Post/Author/DateTime	Post
rone_leah 07-24-07, 10:24 PM	I just turned neutral evil in a campaign and a party member was dominated and commanded to kill me. He didn't succeed and we cured the domination. So my question is am I justified in killing the commanded character?
Count_Chumleigh 07-24-07, 10:32 PM	Your character might be. You are not. It may be entirely within your character's idiom to kill party members who are magically dominated into attacking him after the fact, but you, as a player, must never have your character do this. At best, the game goes along as though nothing unusual had happened. More likely, though, it will only generate bad feelings both in and out of the game. Now, smacking the erstwhile dominee (domino?) a good one 'crost the head, that's okay, because it does no lasting harm to anyone and gets the point across that your character doesn't truck with people being magically compelled into trying to hurt him, and will take out his frustration on the victim. Because he's evil. Cheers, --Count Chumleigh
Crimson_Concerto 07-24-07, 10:42 PM	. . . See, this is why I prevent this kind of stupidity by not letting my players play evil characters. No, you are absolutely not in any way justified in killing his character, even if your character is justified. Count_Chumleigh has it right here. Unless the player and rest of the group agree beforehand that he doesn't mind his character being killed in such a way, killing another players characters is basically the best way to ruin a campaign for everybody.
Krusk 07-24-07, 10:43 PM	Depends on how your group views PVP. Some groups it is fair game, and the players can handle it but in others they can't. Then it also depends on whether or not your character understands what happened. Int 5 fighter does not really understand what happened, and might kill over this. Whereas int 28 wizard will understand the concept of dominate person. Basically it really depends first on your groups view of PVP, and secondly on your characters personality.
Mock26 07-24-07, 10:44 PM	I just turned neutral evil in a campaign and a party member was dominated and commanded to kill me. He didn't succeed and we cured the domination. So my question is am I justified in killing the commanded character? That depends on whether or not you are concerned about maintaining a group harmony between you and your fellow players and between your character and his fellow adventurers. If you know he was dominated and commanded you can simply forgive him. Or, you can potentially disrupt the game and upset your friends and have your character kill the character. But, you have to remember that you decide all the actions of your character. The decision is yours.
Zaver 07-24-07, 10:47 PM	Rone_leah, in this situation it's not right to kill the players character. They didn't do anything against you as their actions were the result of a spell. You're just evil but you can still decide that the character didn't actually do any thing, which they didn't, and thus don't deserve your wrath. If you said you were a psychotic lunatic who attacked people for even percieved wrong doing then you would be justified in doing it and you would be a bad player for making the character.
loaba 07-24-07, 10:55 PM	Another vote for the dear Count, and may I just ask if anyone here ever makes use of subdual damage? Seems like an ideal option in this scenario, even for an Evil character.
Caelic 07-24-07, 10:57 PM	It's not even so much a question of whether you're justified. The question is: is it really the only option your character would consider? What about holding this over the other character's head? Calling in a favor at some point in the future? ("Remember the time you nearly killed me, and I held off on striking back, because you're a friend? Friends look out for each other. Now I need you to look out for me...")
dknight100 07-25-07, 05:03 AM	I'm going to assume you meant would it be justified to kill them while their dominated? The answer is no. Just think, would you be peeved if someone killed your character because someone else tried to kill theirs? Because thats effectively what a dominated character attempting to kill your character is. If you meant after the domination ended... then even more no. Why would your character even do it? They're aware he was dominated at the time, and is no longer dominated, so why on earth would you try and kill them?
RobbyPants 07-25-07, 11:22 AM	If you meant after the domination ended... then even more no. Why would your character even do it? They're aware he was dominated at the time, and is no longer dominated, so why on earth would you try and kill them? Yeah, that's the big thing for me. It just doesn't make any sense to me. Just because you're evil doesn't make you a senseless killer. You're neutral evil, not chaotic evil (and even chaotic evil PCs don't have to kill people all the time). I would think you'd be more justified in killing him if you had something to gain. Of course, playing a PC like this isn't likely to make other players very happy.
