Charm do they notice ?

[Gog]

So, you expect a fighter to flip out and attack his party at any time, wow. In other words, in the middle of a fight against a BBEG you think that this LN fighter might just decide to attack his commrades (even if he's not dominated). If this isn't what you mean then how can you think doing it isn't against his nature??

Or, if let's say that a 1th level cleric is dominated and told to cast Slay Living on himself (I mean they do cast Slay living). If he has never stated that he wouldn't do this it isn't against his nature so he kills himself.

edit:Fixed wording

Fighters fight. Your LN fighter is dominated and told to fight his old companions. Follow orders and fighting seem to be well within that characters nature. That might be different if he were told to cut their throats in the middle of the night.

From where I sit, only if the character has previously chosen not to the demanded action in the past can it be considered "against their nature".

 

[Terramotus]

From where I sit, only if the character has previously chosen not to the demanded action in the past can it be considered "against their nature".

Traveling with them and fighting common foes doesn't qualify as previously having chosen not to take them out?

Charm makes you view the person as a friend. My group has a fighter that had a reputation for being charmed all the time. He was really good at roleplaying it out - he'd do his absolute best to prevent his buddies from hurting his new friend, in non-injuring ways. From grappling, to tripping, to even expending some items in the process. Obviously they just misunderstood his new friend's intentions, and he needed to keep them apart until they came to their senses.

Of course, it was clear that everything his new friend was doing was just to stay alive. Sadly, the rest of the group forced him to purchase magical augmentation for his will saves.

 

[Anubis]

LokiDR, your interpretation of Dominate is the absolute worst against-the-letter-and-against-the-spirit-of-the-rules call I have EVER seen in my life.

"Nature" has NOTHING to do with training and ability, it has to do with emotion and belief. It is against a LG, LN, and NG person's nature to kill his or her friends, period. A dominated person doesn't view the dominator as a friend nor does he view his friends as enemies. If he would not normally attack his friends, it is against his nature to do it even while dominated. now other alignments, that's up to individual characters to decide. Alignment is the primary factor behind domination, though.

Now something *I* always wanted to know is, if you get charmed and your current friends kill your "new friend", since the charm isn't auto-dispelled, would the charmed person then attack his other friends for it?

 

[Hypersmurf]

Now something *I* always wanted to know is, if you get charmed and your current friends kill your "new friend", since the charm isn't auto-dispelled, would the charmed person then attack his other friends for it?

That's up to the personality of the charmee.

If Wally the Wizard were to kill Clem the Cleric, how would Freddy the Fighter react?

That's probably a fair indication of how he'd react if Evan the Evil Enchanter charms him, and then Wally the Wizard kills Evan.

In both cases, one of his friends is killing another one of his friends.

-Hyp.

 

[LokiDR]

So, you expect a fighter to flip out and attack his party at any time, wow. In other words, in the middle of a fight against a BBEG you think that this LN fighter might just decide to attack his commrades (even if he's not dominated). If this isn't what you mean then how can you think doing it isn't against his nature??

No, I expect that, if the fighter had a good reason, he could and would attack and kill members of his own party. If a samuri, the aptitomie of LN, were ordered to kill his best friend by his lord, the busido code says you have 2 options: kill your friend or kill yourself.

Or, if let's say that a 1th level cleric is dominated and told to cast Slay Living on himself (I mean they do cast Slay living). If he has never stated that he wouldn't do this it isn't against his nature so he kills himself.

edit:Fixed wording

First, this example is completely stupid. A 1st level cleric can't cast slay living. Secondly, I would assume the character had tried to save his own life at least once, a healing spell or something. Then there is the passage in spell that covers this ". Obviously self-destructive orders are not carried out." Come up with a better example.

 

[LokiDR]

Traveling with them and fighting common foes doesn't qualify as previously having chosen not to take them out?

Would the fighter attack the rest of the party if he had a good reason?

If the fighter was going to attack them in the first place, dominate would not bee needed.

 

[LokiDR]

LokiDR, your interpretation of Dominate is the absolute worst against-the-letter-and-against-the-spirit-of-the-rules call I have EVER seen in my life.

Thanks. I'm glad you like it.

"Nature" has NOTHING to do with training and ability, it has to do with emotion and belief.

Nature has nothing to do with what you spend most of your time doing? Nature has nothing to do with how you accomplish tasks? Dominating a wizard to use a longsword is most likely against that wizards nature.

It is against a LG, LN, and NG person's nature to kill his or her friends, period.

You certainly love absolutes, don't you? So, a character that found out one of his "friends" was responsible for a terrible massicure would never attack him? A lawful person wouldn't follow orders to attack a friend? Your absolutes don't apply to all characters.

A dominated person doesn't view the dominator as a friend nor does he view his friends as enemies. If he would not normally attack his friends, it is against his nature to do it even while dominated. now other alignments, that's up to individual characters to decide. Alignment is the primary factor behind domination, though.

It is against the nature of a wizard without martial weapon proficency to pick up the fighters sword and hack at him, no matter what that wizard's alignment. Wizards use spells. Nature is based on actions, not ideals.

By your reasoning, LG is the perfect defense to domination. I wouldn't attack, harm, steal, or hinder in any way the rest of my party and I wouldn't travel or assist a person who is evil enough to dominate me. I bet people use dominate person a lot in your games. With those restrictions, I can't even keep the targeted PC out of the fight.

 

[Anubis]

Thanks. I'm glad you like it.

Nature has nothing to do with what you spend most of your time doing? Nature has nothing to do with how you accomplish tasks? Dominating a wizard to use a longsword is most likely against that wizards nature.

