Dominate Person - Sage Advise needed!

[SkyCAM]

We all pretty much know that this particular compulsion spell is a mess.
Our group has been arguing about the limitations of this spell ever since 3.0/3.5 came out. I was reading a Realms of the Dragons short story the other day and also remember how Araevin Teshurr was dominated in Forsaken House. It's pretty obvious that the dominated person is imprisoned within his own mind and nothing more but a mere puppet. Besides of the difficulties what "against ones nature" means there are other implications. In the short story I was astonished to learn, that the dominator can command the subject to activate magic items using a command word.
We always kind of ruled that the dominated person cannot be compelled to cast spells under the influence of a dominate spell because of the complexities of the art. Plus how would the caster know what spells his subject would have at his disposal? He cannot mind read and doesn't get to access the subject memories. I could have sworn I read an article about spellcasting being not possible under a dominate person effect. As with clerics since its the god granting them the ability to cast a given spell this becomes even more complicated.
Does anyone know if this topic was ever discussed in a Dragon/Dungeon magazine? I was looking through my magazine stash but couldn't find anything on the topic.

 

[Visigani]

We all pretty much know that this particular compulsion spell is a mess.
Our group has been arguing about the limitations of this spell ever since 3.0/3.5 came out. I was reading a Realms of the Dragons short story the other day and also remember how Araevin Teshurr was dominated in Forsaken House. It's pretty obvious that the dominated person is imprisoned within his own mind and nothing more but a mere puppet. Besides of the difficulties what "against ones nature" means there are other implications. In the short story I was astonished to learn, that the dominator can command the subject to activate magic items using a command word.
We always kind of ruled that the dominated person cannot be compelled to cast spells under the influence of a dominate spell because of the complexities of the art. Plus how would the caster know what spells his subject would have at his disposal? He cannot mind read and doesn't get to access the subject memories. I could have sworn I read an article about spellcasting being not possible under a dominate person effect. As with clerics since its the god granting them the ability to cast a given spell this becomes even more complicated.
Does anyone know if this topic was ever discussed in a Dragon/Dungeon magazine? I was looking through my magazine stash but couldn't find anything on the topic.

You can compel someone to cast a spell but if doing so would be something they would be loathe to do (such as a good and decent spellcaster being compelled to cast a fireball into a group of orphans) it gets an additional saving through.

Regardless of the complexities the person is less a prisoner in their own mind as their will is yours to direct.

For example you right now may not be go say Hi to your neighbor. Wouldn't be a big deal if you were, you're just not terribly interested. If I cast dominate person on you what you are interested in doing is now mine to determine, much as we are compelled to eat, drink and make merry you're now being compelled to go say hi to the neighbor lady. If I decide you're compelled to go take an axe to the neighbor lady you get another saving throw but you feel the compulsion nevertheless.

 

[Vegepygmy]

We always kind of ruled that the dominated person cannot be compelled to cast spells under the influence of a dominate spell because of the complexities of the art.

From the spell description: "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."

That seems pretty clear to me, and doesn't imply any sort of "except spellcasting" interpretation.

Plus how would the caster know what spells his subject would have at his disposal? He cannot mind read and doesn't get to access the subject memories.

You're correct; the dominator wouldn't know what spells the dominated person knows or has prepared...unless he has commanded the dominated person to tell him.

Even if the dominator hasn't done so, however, he could certainly command the dominated person to "use your spells as best you can to _________," and the dominated person will try to accomplish the task, whatever it is, using his own best judgment.

Really, the spell shouldn't be difficult to adjudicate.

 

[Greenfield]

As far as spell casting is concerned...

Consider giving a Dominated wizard orders to go to the city of Timberlain and kill the head of the Thieve's Guild.

You might not know what spells he has memorized, or what's in his spell book, but he does. He'll prepare his spells according to his own best judgment, and use them accordingly.

I tend to think of it as giving someone an obsession, something the simply have to get done.

The spell description says that they'll care for themselves normally, in terms of eating and sleeping and such. That says they aren't hollow puppets.

As for how obsessed they are or appear to be, that's a matter of DM opinion. I tend to make it more or less obvious depending on the nature of the command given. If you establish the control but give no particular orders, I think they're free to behave as they would normally until told to otherwise. That's not very easy to notice. We had a bit of a debate here over a Vampire's domination of a PC/NPC Cleric who had detected him as being highly Evil.

The Vampire simply ordered him, "Ignore what you just saw and go on about your business."

How obsessed can one get with an instant command to ignore something? It's sort of "These aren't the Droid's you're looking for. Move along."

Will he be obviously obsessed with appearing not to be obsessed with anything? Odd thought that, eh?

I said the domination would be inobvious and hard to detect. Others thought he'd be jumpy and nervous over anything that fell out of his normal routine.

