Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 pukunui Jun 22, 2015 2:29:02	I've got a bad guy in my campaign that can cast mass suggestion. He is the leader of a group of duergar, who prefer to capture and enslave others instead of killing them. My thinking is that when the PCs encounter the leader, he will attempt to use mass suggestion to get the PCs to surrender, give up their stuff, and become his slaves.   If I were to have him say something like "I suggest you surrender your weapons and come work for me", would that suffice? That doesn't seem like an obviously harmful course of action, especially since the alternative could be a horrible death at the bad guy's hands if they don't surrender. Assuming the PCs fail their saves, would the bad guy then be free to ask them to give up all their gear and let themselves be chained up, or would that break the suggestion?   Anyone got any better phrasing?
#2 Imaculata Jun 22, 2015 3:03:55	II would say that given the wording, that the suggestion is reasonable. It is certainly preferable to death, and it is none threatening request. So yes, I think they would put down their weapons, and let themselves be chained, if they fail their saves.
#3 Razintarr Jun 22, 2015 3:46:52	"Come work for me" is a lie, or at least an euphemism, if the duergar intents to enslave the players. That brings up the interesting question if the suggestion has to be sincere. The spell description only states that the suggestion must be worded so the suggested action sounds reasonable. Earlier editions had examples that made it clear that the caster could lie. I remember an example that suggesting a pool of acid was actually a refreshing pool of water and that jumping in would be nice was an acceptable suggestion. I'd say the suggestion can made reasonable with a lie.    In the above case, the duergar could tell the players that no harm will come to them if they lay down their weapons, and that he'll pay well for their employment. That would at least get the ones that fail to lay down their weapons. They wouldn't be obliged to let themselves be chained up or give the duergr the rest of their stuff, because that lies outside of the scope of the original suggestion. Chaining them up would be so much easier when they are unarmed though. I'd allow the players a chance to see through the lie, and if they succeed then the question if the suggestion is reasonable is determined without the lie (a roll with advantage if the lie is stretching it, like suggesting they'd run across a ravine because there is an invisible bridge).    You mention the alternative of a horrible death. If that alternative is likely (when the duergar outnumber the players or if the players are wounded or low on resources), then the duergar could just as easily suggest they surrender and become his slaves, because else they will suffer said horrible death, emphasising the greater numbers/wounded players.    In any case the players are going to be more argumentative why a suggestion would be unreasonable or an effect would be obviously harmfull than a NPC would be.    Maybe the best suggestion would be "pretend to surrender and to become willing slaves, so we'll lead you to our secret slavepits where you can try to free yourself and the rest of the slaves there". Because that suggestion promises them something to gain, the location of a hidden slavepit and the opportunity to do something good by freeing the slaves there. Totally reasonable, because even if all the player make their saves, they might still be inclined to follow the suggestion. Following that suggested course of action will get them to allow the duergar to disarm them, make them take their armor off, give up their stuff and to be chained up.
#4 iserith Jun 22, 2015 6:30:26	pukunui wrote:
#5 pukunui Jun 22, 2015 14:07:40	Let me rephrase: The bad guy, being a duergar, would prefer to capture and enslave the PCs rather than fight them to the death. My thought was that using mass suggestion would be the easiest way for him to do so. Would having him say "I suggest you surrender and become my slaves" be reasonable enough? Or would becoming the slave of a duergar fall under "obviously harmful"? Especially given that not only are the duergar known for working their slaves to death but the PCs have also already seen a mass grave containing all the bodies of the slaves the duergar have already worked to death.   My wife was the one who suggested I have him say "come work for me" instead of "be my slave" so it would sound like less of a bad idea. And as the duergar are also known for their love of good, honest labor, having the leader ask the PCs to work for him doesn't seem that unreasonable, right? I don't think it's an outright lie, either, since as his slaves, they will technically be working for him. He just won't be paying them. Either way, divesting the PCs of their gear seems reasonable enough to me because they wouldn't need armor and weapons and backpacks and such to do simple mining work, which is what the duergars' slaves are currently doing.     Razintarr wrote:
#6 BRJN Jun 22, 2015 17:47:37	If the PCs fight, have a Duergar Paladin in the background.  REQUIRE the PCs to make Death saves.  Have the Paladin run across the battlefield, apply manacles to the fallen, then stabilize them (Lay on Hands, 1 HP).   How about Suggestion: "We will defeat you if you choose to fight us, but you could surrender.  I offer you fair terms." ? Bold added in case his lieutenant wants to help him with a Command spell.
#7 Wuzzard Jun 22, 2015 18:12:21	Scenario #1:   All PC's fail the save.  This should lead to a scene where they wake from their happy trance and realize they are all tied up and have no gear ... great start for an escape from the prison challenge.  Obviously, all their gear is in a chest in an adjoining room and the guard is napping, just like every CRPG ever... no, maybe the bad guys took their best gear and they'll have to fight to get it back.   Scenario #2:   Some PC's fail the save, but others do not.   Do they fight or retreat?   If they retreat they can mount a rescue later.  If they fight is there anyway to survive or is it impossible.  If impossible, let them know that right away so they can choose the retreat/flee option.   Scenario #3:   Most/All PC's make their save.  That's okay DM, you meant for that to happen.. Now the PC's are doubly wary and know this guy has powers and means them harm.  Same as scenario #2, except maybe also a negotiation option, etc.
