OOTS #1123 - The Discussion Thread

[Rrmcklin]

Bless your heart.

Seeing as it seems you don't think characters (or real people) are even capable of improving themselves, it seems a bit weird for you to comment on something like this. It's fine if you don't buy it, but that doesn't mean other people can't be invested in it. No need for the sarcasm.

[eilandesq]

It doesn't sound so unbelievable that turning against Roy isn't against Hilgya's nature. She's a cleric of Loki, god of trickery and backstabbing (and fire). For all we know, she has plans to backstab and betray anyone she meets to fulfill her goals.

The main objections for Hilgya IMO would be:

--she wants Durkon/Durkula dead, and;

--her deity went out of his way to steer her to this battle, after a long period of being unhelpful;

Unless succumbing (or pretending to succumb) to domination from the vampires is consistent with those two goals/facts, she probably should have been allowed another saving throw when attacking Roy, who is the member of the party best suited to accomplish the mission other than herself now that V. is unconscious.

[Jasdoif]

The main objections for Hilgya IMO would be:

--she wants Durkon/Durkula dead, and;

--her deity went out of his way to steer her to this battle, after a long period of being unhelpful;

Unless succumbing (or pretending to succumb) to domination from the vampires is consistent with those two goals/facts, she probably should have been allowed another saving throw when attacking Roy, who is the member of the party best suited to accomplish the mission other than herself now that V. is unconscious.

I have a hard time seeing "you get a save with every order no matter what, because not being in control of your own mind is against your nature" as a valid reading.

[Kish]

Yeah...

I'm pretty sure if a vampire's domination gaze was meant to be, "Unless you secretly long to be mind-controlled, make another save whenever the vampire tells you to do anything" it would say that.

[Sloanzilla]

I actually hate domination rules because of the "second save" clause. I game with a bunch of attorneys and they try to lawyerball every single thing into justifying a second save.

[eilandesq]

I have a hard time seeing "you get a save with every order no matter what, because not being in control of your own mind is against your nature" as a valid reading.

In this case, the circumstances are "If you kill the person you're being ordered to attack, it will almost certainly cause the world to end *and* you'll never get your revenge on Durkon" is a pretty good reason for resisting. if it isn't, I don't know what would be. If the objection is that it's contrived, well. . .[insert V. witticism about copper piece harlots and point at the last few strips for emphasis]

[Kish]

In this case, the circumstances are "If you kill the person you're being ordered to attack, it will almost certainly cause the world to end *and* you'll never get your revenge on Durkon" is a pretty good reason for resisting. if it isn't, I don't know what would be.

What would be is, "You are being ordered to murder your defenseless liege lord." Or, "You are being ordered to attack your beloved spouse, or child." Or, "You're being ordered to eat a green pepper, and you're allergic to green peppers." Something that isn't a baroque phrasing of: creatures who exist to be dangerous, high-level villains are using one of the abilities they have by design to use to promote their schemes, to order you to do something that will help with a high-level villain's scheme.

Or explain why the Domination Gaze power doesn't just spell out, "Whenever you tell your victim to do anything, they automatically get another saving throw to break the Domination."

(Setting aside the fact that no one told Hilgya the world's in danger here; the closest they came was Elan saying she's on a mission to save the world, which could easily have been read as her helping the Order on their continuing mission against Xykon, and Roy saying "Durkon has a plan to influence the Council of Clans to vote for...a thing that's kind of a big deal." And setting aside the amount of reliance on Roy to complete her mission of vengeance that you're assuming Hilgya feels.)

[Jasdoif]

What would be is, "You are being ordered to murder your defenseless liege lord." Or, "You are being ordered to attack your beloved spouse, or child." Or, "You're being ordered to eat a green pepper, and you're allergic to green peppers."

Exactly: when the action itself is against one's nature, regardless of the context in which that action occurs.

[zimmerwald1915]

Exactly: when the action itself is against one's nature, regardless of the context in which that action occurs.

There are no uncrossable lines, or depths to which one won't sink under any circumstances.

[Keltest]

There are no uncrossable lines, or depths to which one won't sink under any circumstances.

Is there any particular reason you feel the need to remind us of your overwhelming cynicism every so often? It certainly isn't contributing anything meaningful to the discussion.

[zimmerwald1915]

Is there any particular reason you feel the need to remind us of your overwhelming cynicism every so often? It certainly isn't contributing anything meaningful to the discussion.

Count it as another argument against the "second save" rule.

[Jasdoif]

There are no uncrossable lines, or depths to which one won't sink under any circumstances.

While the intricate nature of value systems allows for circumstances where any available action goes against one's nature in some form; circumstances are themselves "context" and thus aren't considered here.

[Dion]

Count it as another argument against the "second save" rule.

Everybody dies. I can t see the reason for rules about hitpoints.

[zimmerwald1915]

Everybody dies. I can t see the reason for rules about hitpoints.

You are correct. Hit points are unaccountably silly.

[Resileaf]

Perhaps this is the kind of thing that is open to interpretation even within the dominated person's mind. For example, Hilgya is currently thinking it as "You are betraying Roy", not as "You are obeying Durkon". Perhaps Roy will manage to make her snap out of it by bringing up that she's obeying Durking atm.

[majesticmoose]

What would be is, "You are being ordered to murder your defenseless liege lord." Or, "You are being ordered to attack your beloved spouse, or child." Or, "You're being ordered to eat a green pepper, and you're allergic to green peppers." Something that isn't a baroque phrasing of: creatures who exist to be dangerous, high-level villains are using one of the abilities they have by design to use to promote their schemes, to order you to do something that will help with a high-level villain's scheme.

(Setting aside the fact that no one told Hilgya the world's in danger here;

That last part should be more relevant than it is. By RAW, an order to destroy the world or to help enable villains to destroy the world doesn't just provide a second will save; it comes under the stronger clause "Obviously self-destructive orders are not carried out." (Unless one has a way to survive the destruction of the world, of course.) And since by RAW the domination effect doesn't seem to affect perception or belief, only will, "obviously self-destructive" would mean "if it's obvious to the target that the order is self-destructive, given their existing knowledge". Which means Haley and Belkar really shouldn't be helping the vamps now, but again, drama over rules.

(This reading of the domination effect doesn't make it useless for high-level villains' schemes. But the villains would be well-advised either to use their pawns to hurt people other than themselves or their loved ones, or to use other means to deceive the pawns about the consequences of their actions.)

[Fyraltari]

There are no uncrossable lines, or depths to which one won't sink under any circumstances.

That is your opinion and I respect it, but know that I do not share it. At all.

[Sylian]

Maybe V is only shown as damaged if V's hit points drop below V's normal max hit points, as opposed to any time they drop below V's artificially inflated current max HP. It's not what I'd do as a literalist, but it's not crazy either.

Sounds fairly plausible to me, and this would mean that the Bear's Endurance was dispelled.

[MultitudeMan]

By RAW, an order to destroy the world or to help enable villains to destroy the world doesn't just provide a second will save; it comes under the stronger clause "Obviously self-destructive orders are not carried out." (Unless one has a way to survive the destruction of the world, of course.) And since by RAW the domination effect doesn't seem to affect perception or belief, only will, "obviously self-destructive" would mean "if it's obvious to the target that the order is self-destructive, given their existing knowledge". Which means Haley and Belkar really shouldn't be helping the vamps now, but again, drama over rules.

(This reading of the domination effect doesn't make it useless for high-level villains' schemes. But the villains would be well-advised either to use their pawns to hurt people other than themselves or their loved ones, or to use other means to deceive the pawns about the consequences of their actions.)

It seems that domination effects cause some sort of cognitive impairment, at least in the OOTSverse. Thanh disregarded that Haley was his fellow resistance member when he attacked her, and Belkar attacked Durkon, despite his knowledge of the significance of the OOTS defeating Team Vector/Linear Guild in the battle for the world-safety-affecting control of Girard's Gate.

The total knowledge of those dominated doesn't seem to be a factor in determining eligibility for a Will save; it's not based on INT, but on WIS. It's only the deepest, most fundamental beliefs that come into play, and the Order are attempting to defeat one villain (Durkula) to save the world, so that they can defeat ANOTHER couple of villains (Xykon/Redcloak) to save the world, and who knows what's beyond the Gates anyway, according to what Blackwing saw?

This is all too complicated a situation to have a gut-instinct belief about, so it doesn't affect the domination. Only commands that contradict instinctive responses would trigger a save.

Haley can be ordered to attack Roy (a work colleague with whom she has a slightly complex friendship), but not Elan (the love of her life). Belkar can intercept Minrah (a recent acquaintance), but would never harm Mr. Scruffy. As already noted, Hilgya doesn't know about the end-of-the-world bit anyway, and isn't especially close to Roy, but a threat to Kudzu would undoubtedly give her a save.

[Goblin_Priest]

Well, I think that's a way too permissive interpretation. By that reasoning, dominate can't do anything useful, because almost all applications would involve self-threat. "Attack an ally?" "Yea, but then I'll be left along to fight the rest of the bad guys, so it's self-destructive". Same with "sit out and do nothing", and most other things one might want to order.

I think it should be rather interpreted in the way of being directly self-destructive. "cast the spell to rig the vote" = self-destructive, "fight your allies to help me win this battle to later do stuff to destroy the world" = not self-destructive

Durkon* could change his mind or fail due to many other reasons after this battle to end the world. I think attacking an ally would certainly allow a second save, but not break the effect.

[Goblin_Priest]

Also Dominate Person has some sort of impairment effect by RAW. People can get a check to notice a person is dominated.

[brian 333]

If you have to think up a reason for it it doesn't affect Domination and doesn't give your character another save.

Let me be clear: logic doesn't apply. You can't argue based on convoluted chains of cause and effect. The matter is not subject to reason at all.

You get the save attempt when the issue affects the character, (not the player,) on a deeply emotional level.

For example: Haley likes Roy. Dominated Haley shoots Roy. This doesn't grant Haley a save attempt because it does not affect her on a deeply emotional level.

Change the order from, "Shoot Roy," to, "Kill Roy." This might lead to a second save because killing Roy is not something Haley would do.

"But those actions have the same result!" you might exclaim.

And you would be right. Now take your logic out of the picture. Remove reason, eliminate cause and effect.

"Shoot Roy," or, "Take Roy down," are things Haley would do if she had reason to. Durkula's command doesn't conflict. On the other hand, "Kill Roy," is something she would not do even with reason.

It does not matter that the order to "Take Roy down," could result in his death. This is logic based on a possible chain of events. Logic does not apply. The only thing that matters is, is the act foriegn to the nature of the dominated person in the moment it is delivered?

[Keltest]

If you have to think up a reason for it it doesn't affect Domination and doesn't give your character another save.

Let me be clear: logic doesn't apply. You can't argue based on convoluted chains of cause and effect. The matter is not subject to reason at all.

You get the save attempt when the issue affects the character, (not the player,) on a deeply emotional level.

For example: Haley likes Roy. Dominated Haley shoots Roy. This doesn't grant Haley a save attempt because it does not affect her on a deeply emotional level.

Change the order from, "Shoot Roy," to, "Kill Roy." This might lead to a second save because killing Roy is not something Haley would do.

"But those actions have the same result!" you might exclaim.

And you would be right. Now take your logic out of the picture. Remove reason, eliminate cause and effect.

"Shoot Roy," or, "Take Roy down," are things Haley would do if she had reason to. Durkula's command doesn't conflict. On the other hand, "Kill Roy," is something she would not do even with reason.

It does not matter that the order to "Take Roy down," could result in his death. This is logic based on a possible chain of events. Logic does not apply. The only thing that matters is, is the act foriegn to the nature of the dominated person in the moment it is delivered?

Im sorry, but that's silly. That's just going too far in the opposite direction. If she was standing on a rope bridge, and she was given an order to cut the ropes of the bridge, she would do it, because cutting ropes isn't against her fundamental nature, right? Wrong. She wouldn't do it because that would result in her plunging down into whatever gap the rope bridge is spanning, possibly to her death and almost certainly to imminent extreme damage. Its an obviously self destructive action because of the context involved.

Its also why people cried foul when Greg ordered Belkar to jump over the edge of the Mechane.

[Corian]

Let me be clear: logic doesn't apply. You can't argue based on convoluted chains of cause and effect. The matter is not subject to reason at all.

I like this. It also made me think of something unrelated for Durkon's memory:

Spoiler

Show

Vague hypothesis, but he said it's a Doozy. Something that leaves him conflicted, an unsolvable conundrum, and that he could live with because Durkon also is about values vs solving puzzles. And that could confuse the heck out of Durkon^T, because he's more calculating by (evil) nature and won't be able to let it lie.

[Sloanzilla]

Isn't Occam's wooden stake right now that in a panel or 2 Belkar will be told to "Kill Roy" and will not?

[brian 333]

Im sorry, but that's silly. That's just going too far in the opposite direction. If she was standing on a rope bridge, and she was given an order to cut the ropes of the bridge, she would do it, because cutting ropes isn't against her fundamental nature, right? Wrong. She wouldn't do it because that would result in her plunging down into whatever gap the rope bridge is spanning, possibly to her death and almost certainly to imminent extreme damage. Its an obviously self destructive action because of the context involved.

Its also why people cried foul when Greg ordered Belkar to jump over the edge of the Mechane.

I don't necessarily disagree with your example.

But the issue is much more black-and-white than the preponderance of posters seem to imply. The reason a player gets a save is because a proposed act violates fundamental aspects of a character, not because of reasons.

Things that offer a save of break Domination:
Self-destructive acts violate a person's fundamdntal will to survive.
Acts which violate intense emotional ties, such as between Hilgya and Kudzu.

Things that do not:
A chain of events longer than a single step with obvious consequences.
Anything that requires reason or logic to explain.

[Keltest]

I don't necessarily disagree with your example.

But the issue is much more black-and-white than the preponderance of posters seem to imply. The reason a player gets a save is because a proposed act violates fundamental aspects of a character, not because of reasons.

Things that offer a save of break Domination:
Self-destructive acts violate a person's fundamdntal will to survive.
Acts which violate intense emotional ties, such as between Hilgya and Kudzu.

Things that do not:
A chain of events longer than a single step with obvious consequences.
Anything that requires reason or logic to explain.

If the consequences of an action are obvious, even if they result from a chain of events, its still going to give another save. The spell description describes acts which are "obviously self destructive" as not being carried out. That means if an act results in self harm, regardless of whether it would be an ordinary consequence of that act, are not carried out. You couldn't tell somebody to break open a dam by telling them to "chop apart that log" unless they didn't know it was part of a dam, because doing that is obviously going to result in a lot of harm done to one's self.

[MultitudeMan]

I don't necessarily disagree with your example.

But the issue is much more black-and-white than the preponderance of posters seem to imply. The reason a player gets a save is because a proposed act violates fundamental aspects of a character, not because of reasons.

Things that offer a save of break Domination:
Self-destructive acts violate a person's fundamdntal will to survive.
Acts which violate intense emotional ties, such as between Hilgya and Kudzu.

Things that do not:
A chain of events longer than a single step with obvious consequences.
Anything that requires reason or logic to explain.

Yes, I think that's what I was getting at, but phrased better.

[brian 333]

If the consequences of an action are obvious, even if they result from a chain of events, its still going to give another save. The spell description describes acts which are "obviously self destructive" as not being carried out. That means if an act results in self harm, regardless of whether it would be an ordinary consequence of that act, are not carried out. You couldn't tell somebody to break open a dam by telling them to "chop apart that log" unless they didn't know it was part of a dam, because doing that is obviously going to result in a lot of harm done to one's self.

That is exactly how it works.

I'm not disagreeing with the given example. It clearly defines the line.

Does the character know the act is going to result in immediate harm? If the answer is no, the character doesn't get a save. If it might cause the character an injury at some later time depending on other factors the character doesn't get a save. If it's something the character would do if not dominated the character doesn't get a save.

Ordering Haley to take down Kudzu would violate Haley's core beliefs. She would get a save. In fact, I'd ruld she gets to ignore that order. On ths other hand, if non-vampire Durkon told Haley to shoot Roy, she probably would because she trusts Durkon.

[Keltest]

That is exactly how it works.

I'm not disagreeing with the given example. It clearly defines the line.

Does the character know the act is going to result in immediate harm? If the answer is no, the character doesn't get a save. If it might cause the character an injury at some later time depending on other factors the character doesn't get a save. If it's something the character would do if not dominated the character doesn't get a save.

Ordering Haley to take down Kudzu would violate Haley's core beliefs. She would get a save. In fact, I'd ruld she gets to ignore that order. On ths other hand, if non-vampire Durkon told Haley to shoot Roy, she probably would because she trusts Durkon.

Ok, but that's not what you said earlier. You specifically called out chains of events with obvious consequences as not allowing for a save.