Nature is emotion and belief, plain and simple. Nature is who you are, not what you do. Just because you are a fighter doesn't mean it's in your nature. Take Gohan from Dragonball Z or Duncan MacLeod from Highlander. Both are two of the best fighters in the world, yet both pretty much hate fighting.

You certainly love absolutes, don't you? So, a character that found out one of his "friends" was responsible for a terrible massicure would never attack him?

That's a betrayal, so the absolute sticks because they would not be friends anymore.

A lawful person wouldn't follow orders to attack a friend?

Um, not if Lawful Good. Lawful Neutral, possibly. Lawful Evil, certainly.

Your absolutes don't apply to all characters.

Yes they do.

It is against the nature of a wizard without martial weapon proficency to pick up the fighters sword and hack at him, no matter what that wizard's alignment. Wizards use spells. Nature is based on actions, not ideals.

None of what you just said has anything to do with nature.

By your reasoning, LG is the perfect defense to domination. I wouldn't attack, harm, steal, or hinder in any way the rest of my party and I wouldn't travel or assist a person who is evil enough to dominate me. I bet people use dominate person a lot in your games. With those restrictions, I can't even keep the targeted PC out of the fight.

Actually, Lawful Good IS the best defense against domination. Most orders given will be against the character's nature, and thus they will get more saves. "Attack and kill the rest of your party." That is against the nature of ANY Good character. "Steal this for me." That is against the nature of ANY Lawful character unless the item was stolen in the first place. "Protect me (I'm a demon) against these crusaders!" That is against the nature of any Lawful Good character, ESPECIALLY Paladins.

Methnks you have a very poor grasp of the letter OR spirit of the rules.

 

[Particle_Man]

There is a distinction here:

Charm person affects your mind, such that you see the new person as a friend. "You would not act against your nature" means that you would not suddenly forget about your other friends. But, you might let your "new friend" in on your secrets, or let your "new friend" past the post you are guarding (hey, its Joe, he's ok), and you would try to protect your "new friend" against your "old friends" if they have a fight. (But probably do so in a nonlethal manner, since you don't want to seriously hurt ANY of your friends). A rule of thumb is whether you are in a situation where you would attack your friends if you were not charmed. That samurai example, with total devotion to his lord, would be one example, but the samurai wouldn't attack a friend if someone other than his lord told him to.
(The evil enchanter would do better to say "I have just discovered that your lord is in danger and needs you at once. Don't worry, I'll guard your post here for you" or "I have just discovered that your friends have been killed and replaced by dopplegangers. How should we deal with these monsters?")

Dominate person affects your body. Your mind might scream in rebellion at what you are doing, but it is pretty much stuck in the sidelines while your body is "remote controlled". Here, attacking your friends would be against your nature (most likely, unless it is a situation where you would attack your friends if you were not dominated). Except for cases like the samurai, most people do not attack their friends. A good short definition of friend is "someone who will not attack you" And the definition of neutral on the good-evil alignment access includes caring for close friends and family. So most cases of non-evil dominated people would have them acting against their natures if they attack their friends. Examples of a non-evil, non-insane person attacking one's friends not being against one's nature, would be rare indeed (and are the focuses of tragedy in stories "Alas, I must attack my friend at the order of my lord" or "Alas, I must fight my friend because we are on opposite sides of this war" or even "Alas, I must kill my friend at the order of my lord".

But one could be dominated and ordered to do other stuff that is not against one's nature. "Give me your sword" or "run down that passageway and look for goblins" is not against most PCs' nature in the way that "kill your friends" is. Its all in the phrasing.
A fun one vs. enemy casters would be "Start privately researching a new spell" if you want to keep him occupied for a while.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[LokiDR]

Nature is emotion and belief, plain and simple. Nature is who you are, not what you do. Just because you are a fighter doesn't mean it's in your nature. Take Gohan from Dragonball Z or Duncan MacLeod from Highlander. Both are two of the best fighters in the world, yet both pretty much hate fighting.

Emotion and belief as demonstrated by action. "I never let anyone touch my sword" is an unsupported statement unless that character had previously not allowed a person to touch their sword.

Both the characters you mention fight, whether they like it or not. It is in their nature, they just don't like it.

That's a betrayal, so the absolute sticks because they would not be friends anymore.

Wow, you love reading things that aren't there, don't you? Try again. The person is your friend, you just didn't know something in their past. That isn't betrayal, that is not knowing about your friends.

Um, not if Lawful Good. Lawful Neutral, possibly. Lawful Evil, certainly.

You just broke your own absolute, saying LN might just listen to orders. I win!

Yes they do.

So you are the authority on all gaming? Nice ego there buddy, but I will be standing down hear on earth.

None of what you just said has anything to do with nature.

I hate to do it, but I appearently have to break out the dictionary.

The natural or real aspect of a person, place, or thing. See Synonyms at disposition.

Disposition list "A habitual inclination; " by the way. So spell over sword would be nature.

Actually, Lawful Good IS the best defense against domination. Most orders given will be against the character's nature, and thus they will get more saves. "Attack and kill the rest of your party." That is against the nature of ANY Good character. "Steal this for me." That is against the nature of ANY Lawful character unless the item was stolen in the first place. "Protect me (I'm a demon) against these crusaders!" That is against the nature of any Lawful Good character, ESPECIALLY Paladins.

Methnks you have a very poor grasp of the letter OR spirit of the rules.

I will declare my alignment as LG if I ever play in your game, as that appearently means I will have a great defense against a 5th level spell.

Meanwhile, I will explain my nature to my DM in other games and let him decide what is and isn't against my nature based on what I have actually done.

Methinks you have a poor understanding of roleplaying. Just assign the number to alignment and move on.