Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Particle_Man" data-source="post: 1063115" data-attributes="member: 892">Maybe this is a verb/object confusion.Fighter tend to fight.  But good fighters tend to fight bad guys, not good guys.  So on the "Verb" interpretation, it is in the nature of the fighter to fight, so they could be dominated to fight good guys.  On the "object" interpretation, it is a violation of the nature of the good fighter to fight good guys, so he would get a new save.I think the "Verb" interpretation allows for too much.  I mean, it seems odd that a woodcutter "whose nature is to chop things up" would not get a save if he was told to chop up his children.Is the "object" interpretation too limiting on dominate person?  I think there are ways around it.  It probably is not a violation of most people's nature to give up their stuff (it might violate the nature of those who make a point of keeping their stuff).  It probably is not a violation of most adventurers' natures to scout for goblins (it might, if one person is opposed to ever leaving his friends alone).  I mean there might be exceptions in some of these cases, but they would be rare.  But the idea of it being against the nature of good characters to kill innocents, or non-evil friends, or non-evil family, is probably more common.  There may be some extremely rare exceptions where one might have it not against one's nature to kill a friend (the samurai, perhaps?) but people killing friends/family is seen as "unnatural" when we see it in the news, and a fantasy world would not be that different in that respect.So "Give me your weapon" -- probably not a violation of one's nature, unless the player can show this through a specific roleplaying history."Kill these (innocents/friends/family)" -- probably a violation of one's nature unless on is evil, again allowing for rare exceptions where the player (or more likely, the one whose character casts the spell on the player's character character)can show that the dominated person has a history such that this would not violate his nature, or can show that the specific situation is such that it does not violate the characters nature.I mean, modern soldiers are trained to kill.  I think that it would be unnatural/evil if "good guy" modern soldiers killed innocents (and I don't want to get into politics -- just pick your own "good guys" and fill in the relevant blanks).  So using the "object" interpretation, modern soldiers are trained to kill "the enemy", not just to kill indiscriminately.  Thus we could say it is against a soldier's nature if some otherwise "good guy" soldier killed some innocent people in his home town.  Thus in a fantasy world, a warrior that is a "good guy" would also have a violation of his nature occur if he killed innocents, because he is trained to kill, but his nature is to kill "Bad guys", and innocents are far apart in concept from "Bad guys".Anyhow, I am going to a movie.  It is in my nature to watch movies.  I wonder if that means it is in my nature to watch snuff films?  Nah.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification