.

Personally I think Segev's example is pretty spot on: if you can be ordered to get on a boat, you can be ordered to accompany a teleport. Both require the same 'kind' of willingness ... that you'll do the thing ordered. Wanting or not wanting doesn't enter into it.

(Bold emphasis added.) There's no need for the teleport spell to make any judgement at all. By saying that Dominate can't affect willingness, all that means is that the target simply gets to decide whether they teleport or not, just as if they weren't dominated.

The Dominate-can't-affect-willingness interpretation is being made out to be way more complicated than it needs to be.

[Kuu Lightwing]

The exact mechanics of Dominate Person is unclear as well. So regardless of how do you define "willing" (my opinion mentioned a bit earlier in the thread), it does depend on how your DM or table interprets Dominate Person inner mechanics. It used to be specifically a [Mind-Affecting] spell in 3.5e, but this tag is gone now. It still does seem like a spell that affects a person's mind - the person is charmed, they follow your commands, etc.
Actually, I'd say the non-precise control is a more clear indication of it being a mind affecting, because it is definitely not a direct control over person's body. You can tell them to go and kill his friends, and they will do it to the best of their ability, without requiring any attention from you other than giving that command. I'd say that indicates that you alter their mind state to obey your commands, and whatever you say they would be willing to do, even though killing their friends is not something they'd ever even consider doing normally. Total control as an action is a different option, which can be interpreted as direct control over the body, but given the first part of the spell, I'd assume you just take more firm control of their mind.

[Segev]

If all you took away from my statement was that I reject the notion that "willing" means teleport can read minds only because it's "silly," then you somehow missed the entire rest of the paragraph you put your bolded response after, Mastikator.

But that should actually be sufficient: it's silly, and not in an intentional or humorous way. It's silly in a disruptive way that is only useful if you're trying to win an internet argument, or you're trying to find a way to game the rules for an outcome you desire rather than trying to examine the rules to determine what it is they're actually emulating. It's silly because it swiftly and immediately reminds you that you're playing a game, in the manner of finding a glitch in a game's code or an exploit in a game's AI. It leads to behaviors that don't intuitively flow from what the spells are actually doing, and relies strictly on a reading of the rules in a particular fashion.

Like many of my positions, I lean heavily on the notion that, if there are multiple ways to read the RAW, and one of them leads to silliness that disrupts the game/narrative connectivity (or any other negative results in general gameplay terms) and the other lets things fit together and flow neatly, one should use the reading that does the latter.

[Xetheral]

If all you took away from my statement was that I reject the notion that "willing" means teleport can read minds only because it's "silly," then you somehow missed the entire rest of the paragraph you put your bolded response after, Mastikator.

But that should actually be sufficient: it's silly, and not in an intentional or humorous way. It's silly in a disruptive way that is only useful if you're trying to win an internet argument, or you're trying to find a way to game the rules for an outcome you desire rather than trying to examine the rules to determine what it is they're actually emulating. It's silly because it swiftly and immediately reminds you that you're playing a game, in the manner of finding a glitch in a game's code or an exploit in a game's AI. It leads to behaviors that don't intuitively flow from what the spells are actually doing, and relies strictly on a reading of the rules in a particular fashion.

Like many of my positions, I lean heavily on the notion that, if there are multiple ways to read the RAW, and one of them leads to silliness that disrupts the game/narrative connectivity (or any other negative results in general gameplay terms) and the other lets things fit together and flow neatly, one should use the reading that does the latter.

I don't see either approach as sillier than the other. In the game world, from the perspective of the caster, teleport only works on voluntary targets. It seems equally plausible/verisimilitudinous to me that a mind control spell might or might not grant sufficient control over the target's mental state to let the caster decide what the target considers voluntary.

I happen to read Dominate in a way that it does not provide that level of control, and so I rule that the target still gets to decide whether they teleport. A differently worded spell might grant the caster more control over the target's mental state and thus lead me to a different conclusion.

[Doug Lampert]

The crux of this issue is that this interpretation relies on Teleport having an ability to sense whether given consent is done under duress or not, teleport has no such power.

To argue that "willing" here means anything other than to accept, period, means you're also saying that teleport has the ability to sense emotions, mental state are thoughts.

Nope, it requires that teleport does not work on unwilling living creatures, WHICH IS IN THE SPELL!

How, in your interpretation, does it "know" whether an undominated creature is willing or not? Seriously, your "logic" would say that it can't, because it can't read the creature's mind and there is no action required to be willing or unwilling.

The spell doesn't determine anything, it simply does not work on invalid targets, and an unwilling creature is not a valid target.

[Segev]

I don't see either approach as sillier than the other. In the game world, from the perspective of the caster, teleport only works on voluntary targets. It seems equally plausible/verisimilitudinous to me that a mind control spell might or might not grant sufficient control over the target's mental state to let the caster decide what the target considers voluntary.

I happen to read Dominate in a way that it does not provide that level of control, and so I rule that the target still gets to decide whether they teleport. A differently worded spell might grant the caster more control over the target's mental state and thus lead me to a different conclusion.

The trouble is that you're focusing on dominate, and not on teleport. You're just assuming teleport means "they really want to!" when it says "willing," not "they cooperate."

The reason this is bad is because it either also makes it so that you get rather unexpected results such as somebody who's extorted into doing something, or who has mixed feelings about going, being UNABLE to be teleported no matter how much they claim they want to be, because they're not "willing." Or you get the issue where somehow they can make mental choices about cooperating or not while dominated but only specifically for teleport, and there's still the work-around of threatening them into cooperating anyway, which just makes teleporting away with them take an extra step and set of die rolling that interrupts the flow of play.

Besides, if dominate can compel mental actions - and it can, such as "do my taxes to the best of your ability" as an order forcing a tax preparer to do the BBEG's taxes no matter how much they'd rather not, and apply their brain power and expertise to the process - then it can compel "willingly" going along with teleportation. Again, unless holding a gun to a mother's sun and threatening to kill him if she doesn't allow herself to be teleported away means the kid dies because she cannot choose to be willing.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Nope, it requires that teleport does not work on unwilling living creatures, WHICH IS IN THE SPELL!

How, in your interpretation, does it "know" whether an undominated creature is willing or not? Seriously, your "logic" would say that it can't, because it can't read the creature's mind and there is no action required to be willing or unwilling.

The spell doesn't determine anything, it simply does not work on invalid targets, and an unwilling creature is not a valid target.

In this instance the creature is outwardly accepting and inwardly thinking willingness (through a command such as "think about how much you want to teleport with me" or "agree to teleport with me") through Dominate Person. To suggest that this mental compulsion can't cover up their unwillingness to go along without it without compulsion is to suggest that Teleport has some way of knowing the difference.

How does Teleport know the difference between a creature magically forced to comply and a creature who isn't if all variables are the same except for Dominate Person being involved?

[Xetheral]

The trouble is that you're focusing on dominate, and not on teleport. You're just assuming teleport means "they really want to!" when it says "willing," not "they cooperate."

Dominate seems to be the crux of the matter, because teleport seems quite clear to me. However, I am not interpreting teleport the way you seem to think I am. I am interpreting the willingness requirement in teleport to mean that the target gets to choose whether or not to teleport. Under that interpretation, the only question becomes whether or not Dominate takes that choice away. By my reading of the spell, it does not.


The reason this is bad is because it either also makes it so that you get rather unexpected results such as somebody who's extorted into doing something, or who has mixed feelings about going, being UNABLE to be teleported no matter how much they claim they want to be, because they're not "willing."

My interpretation does not lead to this result: the choice whether or not to teleport remains with the target.


Or you get the issue where somehow they can make mental choices about cooperating or not while dominated but only specifically for teleport, and there's still the work-around of threatening them into cooperating anyway, which just makes teleporting away with them take an extra step and set of die rolling that interrupts the flow of play.

By my reading the target of Dominate is free to choose whether to cooperate willingly with orders or not, but if they don't the spell forces unwilling compliance with valid instructions. Unsurprisingly, that has an unusual interaction with Teleport since that spell has a willingness requirement. Teleport might be the only mechanical feature with a willingness requirement, but there are plenty of non-mechanical examples where a lack of willingness would make a Dominate command fail to work as phrased. An example would be: "give me your oath to serve me in perpetuity and mean it." Dominate could make the target unwillingly speak aloud the words of such an oath, but (by my reading) it can't make the target intend to keep that oath.

I also don't see a problem with using coercion to try to get the target to choose to teleport--it works the same way whether the target is Dominated or not, and I don't see that as in any way disruptive to the flow of play.


Besides, if dominate can compel mental actions - and it can, such as "do my taxes to the best of your ability" as an order forcing a tax preparer to do the BBEG's taxes no matter how much they'd rather not, and apply their brain power and expertise to the process - then it can compel "willingly" going along with teleportation. Again, unless holding a gun to a mother's sun and threatening to kill him if she doesn't allow herself to be teleported away means the kid dies because she cannot choose to be willing.

I agree that Dominate can compel mental actions. As I read the spell, however, I don't agree that it can compel willingness or other mental states. A spell could hypothetically overwrite a target's mental state with another, but Dominate doesn't say it does that. Ergo, from my standpoint, the choice whether or not to teleport remains with the target.

[Segev]

Dominate seems to be the crux of the matter, because teleport seems quite clear to me. However, I am not interpreting teleport the way you seem to think I am. I am interpreting the willingness requirement in teleport to mean that the target gets to choose whether or not to teleport. Under that interpretation, the only question becomes whether or not Dominate takes that choice away. By my reading of the spell, it does not.

