Another "Dominate" question

[Vegepygmy]

For me, the fact that "to the best of its abilities" is absent, signifies a material omission to the manner in which the spell is intended to work. Like anything, a DM can always Rule 0 that requirement in there, but RAW doesn't have it.

The RAW includes the phrase "within the limits of its abilities" as well as "to the exclusion of all other activities except those necessary for day-to-day survival (such as sleeping, eating, and so forth)."

Interpreting those phrases in such a way that they don't imply "to the best of its abilities" is...uniquely Arrowhawkian.

 

[Arrowhawk]

The RAW includes the phrase "within the limits of its abilities" as well as "to the exclusion of all other activities except those necessary for day-to-day survival (such as sleeping, eating, and so forth)."

Interpreting those phrases in such a way that they don't imply "to the best of its abilities" is...uniquely Arrowhawkian.

If by that you are saying nobody else on these forums understands context, I am highly skeptical. Let's look at the quote you've taken out of context...

If you and the subject have a common language, you can generally force the subject to perform as you desire, within the limits of its abilities.​

It seems to me the statement "within the limits" is attempting to communicate that if you tell a Commoner to "Polymorph into a bat," they will not be able to comply because such an act is not "within the limits of its abilities." It is unclear to me how you interpret the word choice as tantamount to requiring a subject to perform to the "best" of its abilities. If it said "to the limits" instead of "within the limits" your perspective would seem more plausible.

Let's look at the second quite which you've co-opted:

Once you have given a dominated creature a command, it continues to attempt to carry out that command to the exclusion of all other activities except those necessary for day-to-day survival (such as sleeping, eating, and so forth).​

When viewed in context, it seems clear that all other activities are excluded in order to focus on the attempt. It is, once again, unclear how this should be interpreted as requiring the subject to attempt the task to the "best" of its abilities.


Perhaps this viewpoint of yours, is in fact, uniquely Vegeypymanion?

 

[Greenfield]

I look at what's there, and more specifically at what isn't there.

For example, it doesn't say at any point that the target is Feebleminded. "To the best of their ability" doesn't state, or even suggest that their ability is in any way impaired. It's their will that's crushed, not their intelligence.

Now I made a comparison earlier, suggesting that by Arrowhawk's reading, if you told a man to "Kill Lord Downey", he'd draw his sword and swing wildly at thin air. Because I didn't say "Go kill Lord Downey".

Arrowhawk said that this was a really bad mis-analogy. The fact is that the he's wrong and he's right. He's wrong because it's not an analogy at all, it's an example.

But it is a bad one because, by the way he's arguing it, the man wouldn't draw his sword. He might swing his fist, but ultimately it's unclear whether he'd take any physical action, since "by force" was never added. He might be standing there simply trying to think the man dead.

And to that, I have to admit a real mis-analogy: Arrowhawk wouldn't have the victim of Dominate act as if Feebleminded. Victims of Feeblemind are allowed more brains than that.

 

[Arrowhawk]

Now I made a comparison earlier, suggesting that by Arrowhawk's reading, if you told a man to "Kill Lord Downey", he'd draw his sword and swing wildly at thin air. Because I didn't say "Go kill Lord Downey".

Making even more ridiculous analogies only digs the whole deeper.

Arrowhawk said that this was a really bad mis-analogy. The fact is that the he's wrong and he's right. He's wrong because it's not an analogy at all, it's an example.

Definition of anlaogy:

Definition of ANALOGY

1
: inference that if two or more things agree with one another in some respects they will probably agree in others
2
a : resemblance in some particulars between things otherwise unlike : similarity
b : comparison based on such resemblance​

Your example is not analogous to telling someone to "go to sleep."

The hole is getting deeper.

But it is a bad one because, by the way he's arguing it, the man wouldn't draw his sword.

Wrong. I've already said a person would use whatever tools they had handy. So keep digging.

Feeblemind are allowed more brains than that.