So how heavy is that hand on the guy's shoulder? The spell implies that the person in charge can give the spell more or less attention, taking greater control when needed, or backing off and not giving his victim more than a moment or two of thought a day. To me that says just how tight (and obvious) the tie is, if it's puppet strings or just a long leash.

YMMV, of course.

 

[Vegepygmy]

As for how obsessed they are or appear to be, that's a matter of DM opinion.

By RAW it's a DC 15 Sense Motive check to notice that someone is dominated.

Of course, DMs can ignore the RAW whenever they want, so you are quite correct.

 

[Empirate]

On the "against their nature" thing: if you've played as a group long enough and the character who's being dominated has been around a bit, this is not difficult to adjudicate most of the time. If your group is mature about it, you can even just ask the player of the dominated PC if they think act X would be against the PC's nature.
Since I've been DMing for roughly the same people for more than 10 years, and our campaigns are long-running affairs that seldom close out in under a year, I'd feel confident making that judgement call and not inviting trouble. In a one-shot with people I've never gamed with, it can be a bit harder, and the DM should probably err on the side of caution (that is, allow more additional saves rather than less).

 

[Greenfield]

Regarding Sense Motive: Yes, a DC 15 Sense Motive check will spot that there's a problem.

The question is, when do people get that check? Do they have to ask for it? If so, how obvious are the clues that might make them ask for it?

My own take is that the victim may be able to pass casual observation, depending on how out-of-character the obsession is.

 

[Arrowhawk]

To the OP:

We always kind of ruled that the dominated person cannot be compelled to cast spells under the influence of a dominate spell because of the complexities of the art.

I don't see anything in RAW that supports this. I would definitely allow the Dominated person to cast a spell if commanded to do so, or if the person had a spell to cast and it allowed them to complete a command given. The Dominator can always simply ask the DP to reveal what spells they have available. I also don't see why you couldn't order the person to memorize spells or pray to their god for new spells. It's a separate question as to whether the deity would provide the higher level spells, assuming the person worshiped a deity.

It's pretty obvious that the dominated person is imprisoned within his own mind and nothing more but a mere puppet.

My take is that this is only true when the dp is given an actual command. Similar to Greenfield's thought process, uncommanded, the person goes about their business and does not realize they are being dominated (for plausibility reasons, you'll have to assume an uncommanded person does not suddenly realize they have been dominated until they actually break the enchantment).

Speaking of Greenfield ...

As far as spell casting is concerned...

Consider giving a Dominated wizard orders to go to the city of Timberlain and kill the head of the Thieve's Guild.

You might not know what spells he has memorized, or what's in his spell book, but he does. He'll prepare his spells according to his own best judgment, and use them accordingly.

I don't think so. Let's look at RAW from SRD and how it is phrased:

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).
​

I don't think spell preparation qualifies as those activities necessary for day-to-day survival and there is no debate it does not fall under the category of "sleeping, eating, and so forth." WotC adding those examples just in case someone tried get away with something. A dominated caster isn't prep'ing new spell, isn't sharpening her sword, isn't even bathing (barbarians don't bathe anyway so no DC there ).

You give someone a command, "Go kill Mailee", they go and do that and keep trying it until the die or succeed with whatever tools they have with them at that moment. That dominated person isn't going home to plot out a strategy or memorize a spell or even pack a lunch.

Now, I would definitely allow the Dominated person to cast a spell if commanded to do so, or if the person had a spell to cast. I also don't see why you couldn't command the person to memorize spells or pray to their god for new spell. It's a separate question as to whether the deity would provide the higher level spells, assuming the person worshiped a deity.

Yes, a DC 15 Sense Motive check will spot that there's a problem.

Greenfield, as someone who just looks at this from a RAW/RAI, I think you're perspective is tainted by your own campaign and need to uphold/justify the outcome you described in your campaign. Put another way, I think you're looking at the spell with a definite bias on how it works.

Let's look at the text from SRD

Because of this limited range of activity, a Sense Motive check against DC 15 (rather than DC 25) can determine that the subject’s behavior is being influenced by an enchantment effect (see the Sense Motive skill description).​

1. First off, there is nothing in the SRD about needing a "problem" to warrant a Sense Motive. Your adding that qualifier should be a red flag for you to reexamine your own interpretation of the spell.

2. The SM DC check has been lowered by 10. Per RAW, Dominate is one of the few spells that is so obvious you get a DC 15 spell to notice its effects without there even being a stated problem. DC 15 is arguably trivial for anything that has SM as a class skill and is high enough level to encounter a Vampire. A 1st level Monk in our campaign had +8 on his SM check. Stop and ask yourself what WotC is trying to communicate about this spell--it's bloody obvious when someone is dominated because the control is so overpowering you do nothing else. Contrast that with Geas where the control is more subtle, but the controlled person can avoid some of the instructions.