I am not sure how you can read dominate to not compel voluntary actions. Where "voluntary" probably requires a heaping pile of scare quotes, but you know - I hope - what I mean. If the target can be compelled to choose the left-hand path rather than the right one at a fork in the road, can be compelled to choose to follow the caster rather than his friends, and to recite the most embarrassing secret his best friend ever confided in him (making a judgment call on what that secret is and compelled to do so with as honest an appraisal as possible), he can be compelled to choose to go along with the teleport.

[Kuu Lightwing]

I also find the issue with reading Dominate in a way that it doesn't alter the mental state of the affected person. I can tell them to kill their friends, and they will do that, and this wouldn't require any precise control of their actions. They can choose whatever methods of killing their friends is the most effective and appropriate, and I don't even have to be aware of those methods being awailable. If they are a Wizard, for example, I might not know that they have Finger of Death prepared, but they still will use it if they find it's a good way to kill their friends. So the person retains the capability of decision making, being able to choose what methods are effective and so on, but they still follow my command. I don't see how this could be achieved without altering the mental state of a person.

[Xetheral]

I am not sure how you can read dominate to not compel voluntary actions. Where "voluntary" probably requires a heaping pile of scare quotes, but you know - I hope - what I mean. If the target can be compelled to choose the left-hand path rather than the right one at a fork in the road, can be compelled to choose to follow the caster rather than his friends, and to recite the most embarrassing secret his best friend ever confided in him (making a judgment call on what that secret is and compelled to do so with as honest an appraisal as possible), he can be compelled to choose to go along with the teleport.

Because a compelled voluntary action is a contradiction? Sure, in the real world compulsion gets fuzzy, because it's always a question of influencing someone's choice. By contrast, Dominate outright magically compels the target to obey--no choice involved. (Although the target could choose to obey willingly, despite the spell.)

So Dominate (as I read it) doesn't compel the target to choose the right-hand path as its preference or to choose to follow the caster. Instead, the spell compels obedience and denies choice. With careful wording Dominate can compel the target to select between courses of action based on specified criteria (e.g. your secret recitation example), but it's still the caster choosing the selection rubric and therefore the action taken, not the target.

Dominate does allow commands that involve choice on the part of the target, either explicitly (e.g. "do whatever you want" or "go down the path of your choosing") or through lack of specificity (e.g. "recite an embarrassing secret"), but obviously, by definition, there isn't such an open-ended command that both allows choice and simultaneously determines what that choice will be.

[Kuu Lightwing]

Because a compelled voluntary action is a contradiction? Sure, in the real world compulsion gets fuzzy, because it's always a question of influencing someone's choice. By contrast, Dominate outright magically compels the target to obey--no choice involved. (Although the target could choose to obey willingly, despite the spell.)

So Dominate (as I read it) doesn't compel the target to choose the right-hand path as its preference or to choose to follow the caster. Instead, the spell compels obedience and denies choice. With careful wording Dominate can compel the target to select between courses of action based on specified criteria (e.g. your secret recitation example), but it's still the caster choosing the selection rubric and therefore the action taken, not the target.

Dominate does allow commands that involve choice on the part of the target, either explicitly (e.g. "do whatever you want" or "go down the path of your choosing") or through lack of specificity (e.g. "recite an embarrassing secret"), but obviously, by definition, there isn't such an open-ended command that both allows choice and simultaneously determines what that choice will be.

Where does this notion that Teleport requires some fair and square choice unimpeded by external factors comes from? Teleport requires a willing creature, the exact reason why it should be willing is not specified.

Also people are not random number generators, if they are presented with a choice, they will make it based on internal and/ot external factors in play, and Dominate person might very well be one of them. There's not much difference between "my friend Shion said that I should teleport with her, and I trust her" and "my master Dominus told me to teleport with him and I must do what my master says". The difference is that I concluded that I can trust Shion because of my experience, while I follow master Dominus because he casted Dominate on me, yes but for teleport to use that as a basis, it should reach into my mind and look for motivation, which is way too much of a stretch.

[CapnWildefyr]

And again, the colloquial, contextual way teleport is using "willing" refers not to the true desires the character harbors, but rather the level of cooperation the character will give. It isn't a mind-reading spell. It's a spell that just doesn't work if you don't let it.

If "willing" means "truly want to be teleported," then, again, you can fail to be teleported even if you will regret the failure because of extortion or the like, because you're not truly "willing."

If "willing" can be coerced by, say, holding a gun to your head or the head of a loved one, then the work-around for dominate would be to threaten, "Come along willingly with this teleport or I'll order you to make your friends' lives miserable, brutish, and short." Or some other threat that coerces cooperation. With the Advantage on social rolls, this should work pretty reliably. It just is awkward and makes the interaction feel like part of a metagame rather than a natural expectation of how these effects work, narratively.

And I find trying to force gamism to the detriment of narrative flow and verisimilitude to be undesirable, unless it really improves the gameplay significantly. The "you must be willing to teleport and dominate can't compel willingness" interpretation...doesn't improve the gameplay at all.

Yep.

If I had been the DM, I would have allowed it right from the start because being charmed means you treat the spellcaster like a friendly acquaintance. So, unless there was some reason the drow would not want to leave the sewer with a friend, it should work.

If there were such a reason, I might say something like "Well, even though she's charmed, it looks like she's not willing to go anywhere with you for some reason, so teleport might fail unless you convince her to go. She's still charmed and smiling at you. What do you do?" Or maybe "As you reach out to touch her before casting teleport, she says 'Hey, what are you doing? You don't want to leave, do you? We still have to <fill in babble about what she was doing in the sewer>.'" That way the OP can convince her to go before casting the spell.

Due to dominate's charm effect, convincing the captured drow to teleport out of a sewer, even if she wanted to stay, should be a no-roll slam dunk, for example: "Hey, sweetie, how about we teleport to someplace nicer so we can talk, someplace where we are not standing in a river of ****? We can come right back in a few minutes. Sound good? OK, let's go!"

[quindraco]

Yep.

If I had been the DM, I would have allowed it right from the start because being charmed means you treat the spellcaster like a friendly acquaintance. So, unless there was some reason the drow would not want to leave the sewer with a friend, it should work.

If there were such a reason, I might say something like "Well, even though she's charmed, it looks like she's not willing to go anywhere with you for some reason, so teleport might fail unless you convince her to go. She's still charmed and smiling at you. What do you do?" Or maybe "As you reach out to touch her before casting teleport, she says 'Hey, what are you doing? You don't want to leave, do you? We still have to <fill in babble about what she was doing in the sewer>.'" That way the OP can convince her to go before casting the spell.

Due to dominate's charm effect, convincing the captured drow to teleport out of a sewer, even if she wanted to stay, should be a no-roll slam dunk, for example: "Hey, sweetie, how about we teleport to someplace nicer so we can talk, someplace where we are not standing in a river of ****? We can come right back in a few minutes. Sound good? OK, let's go!"

A friendly acquaintance is by definition not a friend. If I were in a sewer on an assassination job, I wouldn't abandon my job because an acquaintance asked me to.

[Segev]

Because a compelled voluntary action is a contradiction?No, not if you understand what I meant by it. Apparently, I did not get it across correctly.

A "voluntary action" is opposed to an "autonomous" or "reflexive" one. Breathing is semi-voluntary. Beating your heart is not voluntary. Walking is voluntary. If you have a better word than "voluntary" for the distinction, I am open to it.

Dominate can compel voluntary action, by this definition.


So Dominate (as I read it) doesn't compel the target to choose the right-hand path as its preference or to choose to follow the caster. Instead, the spell compels obedience and denies choice. With careful wording Dominate can compel the target to select between courses of action based on specified criteria (e.g. your secret recitation example), but it's still the caster choosing the selection rubric and therefore the action taken, not the target. If told to "take the fastest route to Grandma's house," and the left-hand path is obviously faster than the right-hand one (or the subject knows from prior experience that this is the case), the dominated subject is compelled to choose the left-hand path. It is making a choice.

Nothing in teleport says that it requires going with the teleportation to be the subject's "preference." Only that it be "willing." If you interpret "willingness" to be a measure of "preference," we are back to teleport reading minds (rather than merely failing to work on the uncooperative), and we once again have the case where you can't teleport the party rogue out of the dungeon as it shows signs of collapse because the party rogue prefers to stay behind and collect the treasure. Even if the party rogue feels compelled by the risk of collapsing doom, his preference is to not leave the treasure behind, so he can't be "willing."

And if you claim there's a difference, and the rogue can "make himself willing," then the dominated person can "make himself willing" and be ordered to do so. If you still feel there's a reason why dominate can't order that general course of action (e.g. "come with me as we teleport away,") to include making himself willing, but you'd still permit the rogue to "make himself willing" to leave behind the treasure, then you've only added extra steps that slow down the flow of the game as the caster of dominate uses threats to coerce the willingness of the target. Given the Advantage on all social interactions, it's not going to take long to make it work. I won't say it makes no difference - time is always important - but you now have this one weird little thing that dominate can't compel them to do but still can...compel them to do more slowly.


Dominate does allow commands that involve choice on the part of the target, either explicitly (e.g. "do whatever you want" or "go down the path of your choosing") or through lack of specificity (e.g. "recite an embarrassing secret"), but obviously, by definition, there isn't such an open-ended command that both allows choice and simultaneously determines what that choice will be.See my reply to the rest of this, above, in this post: You can, in fact, order somebody to make a choice that they would prefer not to, but which still requires them to make a choice. "Choose the prettiest of the prisoners to be bathed and sent to my chambers." (Sure, the dominating wizard might regret letting the dominated one make the choice if the dominated one's tastes run counter to the caster's, but it does require the dominated creature to make a value judgment and then select based on it - i.e. to choose.)


If I had been the DM, I would have allowed it right from the start because being charmed means you treat the spellcaster like a friendly acquaintance.:pushes glasses up his nose: Um, akchually...

