Dominate person

[Keltest]

I agree with this analysis. Keltest's rule of thumb works for determining whether or not doing something is bad, but not whether it is self-destructive.

Honestly, I'm surprised at how much debate is popping up over this topic (this thread and the majority of the main one), but compared to other debates this one is a good alternative.

I interpret Self-Destructive as intentionally doing something bad (if were going with that word) to oneself, so theres a fair bit of overlap.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

I interpret Self-Destructive as intentionally doing something bad (if were going with that word) to oneself, so theres a fair bit of overlap.

I read self-destructive as harmful to one's self, so things along the lines of suicide. This is a subset of "bad", but not everything that is bad is self-destructive.

[Porthos]

Yeah, because if IMC something like that were to happen it would be considered a self-destructive act. BUT, given that this isn't a campaign of DnD but a story on a DnD setting i do prefer for rich to bend the rules however he wnts in order to give a better story.

I don't want to criticize the comic on this regard, just know if this action would be within the rules according to your interpretations of said rules. I think it was outside of the rules, but want to know what do everyone else think.

Honestly? It's been years since I actively played, but I'll have to give something of a cop-out answer: It Depends.

For instance, if you told someone who had, I dunno, three levels of commoner to do that, yeah that's seriously 'obviously self-destructive'. On the other hand, if you told that to Joe McEpic Fights-A-Lot (he of level 30 or so), no, not so much.

I hate to play the 'depends on what is is' card, but it really does come down to how one defines the words 'obviously' and 'self-destructive'. There really is a wide lattitude in there. And a lot of that lattitude for me would come down to: Would Belkar think such a fall would kill him? If not, then it isn't 'obviously self-destructive'.

Now if one interpets 'self-destructive' as meaning 'hurts themselves (greatly)', then there is room for more argument. But how much HP loss is hurting oneself greatly? 3/4ths on average? Half? 1d6 or less? How destructive does it have to be for it to be self-destructive?

There really is no universal answer here. As I said it mostly depends on what triggers it for the person. Which is why I said near the beginning this pretty much has to be a DM Interpetation thing.

[rodneyAnonymous]

It's up to the DM. I have been arguing for "probably", not "certainly".

[Keltest]

I read self-destructive as harmful to one's self, so things along the lines of suicide. This is a subset of "bad", but not everything that is bad is self-destructive.

Would you consider a heavy duty drug addiction self destructive? What about a habbit of chewing your fingernails all the way off? An extreme coffee addiction? Im trying to get a sense of where the boundaries lie. The suicide example is textbook self destructive behavior, true, but its also such an extreme case that I would disregard the opinions of anyone who DIDNT consider it self-destructive behavior.

[rodneyAnonymous]

Im trying to get a sense of where the boundaries lie.

No boundaries. No lines to cross. Like many things, it's a gradient. Some stuff (like commanding someone to drink coffee) is on the light side, and other stuff (like commanding someone to jump out of a moving vehicle) is over on the dark side. My argument is not bolstered by the fact that I can come up with a scenario where, no, I could not successfully force a dominated subject to drink coffee. Nor is it undermined by someone coming up with a scenario where "jump overboard" is not an obviously self-destructive order. Probably nothing is absolutely always or never a "legal" dominate command. That does not mean that the command itself doesn't matter. For almost any subject in almost any vehicle, "jump overboard" is an obviously self-destructive command that will not be carried out by a dominated subject. It would be silly of me to claim that nothing else matters, but it is equally silly to claim that it doesn't matter at all.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

Would you consider a heavy duty drug addiction self destructive? What about a habbit of chewing your fingernails all the way off? An extreme coffee addiction? Im trying to get a sense of where the boundaries lie. The suicide example is textbook self destructive behavior, true, but its also such an extreme case that I would disregard the opinions of anyone who DIDNT consider it self-destructive behavior.

I think Porthos says it pretty well with "it depends". With any of the questions you posed, it depends on how much harm is being dealt to the person.

[warrl]

Would you consider a heavy duty drug addiction self destructive? What about a habbit of chewing your fingernails all the way off? An extreme coffee addiction? Im trying to get a sense of where the boundaries lie. The suicide example is textbook self destructive behavior, true, but its also such an extreme case that I would disregard the opinions of anyone who DIDNT consider it self-destructive behavior.

In 4E, for a level-30 character with certain Epic Destinies, suicide might be a shortcut to home.

[Keltest]

In 4E, for a level-30 character with certain Epic Destinies, suicide might be a shortcut to home.

Yeah, but that's 4th edition. Theyre all strange over there.