I tend to think of it as giving someone an obsession, something the simply have to get done.

A real "obsession" is more than something you have to get done. Your annual taxes are something "you have to get done." I would submit you're perception of Dominate is closer to a Geas/Quest spell. Obsession is closer to the behavior of a drug addict or a stalker.

The spell description says that they'll care for themselves normally, in terms of eating and sleeping and such. That says they aren't hollow puppets.

Unfortunately it says the person performs the task to the "exclusion" of everything else. The obsession is so dominating, you get a DC 15 motive check. You don't even have to know the person. That's something a 1st level anyone could notice.

As for how obsessed they are or appear to be, that's a matter of DM opinion.

I think RAW makes it pretty clear how obsessed they are suppose to be: "to the exclusion of all other activities.." except those needed for survival.

I tend to make it more or less obvious depending on the nature of the command given.

RAW doesn't allow that. The nature of the command has nothing to do with the SM check. The only leeway you really have is to not give a command. If no command is given, then per RAW no DC check would be warranted. But RAW explicitly states that any command results in "limited activity" and that is what triggers the DC check.

If you establish the control but give no particular orders, I think they're free to behave as they would normally until told to otherwise.

I would agree that RAW supports this.

The Vampire simply ordered him, "Ignore what you just saw and go on about your business."

This is a can of worms I'll avoid

How obsessed can one get with an instant command to ignore something? It's sort of "These aren't the Droid's you're looking for. Move along."

I would definitely argue that the Jedi Mind Trick is not tantamount to Dominate and it's much more along the lines of Suggestion, imo.

 

[Greenfield]

Question: What happens when the job is done?

I send my Dominated victim on a dangerous mission such as, "Go make me a Pastrami sandwich, easy on the pickles".

Okay, so he makes me a sandwich and is done. While on the task, he pursues that goal to the exclusion of all else, save basic life functions like eating and sleeping. DC 15 Sense Motive check shows that he's behaving strangely. (I'll still argue about whether or not that skill check comes for free or has to be asked for, but that's another argument.)

Now, after the sandwich is made and delivered, is he "back to normal"? That is, is he in the same state as someone who has been made subject to the spell, but given no orders?

And how much initiative or self interest can he express while on the job? Could he, to extend my example, make a second sandwich for himself? (pickles optional, of course.)

 

[Arrowhawk]

Question: What happens when the job is done?

I send my Dominated victim on a dangerous mission such as, "Go make me a Pastrami sandwich, easy on the pickles".

Okay, so he makes me a sandwich and is done. While on the task, he pursues that goal to the exclusion of all else, save basic life functions like eating and sleeping. DC 15 Sense Motive check shows that he's behaving strangely. (I'll still argue about whether or not that skill check comes for free or has to be asked for, but that's another argument.)

Now, after the sandwich is made and delivered, is he "back to normal"? That is, is he in the same state as someone who has been made subject to the spell, but given no orders?

And how much initiative or self interest can he express while on the job? Could he, to extend my example, make a second sandwich for himself? (pickles optional, of course.)

Ignoring the fact that after they made the sandwich, they left it on the counter (because you didn't say bring it to me ), my interpretation is that once the command is completed, the person goes back to the uncommanded state and no DC check would be warranted. So yes, same state as Dominated but no command given.

If you read the Rules of the Game articles about enchantments, it makes a big deal about the phrasing of the command. I read that RotG emphasis as saying, if you try and get cute with this spell or make it do too much, you're going to get discovered. If you give the person an open ended command which can't be completed...I would argue that they act Dominated the whole time.

I liken Dominate Person to a blunt force object in the spectrum of enchantments. Try making a sandwich with a hammer. It's pretty hard to do that without those nearby taking notice. Even if you hammer a nail (something the hammer is designed for) it is going to be noticed by everyone around

If I were the DM and the dominator said, "Okay...now act naturally." That would constitute a command which doesn't have any termination point. DC checks galore. To put it another way, you can't tell the person to do anything without triggering checks by those observing. The RotG even says a person familiar with the dominated person should get between +2 to +4 on the check. Couple that with a DC 15 and you're looking at a very bad enchantment for trying to use on a PC and expecting them to remain undiscovered. My .02.

On a philosophical level, I don't think you can command someone to act "naturally" and have it work as if the person were never commanded. But that's just me pontificating.

The real question is what does the person who completes the task know as result of completing the task? Does the person know they just made a sandwich? Do they know why? Do they remember being told to make a sandwich? What if you were ordered to kill a party member and you failed your Saving Throw? What thought processes result after the dp has killed a fellow party member against her will?