...the Charmed condition does not do that. The charm person and charm monster and possibly other spells do, but all the Charmed condition - which is what the dominate spells inflict - only makes the subject unable to attack the being that has it Charmed, and gives the being Advantage on social rolls to influence the subject. No "friendly acquaintance" business applies.

But dominate does allow you to compel specific courses of action. "Come with me as we teleport away," is a course of action. The dominated subject now is compelled to come along, which means he has to "be willing" in the context teleport means...unless teleport is a mind-reading spell the DM is free to decide fails to work on anybody he deems doesn't "really want" to go.

[CapnWildefyr]

:pushes glasses up his nose: Um, akchually...

...the Charmed condition does not do that. The charm person and charm monster and possibly other spells do, but all the Charmed condition - which is what the dominate spells inflict - only makes the subject unable to attack the being that has it Charmed, and gives the being Advantage on social rolls to influence the subject. No "friendly acquaintance" business applies.

But dominate does allow you to compel specific courses of action. "Come with me as we teleport away," is a course of action. The dominated subject now is compelled to come along, which means he has to "be willing" in the context teleport means...unless teleport is a mind-reading spell the DM is free to decide fails to work on anybody he deems doesn't "really want" to go.

RAW, you're right, but I wasn't really trying to state RAW there, just telling how I would handle it. Not RAW, but I see dominate as an extension of charm person, aka charm on steroids. I mean, if 1st level charm turns you into a "friendly acquaintance" I personally see no reason that dominate would not also do so since it confers the charmed condition, just like charm person does. But that's interpretation, true. Having said that, I read the charm person spell description as mostly expanding on what "being charmed"/"the charmed condition" means (beyond the mechanical "grants advantage"), but I can see how it can be read differently.


A friendly acquaintance is by definition not a friend. If I were in a sewer on an assassination job, I wouldn't abandon my job because an acquaintance asked me to.

All I saw was "drow lurking in the sewers," not "drow on a specific mission." But still, you have Advantage. The other person is charmed. Getting out of a sewer for 5 minutes shouldn't sound like the caster is trying to undermine your mission, provided the request is phrased reasonably well. You might not abandon a mission for a friendly acquaintance, but you might be convinced to go out for a donut and get out of the river of **** for 5 minutes.

[Xetheral]

Where does this notion that Teleport requires some fair and square choice unimpeded by external factors comes from? Teleport requires a willing creature, the exact reason why it should be willing is not specified.

I never said that the choice had to be free from external factors. By my interpertation, the target can make the choice based on whatever criteria they want. The key, however, is that the choice whether or not to teleport must be their choice. If the caster is the one making the choice for the target, then the target (again, under my interpretation) cannot be said to be willing.


Also people are not random number generators, if they are presented with a choice, they will make it based on internal and/ot external factors in play, and Dominate person might very well be one of them. There's not much difference between "my friend Shion said that I should teleport with her, and I trust her" and "my master Dominus told me to teleport with him and I must do what my master says". The difference is that I concluded that I can trust Shion because of my experience, while I follow master Dominus because he casted Dominate on me, yes but for teleport to use that as a basis, it should reach into my mind and look for motivation, which is way too much of a stretch.

Interesting perspective on Dominate! I entirely disagree, and see all the difference in the world between your two examples. We evidently interpret Dominate as working very differently. From my perspectice, Dominate doesn't force the target to view the caster as a master who must be obeyed--instead it forces obedience regardless of the target's views. (The spell would need to have text to that effect for me to think it was capable of changing the target's view of the caster.)

And no, I don't think teleport reaches into anyone's mind. I merely think that whether or not the target teleports is a choice made by the target (as played by either a player or the DM).


No, not if you understand what I meant by it. Apparently, I did not get it across correctly.

A "voluntary action" is opposed to an "autonomous" or "reflexive" one. Breathing is semi-voluntary. Beating your heart is not voluntary. Walking is voluntary. If you have a better word than "voluntary" for the distinction, I am open to it.

Dominate can compel voluntary action, by this definition.

Thanks for clarifying! I agree.


If told to "take the fastest route to Grandma's house," and the left-hand path is obviously faster than the right-hand one (or the subject knows from prior experience that this is the case), the dominated subject is compelled to choose the left-hand path. It is making a choice.

Nothing in teleport says that it requires going with the teleportation to be the subject's "preference." Only that it be "willing." If you interpret "willingness" to be a measure of "preference," we are back to teleport reading minds (rather than merely failing to work on the uncooperative), and we once again have the case where you can't teleport the party rogue out of the dungeon as it shows signs of collapse because the party rogue prefers to stay behind and collect the treasure. Even if the party rogue feels compelled by the risk of collapsing doom, his preference is to not leave the treasure behind, so he can't be "willing."

And if you claim there's a difference, and the rogue can "make himself willing," then the dominated person can "make himself willing" and be ordered to do so. If you still feel there's a reason why dominate can't order that general course of action (e.g. "come with me as we teleport away,") to include making himself willing, but you'd still permit the rogue to "make himself willing" to leave behind the treasure, then you've only added extra steps that slow down the flow of the game as the caster of dominate uses threats to coerce the willingness of the target. Given the Advantage on all social interactions, it's not going to take long to make it work. I won't say it makes no difference - time is always important - but you now have this one weird little thing that dominate can't compel them to do but still can...compel them to do more slowly.

See my reply to the rest of this, above, in this post: You can, in fact, order somebody to make a choice that they would prefer not to, but which still requires them to make a choice. "Choose the prettiest of the prisoners to be bathed and sent to my chambers." (Sure, the dominating wizard might regret letting the dominated one make the choice if the dominated one's tastes run counter to the caster's, but it does require the dominated creature to make a value judgment and then select based on it - i.e. to choose.)

Now it's my turn to clarify. I was using "choice" (as distinct from "selection") to include an act of will. Under my interpretation, Dominate can indeed force the target to make a selection between alternatives based on a rubric. But I don't see any text in the spell forcing the target to choose the selection they're forced to make--there's no will on the part of the target involved. And an act of will is exactly what I interpret teleport's willingness provision to require.

Dominate can also provide an open-ended instruction that permits the target to make an actual choice. But, by definition, the caster can't control what choice will be made, so an open-ended command can't force the target to choose to teleport.

By my interpretation, teleport's willingness requirement can't be met if anyone but the target (as played by the player or DM) makes the choice. A spell could exist that would change the target in such a way that they might make a different choice than they otherwise would, but from my perspective, Dominate lacks any text to that effect--it compels obedience, it doesn't change the target.

What, by your reading, is the typical subjective experience of the target of Dominate? From my standpoint the target would likely be mentally screaming in horror as they helplessly watch themselves carry out orders given by the caster. If you instead view the spell as creating docile obedience in the target, I could see why you think it would be incongruous to allow the target to decide whether or not to teleport.

[Segev]

By my interpretation, teleport's willingness requirement can't be met if anyone but the target (as played by the player or DM) makes the choice.

This is why I say the crux of the disagreement, and where I think you're interpreting the rules wrong, is in teleport, and not dominate. Teleport's "willingness" requirement is exactly the same as saying "he willingly boarded the boat."

It is a question of whether physical force or an equivalent of dragging kicking and screaming is going on. Dominate ensures that it is not.

To make the boat analogy more evocative, imagine a boat driving under a bridge. This is the villain's get-away. The villain orders the dominated subject to get on the boat. There is no need to shove him; he "willingly" leaps aboard along with the villain.

The teleport spell is like that boat: it can't reach up onto the bridge to drag the subject onto itself; the subject has to willingly hop aboard. But "willing" here is, again, about cooperation, not about the inner thoughts or desires of the subject's heart.


I feel like I've reached the limit of my ability to express it in different ways. So I apologize that I'm repeating myself. To me, because it's not a divination spell and extending the alternative to its natural conclusion leads to weird failure conditions for teleport, I have to interpret "willing" to mean, in context of teleport, "cooperative" or "acquiescent." Or even "not resisting," though JC's ruling that unconscious creatures can't count as "willing" belies that one.

[Kuu Lightwing]

I never said that the choice had to be free from external factors. By my interpertation, the target can make the choice based on whatever criteria they want. The key, however, is that the choice whether or not to teleport must be their choice. If the caster is the one making the choice for the target, then the target (again, under my interpretation) cannot be said to be willing.
What is "their" choice and what is not, is a somewhat complicated question. That's why I say that you seem to require a somewhat isolated and "pure" choice. Dominate is an external factor as many other factors that could affect their decisions. And in many examples the caster doesn't even have to directly order him to become willing, he issues the command: "teleport with me". As per spell the target would follow the command to the best of its ability. The decision to become willing is not a part of the command, it just required to obey the command - something that the target does, as per spell.


Interesting perspective on Dominate! I entirely disagree, and see all the difference in the world between your two examples. We evidently interpret Dominate as working very differently. From my perspectice, Dominate doesn't force the target to view the caster as a master who must be obeyed--instead it forces obedience regardless of the target's views. (The spell would need to have text to that effect for me to think it was capable of changing the target's view of the caster.)

Whether it views the caster as a master or not, is entirely irrelevant, the observable fact is that once you give a command - the target does it's best to obey, but also will use its own judgement as to how to do what you ordered. So it's not even that you tell it what precise actions to do - like I said earlier, you may not even know that the target is able to cast Finger of Death, but if you tell it "kill your buddy" - they will cast Finger of Death if they believe it's the best way to fulfill that order. The target doesn't require your further attention after you've issued the command either. So, it does indicate that this is a spell that alters the person's mind and desires rather than mechanically manipulating them to do certain actions (although you can do that as well, but that's precise control).