Well at least we know you aren't under a Feeblemind spell then don't we?

 

[LiL KiNG]

...another fairly simple concept taken to extremes.

'to the best of their abilities' and 'to the exclusion of all other activities except those necessary for day-to-day survival (such as sleeping, eating, and so forth)' should be easy enough to implement.

To the best of your abilities would be; if you know a damage spell cast it, if you're proficient with the sword on your hip use it, can you pick up a fallen crossbow to hit the target at range? go for it.
To the exclusion of... should mean they won't run for 3 days straight if you tell them they feel like running 100 miles - they will stop for things like eating, sleeping, and life sustaining functions. However, once they are feed, rested, etc, they'll start running again.

Those are pretty bland examples but hopefully they convey the just of what I'm getting at.

I could see the literal translations of poorly worded commands biting the caster in the rear, but unless really poorly worded doing that at the table is just going to frustrate your players when everyone can understand the intent of the command clearly and you try to enforce something so literal its ridiculous.

Rule zero is rule zero - DM's might control things, but if they constantly make things no fun for their players your group will fall apart.

To address the original question though, I don't think dominate would make someone fall asleep - but it would make them try to fall asleep; curl up on the floor, use their pack as a pillow, cover up with a cloak... yell at the people still fighting to shut up...
As far as it being against their nature to attempt to fall asleep, who doesn't like taking a nap!?

 

[PureGoldx58]

As far as it being against their nature to attempt to fall asleep, who doesn't like taking a nap!?

Elves.

Also, so as to contribute something to the thread I do not believe Dominate could make someone fall asleep either, but rather make them attempt it. Or even of a more strict interpretation of "within their ability" wouldn't even attempt to make themselves fall asleep. Particularly because short of casting a sleep spell or some other method it is a physical impossibility to force yourself to sleep and not within their ability. However, as a DM if someone worded it as "go to sleep" the command would not function. There is no way a person can flip a switch and fall asleep without spells, items, etc. If I know the person well enough to know that they just over-looked that, I might allow it, but that is DM rulings.

Also, I would like to point out your contradicting statement Arrowhawk. You mentioned that everyone would use any tools available to achieve a task, but then said that a person would just close their eyes whilst standing to attempt to fall asleep. A pillow is a tool for achieving sleep, you have to either be completely strict or completely lax.

 

[LiL KiNG]

[MENTION=6671182]PureGoldx58[/MENTION]: ah pooy! even elves like naps, they just call it "meditating" lol

I was thinking about that also... someone wouldn't stand there and close their eyes and try to fall asleep.

Is it possible to fall asleep standing up and does it happen? Yeah sure, but usually only under extreme circumstances; narcolepsy, sleep deprivation, being locked in an iron maiden, etc.

Is it within their best of their abilities? No, they would attempt to make themselves comfortable enough to fall asleep to the best of their abilities first.

 

[Vegepygmy]

Interpreting those phrases in such a way that they don't imply "to the best of its abilities" is...uniquely Arrowhawkian.

If by that you are saying nobody else on these forums understands context, I am highly skeptical.

I'm saying everybody else but you understands context.

(Which is, of course, hyperbole. I'm stating that explicitly to avoid yet another Arrowhawkian misinterpretation.)

 

[Hassassin]

One thing to keep in mind is that adventurers are probably used to sleeping whenever the occasion presents itself. I would just assume they can fall asleep in a minute unless they've just slept a full night's sleep in a proper bed.

Wrong. I've already said a person would use whatever tools they had handy. So keep digging.

Define handy... Is a sword in a scabbard handy? Is someone else's sword on the ground? Is the sword you left in the tent while taking a leak in the middle of the night? Is the one you left at the smithy for fixing?

I'd avoid the need for most of these rulings by saying the target behaves as if it wasn't dominated, but just wanted really much to accomplish whatever was commanded. That means the GM (or the player) can just play the NPC (the PC) and no one needs to argue semantics.