#8 pukunui Jun 22, 2015 18:41:36	BRJN wrote:
#9 Noon Jun 22, 2015 21:00:10	pukunui wrote:
#10 pukunui Jun 22, 2015 21:41:08	Noon wrote:
#11 moonbeast Jun 23, 2015 0:38:24	pukunui wrote:
#12 pukunui Jun 23, 2015 1:28:44	"The suggestion must be worded in such a manner as to make the course of action sound reasonable. Asking the creature to stab itself, throw itself onto a spear, immolate itself, or do some other obviously harmful act automatically negates the effect of the spell."   Do you really think that allowing yourself to be chained up counts as an "obviously harmful act"? The specific examples given are acts of self-harm. Being enslaved is not quite in the same league as attempting to kill yourself.   I guess the difference is being enslaved by duergar is a slow death rather than a quick one.   Perhaps I *should* have the bad guy suggest that they allow themselves to be enslaved so they can attempt a slave revolt.
#13 moonbeast Jun 23, 2015 2:02:44	pukunui wrote:
#14 pukunui Jun 23, 2015 3:05:14	moonbeast wrote:
#15 Razintarr Jun 23, 2015 3:21:24	pukunui wrote:
#16 Imaculata Jun 23, 2015 4:17:31	For the second suggestion, I'd make it: "Fight in the arena to earn your freedom"
#17 Weezel Jun 23, 2015 8:00:33	It does really depend what use of the word "reasonable" your group prefers to use.  In my opinion the intent is that it has to be a suggestion that can logically be carried out, as in it can be understood and followed using reason.  I don't see a good reason why a mind controlling enchantment could only make someone do things they could be talked into doing without magic anyway, but it's up to your group's preference of course.   Following this reasoning, something like "surrender and be my slaves" would be fine since it's easy to understand and carry out by anyone capable of reason.   As a player i've had DMs who would only allow suggestions that the target would consider "reasonable" in the more commonly used way, and it just made me wonder why i need to use mind controlling magic if the target thought what i made them do is something they would under normal circumstances anyway (also trying to explain it in enough detail in a couple of seconds sometimes seems really forced).   If you need to make it seem like something the PCs would agree to maybe just make sure to emphasise the danger aspect of the situation so they know if they refuse they might all die?
#18 iserith Jun 23, 2015 8:11:26	I take "reasonable" to mean something the characters are actually capable of doing - not necessarily something they would otherwise do - and that doesn't cause them immediate harm.   The important thing to do with these sorts of spells is getting the players' buy-in that it's going to lead somewhere interesting and fun so that they don't start parsing what the words of the suggestion mean to try and get out of it.
#19 Wuzzard Jun 23, 2015 8:52:38	If you really just want to put the characters into the slave pits and have them fight their way out, then forget even using the spell.  Just make up a plot-device magic item that knocks them out, no save, and let them wake up in the slave pits.    Or just have the story start with them in the slave pits and give them a flashback description of them being put under an irresistable spell.   There's not need to try to force a PHB spell to work the way you want.
#20 pukunui Jun 23, 2015 11:43:06	Razintarr wrote:
#21 Noon Jun 25, 2015 2:52:51	pukunui wrote:
#22 Thoughts_My_Aim Jun 26, 2015 2:15:58	I can see both sides of this. I'd argue that it is reasonable for the players' interpretations of their characters to be considered when deciding whether a course of action is "reasonable" - a character with a lifelong hatred of slavery might consider "work for me" a perfectly reasonable request, but consider "become my slave" highly unreasonable. I don't think this amounts to a blanket veto. That is, I don't think players get to arbitrarily declare themselves immune to a suggestion spell just because they don't want to go along with it. Similarly I'd argue that the whole game basically does hinge on the assumption that "the way it works" is necessarily fun. I don't see anything "deprotagonising" about an NPC using a game mechanical effect for its intended purpose. As other people have pointed out, there would be a number of ways you could actually force the players into a slavery scenario if you wanted to.
#23 Weezel Jun 26, 2015 4:27:25	I think it was a poor choice to use "reasonable" as the checkmark for what the spell can do, since it has a number of different definitions.
#24 FatherLiir Jun 26, 2015 8:14:16	Razintarr wrote:
#25 pukunui Jun 26, 2015 16:45:54	The PCs ended up getting themselves captured the old fashioned way. Most of them got beaten down to 0 hp and then had spare the dying cast on them, while one of them got knocked unconscious by a drow poison-coated crossbow bolt. They didn't even make it as far as the BBEG.   I think I will have him use his mass suggestion to suggest that they all be completely honest with him and tell him everything he wants to know when it comes time to interrogate them.
#26 BRJN Jun 26, 2015 19:14:04	... or Suggest that the more helpful facts they voluntarily tell him - because he doesn't like having to pin down pseudo-lawyerly evaders, nor go digging after researchable facts - the sooner he can discuss their leaving (as in Sold, not as in Freed - but don't tell them that).  Then prep up the Zone of Truth.