And no, I don't think teleport reaches into anyone's mind. I merely think that whether or not the target teleports is a choice made by the target (as played by either a player or the DM).


Well, I'd argue if it's a choice made by target, then it's a choice that could be forced with Dominate. We are talking about very potent spell that messes with target's mind, and can be compelled to do anything, including things they would never do otherwise. I don't see why choosing to go along with Teleport or not is where the line is drawn in this case.

[Segev]

So, it does indicate that this is a spell that alters the person's mind and desires

I agree with most of what you said in your post, but want to strongly disagree with the idea that dominate alters their desires. At absolute most, it makes them somehow unable to bring themselves to attack the caster, and more susceptible to the caster's social blandishments. That's the extent to which it influences desires. It need not affect their desires to compel them to use their mind and body and skills to do their best to achieve a particular goal or follow a particular course of action. They don't need to WANT to kill their buddy; they do, however, know that finger of death is the best way to do it, so that's what they'll use, because they're compelled to do their best to obey the directive.

[Tanarii]

IMO teleports "willingly" is merely a case of agrees to or resists. Not wants to agree to or wants to resist.

And a dominated target will agree to it if ordered to do so. Regardless of what they want.

[Kuu Lightwing]

I agree with most of what you said in your post, but want to strongly disagree with the idea that dominate alters their desires. At absolute most, it makes them somehow unable to bring themselves to attack the caster, and more susceptible to the caster's social blandishments. That's the extent to which it influences desires. It need not affect their desires to compel them to use their mind and body and skills to do their best to achieve a particular goal or follow a particular course of action. They don't need to WANT to kill their buddy; they do, however, know that finger of death is the best way to do it, so that's what they'll use, because they're compelled to do their best to obey the directive.

The question is what is the mechanism behind them killing their buddy. I think that the "they now want to kill their buddy" is a perfectly valid interpretation. And it's hard to imagine what else could be used as a mechanism. Precise control over their body and actions is out of question, it's not what that part of the spell does, so they are somehow instilled with the idea that they need to kill their buddy which they follow to their best ability.

[Segev]

The question is what is the mechanism behind them killing their buddy. I think that the "they now want to kill their buddy" is a perfectly valid interpretation. And it's hard to imagine what else could be used as a mechanism. Precise control over their body and actions is out of question, it's not what that part of the spell does, so they are somehow instilled with the idea that they need to kill their buddy which they follow to their best ability.

The analogy is imperfect*, but imagine a mother whose children are being held prisoner by somebody who will do increasingly unspeakable things to them if she doesn't kill her husband's best friend. She's not a murderer by nature, and may even be friends with the target. She does not want to kill him. She wants not to kill him, perhaps, even. But she'll do it, because her children will suffer horrible fates if she doesn't.

*The imperfection arises because what is used here is "she wants more for her children not to suffer horrible fates than to not kill her husband's best friend."


With domination, there is nothing they "want more than they want not to do this thing." What domination does is literally remove their desire from the equation: they are compelled to do it. That's why it's "domination," and not "super-Charm." It's actually one way that the GoO Thrall feature is stronger, if you play it strictly according to the RAW and allow it to have usefulness: the way you bend the Thrall to your will isn't through magical domination, but by simply socially manipulating them via telepathy they can't escape from, with advantage on all your social rolls, until you bring them around to your way of thinking.

Domination turns off their ability to refuse, no matter how much they want to. They are compelled to do whatever they're told. Nothing in the spell suggests they like it or have their desires changed to wanting to do it. Not even the Charmed condition, since it's a largely mis-named condition as it was finally printed in 5e.

[Tanarii]

I see Domination as a powered-up version of Loki's scepter in the Avenger movie. You get all that, plus the option to puppeteer the directly if needed.

[Segev]

I see Domination as a powered-up version of Loki's scepter in the Avenger movie. You get all that, plus the option to puppeteer the directly if needed.

Ah, see, I would actually have rated Loki's scepter as a significantly-higher-level spell.

[ff7hero]

To make the boat analogy more evocative, imagine a boat driving under a bridge. This is the villain's get-away. The villain orders the dominated subject to get on the boat. There is no need to shove him; he "willingly" leaps aboard along with the villain.


I don't really have a horse in this race, but I would disagree with that last phrase. Assuming the Dominated party did not want to leap onto the boat, I would feel very confident stating that they unwillingly leapt aboard the boat. Like, it was literally against their will.

[Tanarii]

Ah, see, I would actually have rated Loki's scepter as a significantly-higher-level spell.
No concentration and longer than a minute, so I'd hope so.


What's the difference to you? They follow orders to the best of their ability, including quite complex ones, so it fits for me.


I don't really have a horse in this race, but I would disagree with that last phrase. Assuming the Dominated party did not want to leap onto the boat, I would feel very confident stating that they unwillingly leapt aboard the boat. Like, it was literally against their will.
Willing =/= wanting

[Segev]

What's the difference to you? They follow orders to the best of their ability, including quite complex ones, so it fits for me.

The personality change and the change in priorities. They don't just follow orders, they adopt entirely new goals overall. They may or may not be "themselves" other than the change, but the change does alter their entire sense of purpose and morality.

Dominate has specific clauses, IIRC, for resisting commands too unthinkable to the subject, indicating they're still in there and aware, even if they're compelled to act as they're instructed.

I suppose you COULD run dominate like Loki's staff, but...it doesn't really feel right, to me.

[Xetheral]

This is why I say the crux of the disagreement, and where I think you're interpreting the rules wrong, is in teleport, and not dominate. Teleport's "willingness" requirement is exactly the same as saying "he willingly boarded the boat."

It is a question of whether physical force or an equivalent of dragging kicking and screaming is going on. Dominate ensures that it is not.

To make the boat analogy more evocative, imagine a boat driving under a bridge. This is the villain's get-away. The villain orders the dominated subject to get on the boat. There is no need to shove him; he "willingly" leaps aboard along with the villain.

The teleport spell is like that boat: it can't reach up onto the bridge to drag the subject onto itself; the subject has to willingly hop aboard. But "willing" here is, again, about cooperation, not about the inner thoughts or desires of the subject's heart.


I feel like I've reached the limit of my ability to express it in different ways. So I apologize that I'm repeating myself. To me, because it's not a divination spell and extending the alternative to its natural conclusion leads to weird failure conditions for teleport, I have to interpret "willing" to mean, in context of teleport, "cooperative" or "acquiescent." Or even "not resisting," though JC's ruling that unconscious creatures can't count as "willing" belies that one.

To me, an unwilling target compelled by dominate to board a boat did not willingly board the boat, by definition. In other words, by my reading, Dominate enforces obedience, it can't change the target's willingness to follow the caster's orders. It has nothing to do with the "inner thoughts and desires of the subject's heart" and everything to do with whether the caster or the target was the one who chose (as an act of will) for the target to board the boat.

(For ordinary boats, of course, it doesn't matter whether the target willingly boarded the boat. But the teleport boat can't be boarded except by the willing.)

So yes, I agree that we are reading the willingness requirement of Teleport differently in addition to disagreeing over the effect of the Dominate spell. Accordingly, it's no surprise that we're reaching different conclusions on how the two spells interact!

I don't agree that there are any weird failure conditions with my approach, or that it turns Teleport into a divination spell.

[hamishspence]

The personality change and the change in priorities. They don't just follow orders, they adopt entirely new goals overall. They may or may not be "themselves" other than the change, but the change does alter their entire sense of purpose and morality.

Dominate has specific clauses, IIRC, for resisting commands too unthinkable to the subject, indicating they're still in there and aware, even if they're compelled to act as they're instructed.

I suppose you COULD run dominate like Loki's staff, but...it doesn't really feel right, to me.
In 3e, yes.

In 5e, there's no "resist commands too unthinkable to the subject" saves - the only thing that causes the victim to make new saves, is taking damage.

However, I would agree that part of the point of Dominate Person is that it does not in any way affect the victim's personality - a victim of Dominate Person still has the same alignment regardless of what they're doing.

[Segev]

To me, an unwilling target compelled by dominate to board a boat did not willingly board the boat, by definition. In other words, by my reading, Dominate enforces obedience, it can't change the target's willingness to follow the caster's orders. It has nothing to do with the "inner thoughts and desires of the subject's heart" and everything to do with whether the caster or the target was the one who chose (as an act of will) for the target to board the boat.

(For ordinary boats, of course, it doesn't matter whether the target willingly boarded the boat. But the teleport boat can't be boarded except by the willing.)

So yes, I agree that we are reading the willingness requirement of Teleport differently in addition to disagreeing over the effect of the Dominate spell. Accordingly, it's no surprise that we're reaching different conclusions on how the two spells interact!I don't think we're disagreeing over the dominate spell, only over what "willing" means in teleport. I think teleport is using "willing" to mean something you disagree it can mean, precisely because teleport is not a divination spell and cannot know whether somebody's true desire is to go along with it. Only whether somebody is cooperating with it or not. Dominate can order somebody to cooperate with something - I think we both agree with that. The disagreement is over whether teleport requires "willingness" to be some sort of affirmative (non-)action, or to be genuinely wanting to go along with it.


I don't agree that there are any weird failure conditions with my approach, or that it turns Teleport into a divination spell.Then you're waffling on the definition of "willing," or carving out a specific "dominate exception" to how you define it, and yes, you ARE having teleport divine the true intent of the target rather than merely requiring the target's cooperation.

The failure conditions arise whenever somebody is coerced - by other people's threats or by hazardous situations - into accepting teleportation when they don't want to (possibly due to not wanting to leave, possibly due to not wanting to go where it's going, or for any other reasons). If their metaphorical arm is metaphorically being twisted as the only reason they're going at all, teleport can't work on them because they're not "willing." I say this, because if "willingness" can be coerced, then it can be commanded.