Dunsel 07-25-07, 11:52 AM	I would not open that door and step through. If your DM dominates other PCs and has them attempt to kill other party members, you might be next! Your PC: Aw come on guys! I know I was dominated last week and I tried to kill you but I'm OK now. Others: We still want to kill you b/c you tried to kill us! The next thing you know, you are in the middle of a Greek tragedy and every new pc created is considered freash meat. IOW, don't do it.
Ilthorin 07-25-07, 02:00 PM	Too late Dunsel. the Dm threw the door wide open.. nah broke it off its hinges by allowing the players to run evil pcs to begin with. The simple answer to the OP's question of is he justified in killing the other pc is yes. hands down no arguements. There are a hundred reasons why a NE character would consider it completely acceptable. Could he come up with a reason why he wouldn't kill him? That is another question entirely. As is the whole issue of whether or not the player should have his character do it.
Salla 07-25-07, 02:02 PM	Your character would be completely unjustified in killing someone who attacked you because he was under mind control, but since he's evil, he can certainly rationalize it.
Hsien 07-25-07, 02:24 PM	Justified, that's a matter of opinion,and the understanding that if you kill that character, do you really expect the other party members to be ok with that? Unless the character is crazy, the answer is probably no..the party will not be all that understanding and your character will either also be killed or at least removed from the group. I've played some rather vindictive non-evil characters in my time and there are some ways around that issue. My character was recently charmed and ordered to kill a party member that was a burden to the party, imo, so when they said I got another save to resist because I wouldn't "normally" do that I rolled and oh looks like I failed, darn it. Ok Bob what's your AC? ( I lost that fight, though it was close) I also used a helm of opposite alignment on a party member that was evil...but then I had saved it for months for just the right opportunity, when I could get away with it w/o anyone knowing, even the victim. Unfortunately, that character turned from CE super sneaky genius to a LG hippy flower-child...sigh. Oh well not all plans work out, but at least she no longer plotted the partied demise. How much confrontation has there been between the characters, challenge him to a duel, to clear this up as a matter of honor...ok that only works if the other character cares about such things. Just remember that if the other character mysteriously dies, all fingers point to your character.
nova head 07-25-07, 02:44 PM	As a DM that runs evil PC's at most of my games I have had this situation seven times now, one of the times was the most memorable. The warrior had been taken over by his suite of armor (Dæmon armor) and became a blood thirsty, and had killed one of the other players needless to say the rest of the party killed him, were they justified? yes. I would say so because of his stupidity of trying to use Dæmon armor knowing full well what might happen. (knowledge check by the cleric) As per your situation I don't know the full story and there for don't pass judgment was this because he used a item or because something/someone controlled him fault by stupidity or by circumstances.
Caelic 07-25-07, 02:45 PM	Ehrm...I have to be honest, I'm a bit taken aback here by some of the arguments I'm hearing. I agree that killing the character after he's no longer a threat isn't justified...but some people are taking it a step farther than that and claiming that killing the character while he's attacking you and your own life is in danger also would not be justified. Since when is self defense not justified? I'm sorry, but "He's a PC, and therefore your character should never try to kill him under any circumstances whatsoever" is just too over the top for my tastes. If I'm a wizard, and the party fighter attacks me while dominated, and the only spells I have that might stop him are lethal in nature, I'm probably going to use those spells. I may well feel bad about it afterwards, IC and OOC, but there's no good reason for me to stand there and let him kill me.