[Doug Lampert]

In 4E, for a level-30 character with certain Epic Destinies, suicide might be a shortcut to home.

3.5 the same is true with any of at least 3 spells in core alone cast in advance. (Clone, Astral Projection, Contingency+Gate or Greater Teleport)

[Vladier]

My stance on the matter is that for Belkar "jumping overboard" wouldn't really count as "obviously" self-destructive. He has a Ring of Jumping +20 (and I suppose that counts as intentionally jumping down), so he would easily take 10 feet less of falling damage, and he is very likely to survive the fall anyway, because he falls into deep water - thus negating damage on succesful Swim or Tumble check. Danger of prolonged swimming and possibility of being left behind don't really matter - I don't really think that counts as "obvious" enough, it requires conscious thought to be noticed.

Really, all Belkar would face is 20d6 damage at 200 feet (of which I think there are less, based on the previous strip). The first 20 do no damage thanks to water, the next 20 feet are 2d3 of non-lethal damage, since the jump is deliberate, the next 1d6 is non-lethal, another 10 feet is non-damage thanks to easily passed Jump check, yet another is 1d6 non-lethal. All that remains is 14d6 lethal damage. And every single digit of damage is negated by a check of Swim or Tumble of DC 35. And I would think that Belkar has Swim, if not Tumble, as his skill.

And there is also a matter of context. I suppose "obviousness" of self-destruction also depends on wording, like with Suggestion. By making the latter sound reasonable enough one can get away with melting a person in an acid bath ("How about a nice bath?") or make a paladin defend an ancient evil lich from the former's own companions ("Would you kindly help me, an old frail man, deal with these people, who want to kill me and take my belonings?"). I would say that "Jump overboard" is rather reasonable - it's neutral in wording and doesn't convey any realistic danger, if you forget about it being an airship and not a normal ship.

[rodneyAnonymous]

Note that landing on water from high up is about the same as landing on solid ground.

[Darth Paul]

Note that landing on water from high up is about the same as landing on solid ground.

People go cliff-diving. For fun.

It's amazing what people will do to themselves in the name of sport.

[Aisper]

When determining if a character would perform a certain action while charmed/dominated, could one consider the character's wisdom score? I haven't played much D&D but it seems to me that what Belkar considers self-destructive might be vastly different than what Roy/Durkon would consider self-destructive. Belkar is short-sighted and impetuous enough that I could more easily see him jumping overboard with glee without considering the consequences than the wiser party members who might realize the consequences.

[xyzchyx]

For a high level adventurer with full hit points?

No... not really.

The ocean might be a bit more of a problem in this analysis, but honestly falling from this height would be a minor inconvience to Belkar in his present condition.

Only if you consider requiring being rescued by somebody else "minor".

Belkar, I think, tends to be a little bit too self-centered to think of how others would actually react to his jumping overboard anyways, let alone actively expecting anyone else to really save him. They will probably try, to be sure, but Belkar would need to be capable of understanding or at least willing to think of how other people might feel and think to recognize that. Not because Belkar is stupid, but because Belkar is too preoccupied with thinking about himself to make any kind of serious effort to do so.

[Darth Paul]

When determining if a character would perform a certain action while charmed/dominated, could one consider the character's wisdom score? I haven't played much D&D but it seems to me that what Belkar considers self-destructive might be vastly different than what Roy/Durkon would consider self-destructive. Belkar is short-sighted and impetuous enough that I could more easily see him jumping overboard with glee without considering the consequences than the wiser party members who might realize the consequences.

And that or something similar has been pointed out in the other thread, I believe. Belkar might just do it because of how frikkin' cool he would look on the way down. "Wheeeeee!!"

[Kish]

Only if you consider requiring being rescued by somebody else "minor".

Belkar, I think, tends to be a little bit too self-centered to think of how others would actually react to his jumping overboard anyways, let alone actively expecting anyone else to really save him.

His entire scheme to make Miko fall hinged on Durkon rescuing him when in a position where Durkon would not actually have had the ability to do so, remember? His self-centeredness pushes him in the other direction than you're saying: Instead of assuming he's always on his own, he assumes that the "Good" alignment can be safely treated as "sucker who will attempt to help me no matter what I do." (That briefly came back to bite him when Haley told him her concept of Goodish was compatible with kicking him out of the Order and letting him deal with the Mark of Justice alone.)

[xyzchyx]

His entire scheme to make Miko fall hinged on Durkon rescuing him when in a position where Durkon would not actually have had the ability to do so, remember? His self-centeredness pushes him in the other direction than you're saying: Instead of assuming he's always on his own, he assumes that the "Good" alignment can be safely treated as "sucker who will attempt to help me no matter what I do."