In 3e, yes.

In 5e, there's no "resist commands too unthinkable to the subject" saves - the only thing that causes the victim to make new saves, is taking damage.Darn it, I knew it wasn't there for "suicidal acts," but I thought it was there for "getting him to kill his friends," still. My mistake.


However, I would agree that part of the point of Dominate Person is that it does not in any way affect the victim's personality - a victim of Dominate Person still has the same alignment regardless of what they're doing.Indeed, and I would - agreeing with you here and expanding, not making a counterargument - point out that the victims of Loki's staff were willing or even eager to do things that were pretty awful and against their normal alignments.

[hamishspence]

One way of looking at teleport - it doesn't read your mind, it probes your defences to see if they are "up". Your "mental shields" are by default up (even in your sleep, in 5e), and they need to be down for the spell to work.

And if "lowering mental shields" can only be done voluntarily as an act of the characters own will, then a dominated person may not be able to "lower shields" because they don't have a will anymore - their will has been replaced by the caster's will, and as such, that artificial, foreign will, cannot do things like "mental-shield lowering" because it just can't access that part.


Other commands that a dominated person may not be able to obey - thinking specific thoughts. If the party are about to do diplomacy with a telepathic race, who are going to be extremely offended by obnoxious thoughts - and one party member is dominated and ordered to "think nasty thoughts at them" - because they have no will of their own and thinking nastily is an act of will, then they simply aren't able to obey the command.

"Be in love with somebody" "Start hating orcs" and so on - things that require free will - stop being doable, the moment the dominate spell takes control.

[Xetheral]

I don't think we're disagreeing over the dominate spell, only over what "willing" means in teleport. I think teleport is using "willing" to mean something you disagree it can mean, precisely because teleport is not a divination spell and cannot know whether somebody's true desire is to go along with it. Only whether somebody is cooperating with it or not. Dominate can order somebody to cooperate with something - I think we both agree with that. The disagreement is over whether teleport requires "willingness" to be some sort of affirmative (non-)action, or to be genuinely wanting to go along with it.

Then you're waffling on the definition of "willing," or carving out a specific "dominate exception" to how you define it, and yes, you ARE having teleport divine the true intent of the target rather than merely requiring the target's cooperation.

The failure conditions arise whenever somebody is coerced - by other people's threats or by hazardous situations - into accepting teleportation when they don't want to (possibly due to not wanting to leave, possibly due to not wanting to go where it's going, or for any other reasons). If their metaphorical arm is metaphorically being twisted as the only reason they're going at all, teleport can't work on them because they're not "willing." I say this, because if "willingness" can be coerced, then it can be commanded.

Ok, I'm going to try to restate my interpretation in a different way, because from what you've written it doesn't sound like I've managed to successfully convey my meaning.


As I interpret Teleport:

Teleport requires a willing target, meaning that the target must will it to teleport. In other words, the target (as played by a player or the DM) must choose, as an act of will, to teleport. Teleport does not contain any sort of divination component.

I see these two points as entirely compatible with each other. To use your boat analogy, the spell creates a boat that can only be boarded by the willing. The spell does not "divine" who is willing and who is not willing and only let the willing on board. Instead the boat itself simply can't hold anyone who isn't willing--it lacks the ability to do so. To use a different analogy, it's like making a filter that can only pass molecules of a certain size and shape--the filter does not somehow "divine" the size and shape of the molecules, but nevertheless only molecules of the correct size and shape will pass.


As I interpret Dominate Person:

Dominate Person enforces obedience, but it cannot affect the target's will, because it lacks any text to that effect.
Because Dominate Person has no effect on the target's will, persuasion and/or coercion work normally to affect the dominated target's will (although the caster gets advantage on any related checks since the target has the Charmed condition).

Putting my interpretations of both spells together, Dominate Person cannot be used to force a target to teleport. There are no failure conditions that arise from persuasion or coercion, because both work normally on dominated targets. Furthermore, I disagree that anything can be coerced can be commanded by the caster. Persuasion and coercion can influence the target's will because that's how persuasion and coercion work in the real world. By contrast, Dominate Person cannot influence the target's will, because it's a limited magical effect whose description says nothing about affecting the target's will. And since it's the target's will that needs to be changed to get an otherwise-unwilling target to teleport, persuasion and coercion would be useful tools whereas Dominate Person would not be.

I don't think my interpretations of these spells are the only possible interpretations. But I do think my interpretations fit with the text, are self-consistent, and don't on their own create any issues with simulation or verisimilitude.

[Segev]

One way of looking at teleport - it doesn't read your mind, it probes your defences to see if they are "up". Your "mental shields" are by default up (even in your sleep, in 5e), and they need to be down for the spell to work.

And if "lowering mental shields" can only be done voluntarily as an act of the characters own will, then a dominated person may not be able to "lower shields" because they don't have a will anymore - their will has been replaced by the caster's will, and as such, that artificial, foreign will, cannot do things like "mental-shield lowering" because it just can't access that part.


Other commands that a dominated person may not be able to obey - thinking specific thoughts. If the party are about to do diplomacy with a telepathic race, who are going to be extremely offended by obnoxious thoughts - and one party member is dominated and ordered to "think nasty thoughts at them" - because they have no will of their own and thinking nastily is an act of will, then they simply aren't able to obey the command.

"Be in love with somebody" "Start hating orcs" and so on - things that require free will - stop being doable, the moment the dominate spell takes control.I don't see how you can stop them from thinking specific thoughts. If nothing else, "don't think about pink elephants" would be the impossible order, not "think about pink elephants."


Ok, I'm going to try to restate my interpretation in a different way, because from what you've written it doesn't sound like I've managed to successfully convey my meaning.


As I interpret Teleport:

Teleport requires a willing target, meaning that the target must will it to teleport. In other words, the target (as played by a player or the DM) must choose, as an act of will, to teleport. Teleport does not contain any sort of divination component.

I see these two points as entirely compatible with each other. To use your boat analogy, the spell creates a boat that can only be boarded by the willing. The spell does not "divine" who is willing and who is not willing and only let the willing on board. Instead the boat itself simply can't hold anyone who isn't willing--it lacks the ability to do so. To use a different analogy, it's like making a filter that can only pass molecules of a certain size and shape--the filter does not somehow "divine" the size and shape of the molecules, but nevertheless only molecules of the correct size and shape will pass.


As I interpret Dominate Person:

Dominate Person enforces obedience, but it cannot affect the target's will, because it lacks any text to that effect.
Because Dominate Person has no effect on the target's will, persuasion and/or coercion work normally to affect the dominated target's will (although the caster gets advantage on any related checks since the target has the Charmed condition).

Putting my interpretations of both spells together, Dominate Person cannot be used to force a target to teleport. There are no failure conditions that arise from persuasion or coercion, because both work normally on dominated targets. Furthermore, I disagree that anything can be coerced can be commanded by the caster. Persuasion and coercion can influence the target's will because that's how persuasion and coercion work in the real world. By contrast, Dominate Person cannot influence the target's will, because it's a limited magical effect whose description says nothing about affecting the target's will. And since it's the target's will that needs to be changed to get an otherwise-unwilling target to teleport, persuasion and coercion would be useful tools whereas Dominate Person would not be.

I don't think my interpretations of these spells are the only possible interpretations. But I do think my interpretations fit with the text, are self-consistent, and don't on their own create any issues with simulation or verisimilitude.

Replying to both of these, as they seem to say much the same things:

If "lowering mental shields" can be done voluntarily, then it absolutely can be ordered by dominate. Just like you can order somebody to solve math problems with dominate.

Creating this arbitrary "can't order acts of will" or worse, "can't order this one specific act of will despite being able to order others, because reasons," is not consistent ruling and is not sensible ruling. It's special pleading for teleport to not work.

Xetheral, in particular, I think you're actually wrong about the logic you're applying to your own interpretation. If teleport is a boat that people must "willingly" board, then they can be ordered to board it by dominate. Just like they can be ordered to board any real boat by dominate.

The alternative still leaves us with teleport being unable to work on somebody who is in any way coerced or even doubtful of their absolute desire to be teleported. Thus, if the DM decides you've any trepidation, any hesitancy, any reason not to agree at all, no matter how much you want to, he can rule teleport doesn't work on you.

Which would be an interesting nerf to the spell to prevent its casual use to transport around the world, but is definitely not what anybody seems to think the intent of the spell is.



All of this, in the end, feels like special pleading to carve out an exception that makes dominated characters somehow un-teleportable. Frankly, if the creature is already dominated such that you could order them to step through a magical portal, the idea that you can't order them to come with you as you teleport is nearly pointless. Triply so when you consider that dominate allows you to game the persuasion rules to the point that you can convince the target to come with you "willingly" anyway, via threats and cajolling. Unless, of course, you're being consistent enough that you would forbid a rogue from teleporting out of a collapsing castle because it would mean leaving the treasure behind.

[hamishspence]

Thus, if the DM decides you've any trepidation, any hesitancy, any reason not to agree at all, no matter how much you want to, he can rule teleport doesn't work on you.


The difference is that only the player gets to decide what the character thinks about anything.

However, I could easily see the players getting annoyed if the DM pulls it on their cohorts, pets, etc.

Saying "Did you know that bears dislike magic, and automatically count as Unwilling for all spells" will irritate the druid with pet bears, big time, and might count as an unfair trick to play.




If "lowering mental shields" can be done voluntarily, then it absolutely can be ordered by dominate. Just like you can order somebody to solve math problems with dominate.


In this paradigm, dominate is like putting a person to sleep - it grants special things that regular sleep doesn't (obedience) but it also has some of the drawbacks of regular sleep.

