Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Dausuul" data-source="post: 5467420" data-attributes="member: 58197">If you ask me, this whole business just highlights how badly written the definitions of &quot;ally&quot; and &quot;enemy&quot; are. I mean, defining enemies as &quot;your opponents&quot; and allies as &quot;your companions?&quot; How useless can you get? Those aren't definitions, they're tautologies.Personally, I would prefer the following:A creature is your ally whenever both you and it agree that it is your ally.A creature is your enemy whenever you decide it is your enemy.Then, when stuff like domination comes up, all you need to know is whether you or your dominator is making those decisions. If I were writing the rules, I'd say you pick your allies and the dominator picks your enemies, but I could understand taking different approaches.As far as the actual rules go, they're solidly on DracoSuave's side--even though the rules don't really define &quot;ally&quot; and &quot;enemy,&quot; the dominated condition is pretty specific that anybody who was your ally when you weren't dominated is still your ally when you are, and ditto for enemies. (If that clause weren't there, it would be up for grabs. And I think it's still up for grabs if, say, an ally in single-digit hit points with two failed death saves decides to take you down before you take her down, and attacks you. Such an event might change her ally/enemy status if you weren't dominated, so does it have the same effect if you are? But that's a corner case.)Now, I rather suspect that clause was inserted purely because the designers were tired of wrestling with the conundrums introduced by their lame-ass &quot;definitions,&quot; and it was the simple solution. I would not criticize any DM who chose to do things otherwise. But the letter of the rule, and its intended behavior, are clear.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Dausuul, post: 5467420, member: 58197"] If you ask me, this whole business just highlights how badly written the definitions of "ally" and "enemy" are. I mean, defining enemies as "your opponents" and allies as "your companions?" How useless can you get? Those aren't definitions, they're tautologies. Personally, I would prefer the following: A creature is your ally whenever both you and it agree that it is your ally. A creature is your enemy whenever you decide it is your enemy. Then, when stuff like domination comes up, all you need to know is whether you or your dominator is making those decisions. If I were writing the rules, I'd say you pick your allies and the dominator picks your enemies, but I could understand taking different approaches. As far as the [i]actual[/i] rules go, they're solidly on DracoSuave's side--even though the rules don't really define "ally" and "enemy," the dominated condition is pretty specific that anybody who was your ally when you weren't dominated is still your ally when you are, and ditto for enemies. (If that clause weren't there, it would be up for grabs. And I think it's still up for grabs if, say, an ally in single-digit hit points with two failed death saves decides to take you down before you take her down, and attacks you. Such an event might change her ally/enemy status if you [i]weren't[/i] dominated, so does it have the same effect if you are? But that's a corner case.) Now, I rather suspect that clause was inserted purely because the designers were tired of wrestling with the conundrums introduced by their lame-ass "definitions," and it was the simple solution. I would not criticize any DM who chose to do things otherwise. But the letter of the rule, and its intended behavior, are clear. [/QUOTE]

Verification