Salla 07-25-07, 02:51 PM	Ehrm...I have to be honest, I'm a bit taken aback here by some of the arguments I'm hearing. I agree that killing the character after he's no longer a threat isn't justified...but some people are taking it a step farther than that and claiming that killing the character while he's attacking you and your own life is in danger also would not be justified. Since when is self defense not justified? I'm sorry, but "He's a PC, and therefore your character should never try to kill him under any circumstances whatsoever" is just too over the top for my tastes. If I'm a wizard, and the party fighter attacks me while dominated, and the only spells I have that might stop him are lethal in nature, I'm probably going to use those spells. I may well feel bad about it afterwards, IC and OOC, but there's no good reason for me to stand there and let him kill me. If that is the case, yes. But if you have nonlethal methods of preventing him from killing you, you should generally use those first, even if it's things like Invisibility or Fly so he just can't get you. Remember, also, that any character can take a -4 penalty in melee to deal nonlethal damage. If you *have* to kill him, yes, but in theory, this person's your friend and you've been watching one another's backs for months, if not years. You owe it to him to do your best to not kill him just because he's mind controlled.
danielinthewolvesden 07-25-07, 03:19 PM	I just turned neutral evil in a campaign and a party member was dominated and commanded to kill me. He didn't succeed and we cured the domination. So my question is am I justified in killing the commanded character? No, and you likely should not have turned evil, either. But that was the DM's (bad) call, not yours.
Aucturos 07-25-07, 03:51 PM	I just turned neutral evil in a campaign and a party member was dominated and commanded to kill me. He didn't succeed and we cured the domination. So my question is am I justified in killing the commanded character? Your title should read: "Am I justified?" I'm is a contraction of "I am". As for the question at hand, if you tried to kill him during the Domination, yes. If you tried to kill him after, then most likely not. No reason for you to. He's too valuable a resource to dispense with so carelessly, and such an act would only force dissention within the party, who might then turn around and kill you for killing him... and then they'd Raise him and not you. Then you'd have to re-roll. Or maybe something else happens, but it's usually not a good thing (unless the DM plans with you some sort of atonement or something to make up for it) either way.
Zarron 07-25-07, 04:52 PM	If your character's INT is hovering even around below average, he probably understands "Bob tried to kill me. I don't like that. But, Bob WAS being magically compelled to kill me, so I mean, it won't happen again." Heck, even an INT of 3 probably understands: "Bob not usually attack me. Bob attacked me because of MAGIC. MAGIC is bad. Bob is not."
Paladin_Hiroshi 07-25-07, 05:38 PM	I believe evasive and/or subdual manouvers are called for, such as grapple, subdual damage and invisibility. Oh and as for being neutral evil, go you. I DM a campaign where alignment is a free for all and I don't have any problems. You're really can't justify killing him unless it truly is a back against the wall situation. Just realise one thing. If your players are like the other people in this thread, they will crucify you for it, even though they would do EXACTLY the same thing in your shoes. Your evil, it's your job to be crucified, right? :P Good luck.
Novabomb 07-25-07, 05:40 PM	I just turned neutral evil in a campaign and a party member was dominated and commanded to kill me. He didn't succeed and we cured the domination. So my question is am I justified in killing the commanded character? Presumable you travel with party members for a reason, whatever that reason is, they cant perform it while they are dead. The fact that you are evil shouldn't really play into the matter. If another PC is dominated, and you lack options alternative options (except death) then killing is of course justified. Even members of good alignment might do this if given no other option. If you mean kill the character AFTER the domination was lifted, HELL NO.
Zarron 07-25-07, 05:44 PM	I believe evasive and/or subdual manouvers are called for, such as grapple, subdual damage and invisibility. Oh and as for being neutral evil, go you. I DM a campaign where alignment is a free for all and I don't have any problems. You're really can't justify killing him unless it truly is a back against the wall situation. Just realise one thing. If your players are like the other people in this thread, they will crucify you for it, even though they would do EXACTLY the same thing in your shoes. Your evil, it's your job to be crucified, right? :P Good luck. If he even tries to, I can see no good party that would not promptly subdue him/kill him, or if he succeeds, not manage to find out he did this (they are fighting things that can dominate them, they've got access to divination spells to determine who killed Bob), and then again promptly kill/subdue/evict him from the party. It seems pointless to deliberately upset the game table.