[Unoriginal]

One way of looking at teleport - it doesn't read your mind, it probes your defences to see if they are "up". Your "mental shields" are by default up (even in your sleep, in 5e), and they need to be down for the spell to work.

And if "lowering mental shields" can only be done voluntarily as an act of the characters own will, then a dominated person may not be able to "lower shields" because they don't have a will anymore - their will has been replaced by the caster's will, and as such, that artificial, foreign will, cannot do things like "mental-shield lowering" because it just can't access that part.

The fact that you have to allow the spell to affect the creature is a sign that it is something that can be done when the creature allows it.

There is no "as an act of the characters own will" clause.



Other commands that a dominated person may not be able to obey - thinking specific thoughts. If the party are about to do diplomacy with a telepathic race, who are going to be extremely offended by obnoxious thoughts - and one party member is dominated and ordered to "think nasty thoughts at them" - because they have no will of their own and thinking nastily is an act of will, then they simply aren't able to obey the command.

A Dominated character can be made to follow a simple course of action, that includes "say nasty things", and so also "think nasty thoughts". Unless the creature is unable to think nasty thoughts.



"Be in love with somebody" "Start hating orcs" and so on - things that require free will - stop being doable, the moment the dominate spell takes control.

Feelings are involuntarily reactions to what you perceive. You can't force someone to start hating orcs, but you can definitively force someone to say/think hateful things about orcs.

[Segev]

The difference is that only the player gets to decide what the character thinks about anything.

However, I could easily see the players getting annoyed if the DM pulls it on their cohorts, pets, etc.

Saying "Did you know that bears dislike magic, and automatically count as Unwilling for all spells" will irritate the druid with pet bears, big time, and might count as an unfair trick to play.Not really all that unfair if "willingness" cannot be a conscious choice that is as compellable as "calculate the time it will take for a rock to hit the ground if I drop it from this cliff." That compels thought as part of the action.


In this paradigm, dominate is like putting a person to sleep - it grants special things that regular sleep doesn't (obedience) but it also has some of the drawbacks of regular sleep.It can't be, though, because the subject is able to think, reason, calculate, and perform all mental actions he always could, as long as they're required to follow the orders he's given.

Which would include, "come along as we teleport away."

[Ettina]

And if "lowering mental shields" can only be done voluntarily as an act of the characters own will, then a dominated person may not be able to "lower shields" because they don't have a will anymore - their will has been replaced by the caster's will, and as such, that artificial, foreign will, cannot do things like "mental-shield lowering" because it just can't access that part.

How does their will being replaced by the caster's imply that they can't be teleported? To me, it implies that the caster's will replaces their own in deciding if they're willing to be teleported, just as it does in everything else they do. Your own conclusion seems directly contradicted by your argument.

[LoneLizardT]

In this paradigm, dominate is like putting a person to sleep - it grants special things that regular sleep doesn't (obedience) but it also has some of the drawbacks of regular sleep.



It can't be, though, because the subject is able to think, reason, calculate, and perform all mental actions he always could, as long as they're required to follow the orders he's given.

Which would include, "come along as we teleport away."
Are any of you familiar with the phenomena of sleepwalking? I could see being dominated as like that. Even if you disagree, I find amusing that being proficient in whatever means "literally being able to do it in your sleep".

[Segev]

Are any of you familiar with the phenomena of sleepwalking? I could see being dominated as like that. Even if you disagree, I find amusing that being proficient in whatever means "literally being able to do it in your sleep".

That is amusing.

But it also would imply that they can "become willing" in their sleep, since they are clearly not incapacitated.

[Unoriginal]

For the people ple arguing that Dominate Person prevents all acts requiring the target's will, I have one question:

Does Dominate Person prevent using at will abilities?

[ff7hero]

For the people ple arguing that Dominate Person prevents all acts requiring the target's will, I have one question:

Does Dominate Person prevent using at will abilities?

Or deciding who gets their stuff when they die?

[AdAstra]

For the people ple arguing that Dominate Person prevents all acts requiring the target's will, I have one question:

Does Dominate Person prevent using at will abilities?

That's not a game term in 5e, is it? If not, it doesn't really apply because "at will" abilities don't exist.

EDIT: Ah, okay, nvm, there are quite a few with regards to spells.

[Xetheral]

Xetheral, in particular, I think you're actually wrong about the logic you're applying to your own interpretation. If teleport is a boat that people must "willingly" board, then they can be ordered to board it by dominate. Just like they can be ordered to board any real boat by dominate.

The alternative still leaves us with teleport being unable to work on somebody who is in any way coerced or even doubtful of their absolute desire to be teleported. Thus, if the DM decides you've any trepidation, any hesitancy, any reason not to agree at all, no matter how much you want to, he can rule teleport doesn't work on you.

My logic is a simple syllogism:


Premise: Teleport requires the target (as played by a player or the DM) to choose, as an act of will, to teleport.
Premise: Dominate commands can't affect the target's will.
Conclusion: Dominate commands can't make the target teleport.

If you truly see something wrong with this logic, let's discuss. If instead your problem is with the interpretations of the spells that serve as the premises for my conclusion, that's fine--we already know that we disagree on how we interpret these spells. In that case, please accept what I am telling you about how I am interpreting the spells: I am not interpreting teleport to fail as a result of social coercion. You do not know how I am interpreting the spell better than I do.

Further, I do not consider social coercion to be "gaming the persuasion rules"--influencing another character's will is the entire purpose of persuasion.


For the people ple arguing that Dominate Person prevents all acts requiring the target's will, I have one question:

Does Dominate Person prevent using at will abilities?

No, "at-will" in the context of describing abilities refers to frequency of use. This contrasts with "willing" in the Teleport description that (as I interpret it) refers to the target's will.

[Unoriginal]

No, "at-will" in the context of describing abilities refers to frequency of use. This contrasts with "willing" in the Teleport description that (as I interpret it) refers to the target's will.

But an at-will ability is usable at the ability-haver's will, no?


My logic is a simple syllogism:


Premise: Teleport requires the target (as played by a player or the DM) to choose, as an act of will, to teleport.
Premise: Dominate commands can't affect the target's will.
Conclusion: Dominate commands can't make the target teleport.



I mean, the second premise cannot be correct. Dominate Person's whole point is to affect the target's will.

More specifically, it makes the target's will be overcome by the caster's.

[Tanarii]

Premise: Dominate commands can't affect the target's will.
This is where your logic breaks down.

[Segev]

My logic is a simple syllogism:


Premise: Teleport requires the target (as played by a player or the DM) to choose, as an act of will, to teleport.
Premise: Dominate commands can't affect the target's will.
Conclusion: Dominate commands can't make the target teleport.

If you truly see something wrong with this logic, let's discuss. If instead your problem is with the interpretations of the spells that serve as the premises for my conclusion, that's fine--we already know that we disagree on how we interpret these spells. In that case, please accept what I am telling you about how I am interpreting the spells: I am not interpreting teleport to fail as a result of social coercion. You do not know how I am interpreting the spell better than I do.

Further, I do not consider social coercion to be "gaming the persuasion rules"--influencing another character's will is the entire purpose of persuasion.


[Premise 2] is where your logic breaks down.

I agree, but I also think it breaks down if you don't accept that you have now forbidden dominate to require any non-physical activity. Unless you've created this unique carve-out where teleport - again, uniquely - requires "an act of will" that is truly nothing more than that and cannot be compelled, whereas the act of will to calculate 2+2, or the act of will for a Telekinetic to cast mage hand, or the act of will to control a mage hand, or the act of will to pull up in your memory the information that the caster of dominate has ordered you to reveal to him, are all things it somehow can compel.

In other words: I do not believe you're being consistent in your application of Premise 2, because I doubt you've so severely nerfed dominate to the point that it can't require anything that requires something other than meat-puppetry. This is, for the record, violating the RAW of dominate, which absolutely can compel courses of action which require acts of will.

Actually, that's where Premise 2 fails most outright: dominate can compel any act, including an act of will. The rules say so. The rules would require an explicit carve-out saying it can't compel acts of will in order to remove them from the category of "a simple and general course of action." "Come with me while we teleport" is at least as simple and general as "go fetch that object."

[ProsecutorGodot]

"Come with me while we teleport" is at least as simple and general as "go fetch that object."

I just want to point out as well that my repeatedly stating a command that includes "while I teleport" is already excessive, it's something I've done intentionally to illustrate the goal of the command and I think others have done the same.

An even simpler "come with me" should prompt willingness in any efforts you make to leave, whether you walk out or teleport. I'm pointing this out to reinforce that the command is in fact a simple and general course of action. That's the only true limitation of what you can do with the telepathic link.

[Segev]

I just want to point out as well that my repeatedly stating a command that includes "while I teleport" is already excessive, it's something I've done intentionally to illustrate the goal of the command and I think others have done the same.

An even simpler "come with me" should prompt willingness in any efforts you make to leave, whether you walk out or teleport. I'm pointing this out to reinforce that the command is in fact a simple and general course of action. That's the only true limitation of what you can do with the telepathic link.

Oh, I agree; I include that clause just to eliminate any distracting debate over whether "Oh, he'll just walk all that distance" is a reasonable interpretation, because it isn't the aspect of this in debate.

[MaxWilson]

The personality change and the change in priorities. They don't just follow orders, they adopt entirely new goals overall. They may or may not be "themselves" other than the change, but the change does alter their entire sense of purpose and morality.

Dominate has specific clauses, IIRC, for resisting commands too unthinkable to the subject, indicating they're still in there and aware, even if they're compelled to act as they're instructed.

I suppose you COULD run dominate like Loki's staff, but...it doesn't really feel right, to me.

It's really too bad they couldn't just keep Loki's staff and use it on Thanos. A lot of lives would have been saved.

