Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="wayne62682" data-source="post: 3104784" data-attributes="member: 40455">But that's just the issue of debate, I thought?  The spell by virtue of being a Compulsion effect changes what common sense would say.  I find it totally unreasonable to submit to an effect when I've been around my companions for the past few weeks (assuming your group stays together.. in mine someone is always wandering off so this example would fail utterly) so I know there's no logical way they would be replaced by dopplegangers.  Suggestion ruined a game I played in once, although it was a logical course of action it was still UNFAIR.  A PC had betrayed the party by stealing an item we had, intending to use it for the greater good, and then he thought better of his actions and came to aid us.  We were fighting a low-level Mind Flayer who used Suggestion on my PC telling me that he [the MF] wasn't my enemy but the returning PC was.  DM imposed a stiff penalty because the PC had just betrayed the party and basically forced me to try and go after him (I worked around it by not attacking him but demanding that he surrender so I could bring him to justice); that player was not allowed to bring his character back into the group like he wanted and was forced to create a new one because of this spell.The issue here is that the RotG article SUPPORTS a command like "kill your ally" because of this statement (emphasis mine):  something that the subject might decide to do on his own if the circumstances were appropriate or if the subject shared the caster's point of view..  Assuming the caster wishes harm on the party, sharing the caster's point of view then equals wishing harm on the party.</blockquote>

Verification