dknight100 07-25-07, 05:59 PM	For the people saying that he's justified because he's evil... That just doesn't make sense. Last time i saw "Evil" in the dictionary, it didnt have "See Stupid". Just because you're evil doesn't mean you're dumb enough to kill off your teammates. Evil has never meant Kill Stuff, Cos You're Evil, thats just a 13yo's interpretation of RP. An evil character can be conniving, and evil character might murder other people indiscriminately, they might steal, there is all sort of criminal activity they could partake it, but evil is not a justification for killing someone who has guarded your back, who given the team nature of the game, your life and success relies upon. An evil character might not even consider his teammates friends, but he would certainly consider them useful tools at least. And think, would you destroy a spanner if you threw it at your foot and it hurt? Similarly, while they are dominated, there is slightly more justification, i.e. self defense, but many evil characters with more than int 8 would probably see that evasive action (possibly coupled with killing whoever dominated the other character) is a far better method of surviving an attack by a dominated party member - not only are you more likely to live, but it doesn't stand to make a valuable ally (or useful tool) weaker.
Ecalsneerg 07-25-07, 07:02 PM	If your character feels it's right, OK. But if the other PCs don't share that view, well... let's just say if you were in my party, my character would be ready to help your victim fight you.
StevenO 07-25-07, 08:18 PM	If you're character is EVIL why does he need justification? If a character is attacking you cut them down. If a character is attacking you but suddenly stops (domination is broken) you MAY still think they should be killed unless you realize the reason they were attacking you is NOT their fault, they could be bluffing after all. If this is some time after the fight you shouldn't use that as an excuse to attack them but note what happened incase it comes up again. Now from a players perspective you certainly should NOT kill the dominated PC. Unless the entire party is into player vs. player killing fellow PCs is basically unacceptable; if PvP is allowed you probably aren't really playing DnD as intended.
dknight100 07-25-07, 08:36 PM	If you're character is EVIL why does he need justification? Because evil people don't have int 1. Everyone justifies their actions, evil people are no exception. Even an insane person would attempt to justify their actions. If your person didnt need justification, he would have killed them for no reason at 1st level, most likely in their sleep.
danielinthewolvesden 07-25-07, 09:20 PM	If you're character is EVIL why does he need justification? If a character is attacking you cut them down. Yes, an evil PC would be justified in using the best method at hand of defending himself, which could certainly include lethal weapon attacks. But ONLY right then & there, not afterwards. No CdG either. But evil or no, he has been adventuring with these folks for a while. Even Evil people have friends and companions.
High Octane 07-25-07, 09:33 PM	I just turned neutral evil Neutral evil means never having to justify anything to anyone but yourself.
dknight100 07-25-07, 10:16 PM	High_Octane - when deciding what course of action to take, the only person anyone has to justify anything to IS ALWAYS themselves. Even lawful good still just has to justify it to themselves, their strict adherence to a set of rules is simply something that factors strongly into justifying it to themselves. However, justifying to yourself does not mean that you are free to act in a completely silly and unjustified manner. It still has to be justified, which means that there must be strong reasons why you would take that action.
rone_leah 07-25-07, 11:05 PM	Ok when I mean turned I mean not willingly. The Dm put a helm of opposite alignment in the dungeon. And IF I do kill him that's not the only person I'm going to kill. I got the writ of another party member after she ****** off the thieves guild. For those of you who read, Wheel of time, my group made a warder spell and she was my warder. So I was going to ignore it, until after she broke it with the cleric with the break enchantment spell. But now I'm going to let it all slide, til next time I get screwed over then I'm murdering the whole party and making the character a npc
dknight100 07-25-07, 11:38 PM	Though you do seem intent on shafting your entire party, i feel obliged to say that its a helm of opposite alignment, not helm of nonsensical murder - it changes your moral outlook, but your character would still justify their actions to themselves, but by their new changed alignment.