[ff7hero]

It's really too bad they couldn't just keep Loki's staff and use it on Thanos. A lot of lives would have been saved.

Not to veer this too far off topic, but Thanos did kind of face off against the Scepter. Thanos was on top of his game, and the Scepter had seen better days, but from a certain perspective the Scepter was used on Thanos. It didn't end well for the Scepter.

Also, to the spirit of your thought, I doubt Thanos would have given Loki the Scepter if he thought that it would work on him.

[Xetheral]

But an at-will ability is usable at the ability-haver's will, no?

That's not what I interpret the phrase "at-will" to be communicating in that context. Instead, I interpret it only to be communicating how often the ability can be used.


I mean, the second premise cannot be correct. Dominate Person's whole point is to affect the target's will.

More specifically, it makes the target's will be overcome by the caster's.

I entirely disagree. Dominate Person magically compels obedience, but says nothing about affecting the target's will. In the real world, obedience requires persuading someone to willfully follow your commands--we lack the technology to make someone do something unwillingly (caveats for electrically induced muscle contractions and what very little we can do with direct brain stimulation). As a magical spell, Dominate Person is not subject to the same constraints. Ergo, I think it is perfectly plausible that Dominate Person causes unwilling obedience. As I see it, the target is likely mutely screaming in their head as they watch themselves obey the caster despite not choosing to do so. That effect would be impossible in the real world, but Dominate Person is magic.


This is where your logic breaks down.


I agree, but I also think it breaks down if you don't accept that you have now forbidden dominate to require any non-physical activity. Unless you've created this unique carve-out where teleport - again, uniquely - requires "an act of will" that is truly nothing more than that and cannot be compelled, whereas the act of will to calculate 2+2, or the act of will for a Telekinetic to cast mage hand, or the act of will to control a mage hand, or the act of will to pull up in your memory the information that the caster of dominate has ordered you to reveal to him, are all things it somehow can compel.

In other words: I do not believe you're being consistent in your application of Premise 2, because I doubt you've so severely nerfed dominate to the point that it can't require anything that requires something other than meat-puppetry. This is, for the record, violating the RAW of dominate, which absolutely can compel courses of action which require acts of will.

Actually, that's where Premise 2 fails most outright: dominate can compel any act, including an act of will. The rules say so. The rules would require an explicit carve-out saying it can't compel acts of will in order to remove them from the category of "a simple and general course of action." "Come with me while we teleport" is at least as simple and general as "go fetch that object."

Segev, I presented my syllogism because you called into question the validity of my logic. However, the validity of my logic, by definition, does not depend on the truth of my premises. Therefore, your and Tanarii's claim that one of my premises is false is not a claim that my logic is flawed. Instead, it's merely a continuation of our disagreement over how to interpret the Dominate Person spell. If you have an actual claim that my conclusion does not follow from my premises, please present it. Otherwise, please stop claiming my logic is flawed. I'm making a very, very simple logical argument--indeed, the simplicity of it is why I originally joined this thread to point out that people were making the "can't be commanded to teleport" interpretation far more complicated than it needs to be.

Notably, I've been claiming from my first response to you, here (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=25070988&postcount=162), that we're simply disagreeing about how we interpret Dominate Person, so it's nice to see we're finally on the same page in terms of the main point of contention. To address your specific critiques of my interpretation of Dominate Person:

My interpretation of Dominate Person allows non-physical commands--the target simply carries them out unwillingly, just as they carry out physical commands unwillingly (exception for the rare case where the target chooses to do what they're commanded to do, rendering the magical compulsion superfluous). Unwillingly carrying out commands works just fine, except for when willingness is a prerequisite for the command to succeed. The text of Dominate Person requires obedience--it says nothing about requiring willing obedience. When you claim that RAW states that dominate "absolutely can compel courses of action which require acts of will" you are adding text to the spell that literally isn't there. Your example commands of "calculate 2+2" or "cast mage hand" are not "acts of will" as I am using the phrase. Commands requiring an act of will as I am using the phrase would be things like: "obey me willingly", "sincerely devote yourself to my cause", or "honestly disavow your spouse". I would rule that all these commands fail on the basis that they are beyond the scope of the control provided by Dominate Person, which says nothing about giving the caster control over the target's will. I disagree with your claim that Dominate can compel any act. For example, the command "continue to obey me when the Dominate Person spell expires" has no effect on the target, because it is beyond the scope of the control provided by the spell. Similarly, outright impossible commands such as "say something that is simultaneously true and false" also fail, as would "remember something you never knew". Then there's the category of physically possible acts that nevertheless can't be commanded by the spell, in particular: "spontaneously <x>", which fails because if you're following an order to do <x> you aren't doing <x> spontaneously. I think you'll agree that all of these examples are acts that Dominate cannot compel, despite the spell text not having explicit carve-outs for any of them, yes? Under my interpretation, "go fetch that object" would fail similarly to "come with me while we teleport" if there existed an object that could only be picked up willingly. Without such an object, the two commands are not comparable.

[Segev]

To address your specific critiques of my interpretation of Dominate Person:

My interpretation of Dominate Person allows non-physical commands--the target simply carries them out unwillingly, just as they carry out physical commands unwillingly (exception for the rare case where the target chooses to do what they're commanded to do, rendering the magical compulsion superfluous). Unwillingly carrying out commands works just fine, except for when willingness is a prerequisite for the command to succeed. The text of Dominate Person requires obedience--it says nothing about requiring willing obedience. When you claim that RAW states that dominate "absolutely can compel courses of action which require acts of will" you are adding text to the spell that literally isn't there. Your example commands of "calculate 2+2" or "cast mage hand" are not "acts of will" as I am using the phrase. Commands requiring an act of will as I am using the phrase would be things like: "obey me willingly", "sincerely devote yourself to my cause", or "honestly disavow your spouse". I would rule that all these commands fail on the basis that they are beyond the scope of the control provided by Dominate Person, which says nothing about giving the caster control over the target's will. I disagree with your claim that Dominate can compel any act. For example, the command "continue to obey me when the Dominate Person spell expires" has no effect on the target, because it is beyond the scope of the control provided by the spell. Similarly, outright impossible commands such as "say something that is simultaneously true and false" also fail, as would "remember something you never knew". Then there's the category of physically possible acts that nevertheless can't be commanded by the spell, in particular: "spontaneously <x>", which fails because if you're following an order to do <x> you aren't doing <x> spontaneously. I think you'll agree that all of these examples are acts that Dominate cannot compel, despite the spell text not having explicit carve-outs for any of them, yes? Under my interpretation, "go fetch that object" would fail similarly to "come with me while we teleport" if there existed an object that could only be picked up willingly. Without such an object, the two commands are not comparable.

Just as "at-will" doesn't necessarily mean "willingly doing it" in the context of "at-will abilities," you are misconstruing teleport's use of "willing" when you try to claim it requires desire on the part of the subject. Nowhere does dominate say it creates exceptions. If you give the subject an order, they will carry it out to the best of their ability. If this means they must "become willing to be teleported," they are compelled to do so. Where I think you are incorrectly reading teleport is in what "willing" means: it merely means "cooperative," or "acquiescent," or "compliant."

Your reading of dominate somehow excluding whatever is required to enable teleport to work extends from an incorrect interpretation of "willing" in that context coupled with a reading of dominate that does not extend from the text of the spell.

Your premise number 2 is not correct. I said your logic was bad because I did not presume you were ignoring the text of dominate, but that, essentially, what you term "premise 2" was actually derived logically from dominate's wording. Which would be logically incorrect to do, as it violates dominate's text.

[Tanarii]

A false premise is a breakdown in logic.

[Xetheral]

Just as "at-will" doesn't necessarily mean "willingly doing it" in the context of "at-will abilities," you are misconstruing teleport's use of "willing" when you try to claim it requires desire on the part of the subject. Nowhere does dominate say it creates exceptions. If you give the subject an order, they will carry it out to the best of their ability. If this means they must "become willing to be teleported," they are compelled to do so. Where I think you are incorrectly reading teleport is in what "willing" means: it merely means "cooperative," or "acquiescent," or "compliant."

Your reading of dominate somehow excluding whatever is required to enable teleport to work extends from an incorrect interpretation of "willing" in that context coupled with a reading of dominate that does not extend from the text of the spell.

I don't see anything new to respond to here. You appear to simply be reasserting that you disagree with my interpretation of Teleport and Dominate, without addressing my substantive responses that you quoted.


Your premise number 2 is not correct. I said your logic was bad because I did not presume you were ignoring the text of dominate, but that, essentially, what you term "premise 2" was actually derived logically from dominate's wording. Which would be logically incorrect to do, as it violates dominate's text.

Premise 2 is my interpretation of the text of Dominate Person. You can disagree with it all you like but that doesn't make it somehow "logically incorrect" or wrong. As discussed in the post you quoted I happen to disagree with your interpretation too, so we're on even footing here.


A false premise is a breakdown in logic.

That statement is wrong, by definition. If your statement were true, applying logic to hypothetical and counterfactual situations would be impossible. Heck, D&D itself would be impossible, as the entire fictional game world is one giant counterfactual.

[Tanarii]

That statement is wrong, by definition. If your statement were true, applying logic to hypothetical and counterfactual situations would be impossible. Heck, D&D itself would be impossible, as the entire fictional game world is one giant counterfactual.
You can try to apply logical methodology. But it fails when the premise fails.

[Xetheral]

You can try to apply logical methodology. But it fails when the premise fails.

So how does D&D work then, if logical methodology fails when applied to an untrue premise? All of the premises in the fiction are untrue, but somehow gamemasters have been successfully applying logical methodology to resolve ad-hoc action declarations since D&D was first created.

[Telok]

Similarly, outright impossible commands such as "say something that is simultaneously true and false" also fail,

"The next sentence is a lie. The previous sentence is true."

"This statement is a lie."

These are basic language/logic paradoxes.

[Xetheral]

"The next sentence is a lie. The previous sentence is true."

"This statement is a lie."

These are basic language/logic paradoxes.

They are paradoxes because they don't have a truth value, not because they are simultaneously true and false.

[Stabbey]

Premise 2 is my interpretation of the text of Dominate Person. You can disagree with it all you like but that doesn't make it somehow "logically incorrect" or wrong. As discussed in the post you quoted I happen to disagree with your interpretation too, so we're on even footing here.

When your interpretation of the text is faulty, that makes it wrong by definition.

You can personally interpret the the arithmetic equation "2 + 2" to result in a total of 5 all you want, but it's still wrong.

[Mastikator]

They are paradoxes because they don't have a truth value, not because they are simultaneously true and false.

To be fair the dominated person only needs to think that "this statement is a lie" is both true and false for it to carry out that order. Also if that paradox didn't occur to the dominated target it would still just not do it. Dominate person does not give the target any new information.

[Segev]

The issue is that Dominate nowhere supports, and has requirements counter to, "premise 2."

You could say that you interpret the fly spell to let you breathe water; and your conclusions extending from that premise would be wrong.

[Xetheral]

When your interpretation of the text is faulty, that makes it wrong by definition.

You can personally interpret the the arithmetic equation "2 + 2" to result in a total of 5 all you want, but it's still wrong.

You are using an interesting definition of the word "wrong". Even if it were somehow possible for a textual interpretation to have a truth value, there's still the problem that there exists no objective method to determine which of two competing textual interpretations is "correct", rendering the question subjective in practice.

Solving an arithmetic problem is not an exercise in textual interpretation. If I claimed that 2+2=5 I would indeed be wrong. Similarly, if I made an incorrect factual claim about what words were present in a statement I would also be wrong. Conversely, interpretation of the meaning of a text is a question of opinion. I could make an untrue statement regarding my interpretation of the meaning of a text--either by accident or because I was lying about what I interpreted a text to mean--but that wouldn't make my interpretation itself false, only my description of it.


To be fair the dominated person only needs to think that "this statement is a lie" is both true and false for it to carry out that order. Also if that paradox didn't occur to the dominated target it would still just not do it. Dominate person does not give the target any new information.

Good point. I withdraw that particular example of an impossible command.

[Stabbey]

Solving an arithmetic problem is not an exercise in textual interpretation. If I claimed that 2+2=5 I would indeed be wrong. Similarly, if I made an incorrect factual claim about what words were present in a statement I would also be wrong.

I'm glad you said that. As has been pointed out to you, your Premise #2 is not supported by the text of the Dominate spell. The truth is that nowhere in the description of the Dominate spell is there anything along the lines of "...unless the subject doesn't will the action to happen". You have made an incorrect factual claim.

[CapnWildefyr]

Perhaps another example might help here:
In Star Trek, Dr. McCoy hates the transporter, right? He is always unwilling to use it, but he always beams down to the planet surface anyway.

"Unwilling" in the sense used in the teleport spell simply means "acquiescence," not a conscious act. If I cribbed the correct text, the spell states:
"This spell instantly transports you and up to eight willing creatures of your choice that you can see within range, or a single object that you can see within range, to a destination you select. "

Let's swap out some terms. Which sounds better?

"This spell instantly transports you and up to eight acquiescing-to-teleporting-wth-you creatures of your choice that you can see within range... "

or

"This spell instantly transports you and up to eight creatures, who must consciously focus on the act of going with you via teleport, of your choice that you can see within range... " [if you are consciously 'willing' something, we have to use wording that reflects that this must take some effort]

Like Dr. McCoy, once you're on the transporter pad, you're going whether you like it or not. Here, with the dominate spell, if the caster wants you to go, you go whether or not it makes you happy inside. You go because you got ordered to go, therefore you are considered "willing" because you accept the order.

Also do not forget -- at this point, the target has already failed their save. Their Wisdom (willpower) save. That roll must have some consequences. If this happened to me as a player (and oh, wait, yeah, it has!), next time I just need to roll better on my save vs dominate.

Segev's arguments are sound.

[Xetheral]

The issue is that Dominate nowhere supports, and has requirements counter to, "premise 2."

We disagree on that point. If you'd like to continue to discuss it, please engage with my substantive responses to your objections. Merely reasserting your competing interpretation of the text isn't helpful.


You could say that you interpret the fly spell to let you breathe water; and your conclusions extending from that premise would be wrong.

If one somehow honestly interpreted the text of the fly spell to mean that the target could breathe water, I suspect we would both agree that the interpretation was a poor one. Accordingly, it would be reasonable for us each to reject any conclusions they drew from that premise. But the mere fact that we doubted the truth of that premise would not give us cause to reject as invalid the logic leading from the rejected premise to the conclusion.

Similarly, because you disagree with my interpretations of teleport and dominate I expect you to reject my conclusion about how they interact. I've never asked you to agree with my conclusion. But I object to you using your disagreement with my interpretation to attack the logic that leads from my premise to my conclusion.

At this point, can I assume you agree that IF my premises were true, my conclusion would also be true?



Solving an arithmetic problem is not an exercise in textual interpretation. If I claimed that 2+2=5 I would indeed be wrong. Similarly, if I made an incorrect factual claim about what words were present in a statement I would also be wrong. I'm glad you said that. As has been pointed out to you, your Premise #2 is not supported by the text of the Dominate spell. The truth is that nowhere in the description of the Dominate spell is there anything along the lines of "...unless the subject doesn't will the action to happen". You have made an incorrect factual claim.

Note that in the post you quoted I said I would be wrong "if I made an incorrect factual claim about what words were present in a statement". Premise #2 is not a claim about what words are present in the text of the Dominate Person spell. Premise #2 is an interpretation of what those words mean. I distinguished these two concepts in the post that you quoted, but you appear to have ignored the distinction.

[Stabbey]

{scrubbed}

[Tanarii]

So how does D&D work then, if logical methodology fails when applied to an untrue premise? Since when does D&D use logic to work?

More seriously, your premise is false within the context of the D&D rules under discussion. So the logic that extends from it also fails.

[Xetheral]

Since when does D&D use logic to work?

More seriously, your premise is false within the context of the D&D rules under discussion. So the logic that extends from it also fails.

Could you please clarify what you're asserting? Are you asserting that because you think my premise is false you also think my conclusion is false? (If so, great--I fully expect that anyone who doesn't agree with my interpretations of Teleport or Dominate will also disagree with my conclusion.) Or are you asserting that my conclusion would not follow from my premises even if those premises were true? (If so, please explain why you think my conclusion does not follow from my premises.)

[ProsecutorGodot]

Could you please clarify what you're asserting? Are you asserting that because you think my premise is false you also think my conclusion is false? (If so, great--I fully expect that anyone who doesn't agree with my interpretations of Teleport or Dominate will also disagree with my conclusion.) Or are you asserting that my conclusion would not follow from my premises even if those premises were true? (If so, please explain why you think my conclusion does not follow from my premises.)
Just to bring it back around to how you originally proposed your argument:

At my table the willingness of a conscious character is determined by the player of that character (or the GM, in the case of an NPC). Magical compulsion can never take that choice away unless the spell explicitly gives control over the target's state of mind. Dominate does not explicitly give control over the target's state of mind. Ergo, at my table, the player of the targeted character gets to decide if their character is willing to be teleported.

Unconscious characters lack any state of mind, so at my table they lack the willingness required by teleport.

To my understanding, my approach is consistent with both the text and JC's tweet, but it's not the only such approach.

Spells (charm spells especially) are much better at explaining the specifics of what they can't do rather than what they can, and nothing in Dominate Person says anything about an inability to affect a targets state of mind. That's the premise of your argument here.

Example:
Charm Person only forces them to regard you as a friendly acquaintance. The rules tell us that a friendly creature will usually perform a task that requires no risk, effort or cost without question and can probably be convinced to take risks, the DMG suggests a DC 20 check to take significant risk. That's only a suggestion though, you have no direct power over their actions whatsoever.

Command can't be directly harmful. Any single word command that can be performed "at-will" is fair game, so long as it doesn't directly harm them. They will perform it to the best of their ability.

Suggestion must sound reasonable and can't be obviously self destructive or harmful.

Compulsion will prevent a target from walking into an obviously deadly hazard, but not from taking opportunity attacks. It doesn't prevent them from taking any actions.

Geas can be any activity short of one that causes certain death, and does nothing to prevent the creature from doing that activity save for fear of retribution. If the creature is confident they can survive the damage, the activity might as well not be restricted at all.

Modify Memory explicitly (actually explicit, not the "implied" explicit interpretation you seem to see in Dominate Person) says that it doesn't force a creatures subsequent behavior, and is unlikely to have any noticeable effect in cases where you make someone "remember" doing something that is counter to their typical behaviors or is too illogical to be remembered as a real thought.

Dominate Person forces them to act out the command. No restrictions for risk aversion, no mention of their hesitancy, no mention of limitations on commands other than that the request should be "simple" assuming that this is the non-action telepathic command. There are almost zero restrictions on the activities you can force someone under this spell to do without using an action, and literally zero under the complete domination effect.

You can continue to present it as an opinion, but know that with nothing in the rules to actually back that opinion you won't be very persuasive. Dominate is the most powerful charm spell in 5e, you can force someone to do anything with almost no restrictions.

[Ettina]

Premise: Dominate commands can't affect the target's will.

To me, that's like claiming that a fireball can't set things on fire. Affecting the target's will is literally the entire point of the spell. If it just puppeteered their body, it'd be a Strength saving throw.