Against its nature?
Merkuri
Explorer
I'd think ordering one to fight his or her former allies would be against their nature unless they were already scheming against them or didn't get along with them. A mercenary forced to attack mercenaries hired for the same purpose (assuming they didn't know each other in the first place) probably wouldn't be going against his nature, but an soldier in an army would be going against his nature to fight one of his comrades, who has probably become a good friend over the years of training and battle.
TheGogmagog
First Post
As the disputes above show, It's up to DM's judgement of what someone's nature is. The closest mechanical ruling would be alignment based. I believe obviously suicidal acts are clarified. While not fatal, I would say self preservation instinct would make you resist a mind fog.
However, I suppose if you didn't have spellcraft ranks, and failed a bluff you might not resist a spell. The problem with mind fog though is the obvious visual effects, which would make that pretty big bluff.
Worst case they make the second save to resist the dominate effect, they still have to save against the mind fog as normal. Then you would need to re-cast the dominate person.
However, I suppose if you didn't have spellcraft ranks, and failed a bluff you might not resist a spell. The problem with mind fog though is the obvious visual effects, which would make that pretty big bluff.
Worst case they make the second save to resist the dominate effect, they still have to save against the mind fog as normal. Then you would need to re-cast the dominate person.
Goddess FallenAngel
Explorer
kolikeos said:
Personally as a DM, I would say no. I interpret not resisting hostile spells as something against a person's nature, thus provoking another Dominate save, as well as the save vs. Mind Fog.
But, really, ask your DM. As you can see, everyone has different interpretations of what 'against their nature' means.
Dross
Explorer
Tonguez said:
Are you saying that it is in a paladin's nature to turn on his friends, betray them without a moment's thought, with no evidence of evil-ness or puppy kicking (to go over the top)?
Actually to me the "better" way to go is to try to get the paly to stop the other party memebers attacking the caster. So the paly could simply say "Hold up a minute guys" and maybe grapple someone to stop them attacking (non-hurt methods).
For the OP
I'm tempted to think that an overtly hostile spell cast on someone dominated is the same as attacking them with a weapon: fairly obvious that someone wants to do harm.
A less obviously harmfull spell gets trickier but the dominator could phrase it: allow me to cast a spell on you and the recipient *could* forgo the save.
Ask yourself this: in the normal course of events, would you let a PC get away with this tactic?
TheGogmagog
First Post
I would consider subjecting myself to a mind fog as against my nature. If I were you I would target him with a mind fog and hope he fails his save. You might be able to convince him to enter/stay in the area multiple rounds, but I think that's stretching it without some logical reason: ie, "Paladin dude, grapple/hold your friend in the area of effect so that he 'can be reasoned with'. I'll restore you once you are done, so don't worry about the effects."
If you are doing this to a PC, remember this is for the players fun as much for yours. If your ruling is going to be the basis of a long grudge error on the side of the player. It could also come back to you as a PC cheat also.
If you are doing this to a PC, remember this is for the players fun as much for yours. If your ruling is going to be the basis of a long grudge error on the side of the player. It could also come back to you as a PC cheat also.
Similar Threads
Level Up (A5E)
Are you your own ally for the Help action in combat?