Khadmus 07-26-07, 07:15 AM	Yeah, that's the big thing for me. It just doesn't make any sense to me. Just because you're evil doesn't make you a senseless killer. You're neutral evil, not chaotic evil (and even chaotic evil PCs don't have to kill people all the time). I would think you'd be more justified in killing him if you had something to gain. Of course, playing a PC like this isn't likely to make other players very happy. RobbyPants is right. Your character has no reason to do this. And the out of game aftermath is definitely not worth enduring
Infernostrider 07-26-07, 12:14 PM	unless dominated by NPCs, or otherwise INVOLUNTARILY comming an act of violence against a partymember is acceptable. Defending yourself using nonlethal damage to knock the partymember out is acceptable too. Otherwise, no matter if you're a balor and the 9 other PCs in your group are high elven paladins, there should under no circumstances be voluntary violence in the group. When creating characters, every1 tries to stay in line with one anothers characters so the group fits, but changes occur regularly and assuming the party is of a higher level, the characters have grown a tight bond with each other to a certain degree, and will not hurt each other willingly. it's just bad business, you wanna stay friends with the other players and it takes all the fun out of the game to start killing each other. the only voluntary hurt players should bring about on each other is harmless spells or a single attack that rolls 1d4 or summin to get a person back in line, or cantrips to make fun of m
rone_leah 07-26-07, 01:37 PM	Ok no one has read wheel of time, let me spell this out for you the one with a contract out on her was my guardian, my protecter and when she broke that bond she said **** you creep I couldn't care less if you die. And what all of you are is total BS if your BEST friend nearly beat you to death and you are healing in a hospitale would you care that they care if they said the room made me do it. That's what dominated him and what more he got xps off me! I don't care what you say about team harmony if a party with a balor(Infernostrider) and the high elf paladins aka warriors now hurt him, he's not going to say it's all right I new you were controlled, no he is going to get you back in turn if not take you back to hell for a few centuries. My view of it is he has been compromised and can at any moment go crazy again and kill a few of us. Not that I care for anyone but the cleric now but he has already singled me out once.
Ecalsneerg 07-26-07, 01:50 PM	Ok no one has read wheel of time I know it's a book series. I know it's not actually relevant to your actions.
swallowyersoul 07-26-07, 01:53 PM	This is one of those situations where metagaming is a good thing. Would a neutral evil character hold a grudge against somebody who tried to kill him, even while dominated? Sure! Would he kill him over the grudge? Probably depends on the circumstances, even just his mood. But will killing another player's character make the game less fun for anybody at the table? If the answer is yes, then it's your job as a player to find an IC way to justify not killing him. Lots of suggestions on the board already. Round my table, we play with a basic rule: We Are Professionals. Just like any other professionals, we sometimes deal with people or circumstances we wouldn't want to outside the job. But still we deal with those people professionally and do our best to work well as a team.
geekmasterflash 07-26-07, 02:12 PM	I have had plenty of evil folks in my games, and it all comes down to how you play your alignment. You can take the Voldemort path, a character who tortures, maims, and otherwises punishes imagined failures harshly but rarely kills "allies." Or you can take the Urakhai path, a character who kills indecriminately, even supposed allies for getting in thier way. Both are great examples of how evil works, except one has no place in a party with PCs of varying alignment.
rone_leah 07-26-07, 03:09 PM	I know it's a book series. I know it's not actually relevant to your actions. You need to read the books to know what kind of bond the warder broke. It's kinda like your familiar broke the bond between it and its master. And voldemort's *allies* never tried to kill him so we don't know how he would of reacted. Which should be clear he would kill them.
Salla 07-26-07, 03:58 PM	Your character's reaction to this bond-breaking, whatever sort, is entirely your own decision. It doesn't matter what Hack Author #452 wrote in his book. YOUR character, YOUR decision on how to play him.
Ack 07-26-07, 05:08 PM	Let's reference some more Rowling. Someone under the Imperius curse attempts to kill you. You know he's acting against his will. You can pull out the old Stupefy (always a good one) or you can go overboard and hit him with Avada Kadabra. If you have non-lethal means, then even a neutral evil character can justify using them ("You owe me, boy.") Having someone in debt to you can work on so many levels. However, once the control wears off, are you justified in killing him? By any sane measure, no. You may as well just kill off every other member of the party (because they might be the next ones to be mind controlled, you know). Or, to take it to the level of ridiculous, kill your own character off (because he can't bear the idea of someone else controlling his very actions). But no, even by neutral evil standards, in no way are you actually and unequivocally justified in killing him now that he's no longer dominated. In fact, the only reason for you to kill him now would be because you, the player, want that character dead. And if you want to be that much of a dick, go ahead. We can't stop you.
dknight100 07-26-07, 05:47 PM	And voldemort's *allies* never tried to kill him so we don't know how he would of reacted. Which should be clear he would kill them. note that the character in your campaign didn't try to kill you either. They were dominated, which means someone else tried to kill you. not really sure why we're trying to convince you to take a logical, not potentially group (and i mean players, not characters) destroying path, given that from you're statements it seems pretty clear that your thread should have been titled I'm Justified! not Am I Justified?
loaba 07-26-07, 08:04 PM	I have had plenty of evil folks in my games, and it all comes down to how you play your alignment. You can take the Voldemort path, a character who tortures, maims, and otherwises punishes imagined failures harshly but rarely kills "allies." Or you can take the Urakhai path, a character who kills indecriminately, even supposed allies for getting in thier way. Both are great examples of how evil works, except one has no place in a party with PCs of varying alignment. Wrong, Bull, just wrong. Neither of those options has any place in a typical D&D game. Your first example could be rationalized as the acceptable actions of an NPC, but not a PC. Your second example is the same. Evil PC's need to remember that they are in fact a part of a larger group. It's okay for them to scheme, but unless you're playing in a game where Evil is the prevailing flavor (say an accepted PvP atmosphere), that scheming needs to be directed outwards. D&D is about having fun, if you're considering an Evil alingment you need to talk to everyone else and see how they feel about that. Once upon a time I would have said that Evil PC's have no place in the game, and that's probably the wrong attitude. Evil characters can work in a group, they just have to remember that the game isn't PvP. Back to the OP and the original scenario; I say it again, subdual damage is perfectly in-character and more than acceptable in the situation that was described. Too bad more people don't remember that it is an option.
rone_leah 07-27-07, 12:53 AM	note that the character in your campaign didn't try to kill you either. They were dominated, which means someone else tried to kill you. not really sure why we're trying to convince you to take a logical, not potentially group (and i mean players, not characters) destroying path, given that from you're statements it seems pretty clear that your thread should have been titled I'm Justified! not Am I Justified? The end of that post just seems like an attack, but I will reply just the same. If you were in an arguement wouldn't you try to defend your view point? If not I would hate to have you on a debate team. And to someone else tried to kill me, is just wrong it wa a room with residual magic that dominate him. You could say the room tried to kill me, but how would that sound in character? That would be the most feeble excuse I ever heard in D&D and I've heard you evil so I'll smite you to a noble from a paladin in his own home. Usually evil doesn't have a place in are group but the DM made one. Ack how do you know the person was controlled? How do you know if the person just went along to get a few potshots at you? Hmmm you don't. I just made this thread to see if killing him was reasonable action to do in character and it turns out it is, but isn't acceptable as a player action. His best agruement turns out to be "The room made me do it." I really couldn't think of a reason not to kill him until I made this thread. To the helpfull people of this board I congratulate you for persuading a former occult slayer to not kill a gish for nearly killing him:D
Salla 07-27-07, 01:01 AM	And to someone else tried to kill me, is just wrong it wa a room with residual magic that dominate him. You could say the room tried to kill me, but how would that sound in character? The room was apparently trapped with a Dominate trap. Again, whoever set the trap was the cause. Usually evil doesn't have a place in are group but the DM made one. Ack how do you know the person was controlled? How do you know if the person just went along to get a few potshots at you? Hmmm you don't. Has he tried to kill you before? Has he evidenced any hostility towards you? Did you make your Sense Motive check to see if he was enchanted? If not, you had no proof that he was acting of his own free will. Abrupt, unexplainable personality alterations are usually a good sign that something is ... amiss.