That's a good point... One I had not previously considered.

Although given the unpopularity of his antagonistic stance towards Durkon at the moment with other members of The Order, I'm still not convinced he was actually counting on anyone else to really save him from doing this; although certainly I think that may be the only way anyone can form a rational basis for suggesting that the command to jump overboard was not somehow self-destructive.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

And that or something similar has been pointed out in the other thread, I believe. Belkar might just do it because of how frikkin' cool he would look on the way down. "Wheeeeee!!"

I don't know about cool. Perhaps hilarious would work better.

[Jay R]

... and we don't know if belkar knows how to swim,...

Swimming is a skill you can do whether you have ranks in it or not, and it's based on Strength. A high-level Ranger/Barbarian should be moderately competent at it.

[Keltest]

Swimming is a skill you can do whether you have ranks in it or not, and it's based on Strength. A high-level Ranger/Barbarian should be moderately competent at it.

Still, if he is operating on strength bonus alone (ill be generous and assume that he isn't wearing armor right now) there is at least a plausible chance of him going under the water. Even if he doesn't, the ship is going to be moving away from him quite quickly, which means if V doesn't react almost immediately (if he is, for example, below decks again) Belkar would get lost quite easily.

[zinycor]

Swimming is a skill you can do whether you have ranks in it or not, and it's based on Strength. A high-level Ranger/Barbarian should be moderately competent at it.

He also should have many points on survival, be moderately competent at spot checks and be able to cast spells, but this is Belkar we are talking about :)

[Kish]

He also should have many points on survival, be moderately competent at spot checks and be able to cast spells, but this is Belkar we are talking about :)

Did you miss the "whether you have ranks or not" part of the post you were responding to...or are you seriously suggesting that Belkar has a low Strength?

[Keltest]

Did you miss the "whether you have ranks or not" part of the post you were responding to...or are you seriously suggesting that Belkar has a low Strength?

To be fair, there is a case to be made. Jump is a skill that Belkar actually felt was of value, and he was apparently not content with his current ability to jump when he grabbed that ring of jumping. Its not a strong case, sure, but its not out of the question that his str bonus is not worth bragging about. Plus, as I recall, Halflings have a racial strength penalty. He might very well be using weapon finesse with a high Dex score instead.

[darlingt]

Here's my $0.02 question, to reignite the debate from a few posts ago. Are all self-injurious acts self-destructive, or does there exist a set of self-injurious acts that are not obviously self-destructive? I would argue for the latter -- that is, by RAW, I could get a dominated character to perform an act that would injure them, so long as it would not obviously destroy them (e.g., kick a metal statue.)

By my interpretation, Rich hasn't broken the rules at all. Bent them, maybe. Massaged them a little bit. (And even if he had, Rules of Funny/Cool trumps Rules As Written.)

[Keltest]

Here's my $0.02 question, to reignite the debate from a few posts ago. Are all self-injurious acts self-destructive, or does there exist a set of self-injurious acts that are not obviously self-destructive? I would argue for the latter -- that is, by RAW, I could get a dominated character to perform an act that would injure them, so long as it would not obviously destroy them (e.g., kick a metal statue.)

By my interpretation, Rich hasn't broken the rules at all. Bent them, maybe. Massaged them a little bit. (And even if he had, Rules of Funny/Cool trumps Rules As Written.)

Unsurprisingly, it depends. Kicking a metal statue would probably not qualify, but ordering someone to break their foot doing so would.

[Bulldog Psion]

Well, Durk Malackssen could have ordered him to sit on the rail facing out, which is not obviously self-destructive, and then given him a nice, hard shove. However, showing it this way is more concise, and therefore better for a comic in particular.

[Jay R]

He also should have many points on survival, be moderately competent at spot checks and be able to cast spells, but this is Belkar we are talking about :)

All true, and all irrelevant. I will rephrase to make my point clearer:

Any high-level strength-based character should be moderately competent at swimming, even with no ranks in it.

[xroads]

Yes it is self destructive. Suffering damage of any sort is destructive in nature. Just because it doesn't kill your character doesn't mean it wasn't destructive.

But then again, this is a story. And Belkar probably has the willpower of a kid in a candy store. Probably thinks he's immortal anyways (or at least a "sexy shoe less god").

~XRoads

[Jay R]

If this thread (along with the parallel discussion in the Strip 957 thread) has shown us anything, it's that this is a judgment call on which various DMs will disagree.