dknight100 07-27-07, 01:05 AM	that the room possessed him made no difference - it was not the character that made the choice to attack your character, as you said, the room dominated him. it doesn't even matter if the player went along with it because it meant that he gets to attack your character - he's dominated, and his characters choice, beyond making a will save, is removed. Usually evil doesn't have a place in are group but the DM made one. Ack how do you know the person was controlled? How do you know if the person just went along to get a few potshots at you? Hmmm you don't. My response: because that they were controlled IS PRECISELY WHAT YOU SAID THEY WERE, and that YOU were aware they were controlled. I just turned neutral evil in a campaign and a party member was dominated and commanded to kill me. He didn't succeed and we cured the domination. So my question is am I justified in killing the commanded character?
dknight100 07-27-07, 02:13 AM	The end of that post just seems like an attack, but I will reply just the same. If you were in an arguement wouldn't you try to defend your view point? If not I would hate to have you on a debate team. For the record, i would even less prefer to have you on my debate team. your responses to anyone who hasnt said your character is justified is "nuhuh, you dont get it, read the wheel of time" And to someone else tried to kill me, is just wrong it wa a room with residual magic that dominate him. You could say the room tried to kill me, but how would that sound in character? That would be the most feeble excuse I ever heard in D&D and I've heard you evil so I'll smite you to a noble from a paladin in his own home. You're suggesting that your character, apparently an ex-Occult Slayer, hence an adverturer very well versed in the existance of magic, in a world where the existance of magic is common knowledge, where items can be magical, would find the excuse "the room made me do it" 'weak', when the character who attacked you and made the subsequent excuse 1) attacked you when in the room 2) was somehow cured of the domination? That doesn't sound weak, that sounds precisely like something that is possible in the world your character lives in, and the exact sort of thing your character should be familiar with, having at some point devoted their life (as an occult slayer) to combating the occult. ::EDIT:: Thats like saying your character would be surpised a wizard could shoot magical spells at you.
Hopeless 07-27-07, 07:12 AM	I just turned neutral evil in a campaign and a party member was dominated and commanded to kill me. He didn't succeed and we cured the domination. So my question is am I justified in killing the commanded character? It depends if you knew he was under someone's control, if that is the case there's nothing to stop you subduing him however that depends if the dm will allow you to do so as some will conveniently forget they're supposed to be unbiased you know like assassinating a cleric inside a church during a trip north after an army of devils which has been assaulting every settlement on the route and the first member of the same faith that cleric has met outside of Waterdeep turns out to be an assassin.... Sorry old wound.
Ack 07-27-07, 07:52 AM	There's an episode of Astro City (good comic, you should read it) where a murderer is acquitted because the prosecution could not prove that he wasn't under external mental influence at the time. :D
Paladin_Hiroshi 07-27-07, 11:47 AM	ok rone leah and Dknight100.... I think this thread is over. It's devolved into useless advice and petty namecalling. In fact both of you have got a bad attitude and need to 1) Calm 2) get back on topic 3) STFU about debate teams 4) If you cannot do the above, GTFO, noone is forcing you to be here. I think those are the correct 2 users, please say if I'm wrong. :D
Khadmus 07-28-07, 07:37 AM	ok rone leah and Dknight100.... I think this thread is over. It's devolved into useless advice and petty namecalling. In fact both of you have got a bad attitude and need to 1) Calm 2) get back on topic 3) STFU about debate teams 4) If you cannot do the above, GTFO, noone is forcing you to be here. I think those are the correct 2 users, please say if I'm wrong. :D I think they are, but I think one of them is the OP... meh
kelvinaw273 07-28-07, 08:32 AM	Sounds to me like the game itself is pretty messed up. Time to quit.