I was playing dungeons and dragons with some friends of mine and I had my character walk into a shop and use suggestion on the shopkeeper. She failed the saving throw, and I told her to give me all the items I wanted for free. I can't remember but it was something along the lines of she should because I'm her favorite customer.
Is this a legitimate way to use suggestion?
It depends on what "reasonable" is. Whether or not it is reasonable for a shopkeeper to give away stuff is up to your DM.
However if it happened in a campaign I was running you would be arrested for theft and illegal use of mind control. At the very least you would have to pay a fine - probably triple the value of the items you "requisitioned".
KnSoulreaver wrote:
Well, since the example in the suggestion spell on page 279 is that its reasonable for a knight to give away his warhorse to the first beggar he meets. Then I guess it would just as reasonable/unreasonable to give away your goods in your shop to your favorite customer.
But I dont know what would happen afterwards though? when the shopkeeper returns home to his nagging wife and tells her he just gave away their livelyhood free of charge she would most likely confront him with his poor business acumen. This might result in him concluding that he was framed, possibly with magic somehow.
The spell doesn't explicitly state it, but I would assume that people know they've been influenced.
Unless magic is extremely rare the shopkeeper is probably going to realize he was affected by magic somehow. In my world, controlling someone else's mind in a situation like this is a pretty serious offense, probably on par or worse than armed robbery.
One of the great things about D&D is that it's not a computer game. The DM can think about how people would react to a person walking into a shop and stealing a shopkeeper blind and have the local authorities respond appropriately.
Of course I would let a player know all of this ahead of time. I may be a mean and evil DM but I try to be fair about it. 
In my game, I think I would have the shopkeeper laugh at the "joke" but offer their best customer a 20% discount on the items. Then afterwards, if it seemed appropriate, an angry shopkeeper might call in the authorities..
Awakened_Gazebo wrote:
Consider "reasonable" to mean that the target is (1) actually capable of doing the thing and (2) the thing he, she or it is asked to do isn't physically harmful.
Under that interpretation, it's reasonable for the knight to give up the warhorse to a beggar and for the shopkeep to give away all of his or her goods to the PC.
Of course, the PC may later learn that all the items in the shop where stolen goods themselves, and the true owners have been searching land and sea for them for a while now, only to come upon this small town on the very same day the PC's walks out the door with all this easily recognizable new gear.
Shopkeepers (especially self-employed shopkeepers) do not get a reliable paycheck at the end of every week. They get whatever money is left over. They also - likely - have to pay for new supplies with cash. You just shorted the shopkeeper either his food money or next week's purchase of materials. As a shopkeep, that's NOT reasonable.
However, if you had asked for JUST ONE item (or maybe two and said 'pretty please'), I might have figured that I can sell a replacement soon and let it slide for you - you owe me a favor now!
I'd definitely say it was a "reasonable" request. Especially since when he tell's the story, "The guy said he was my favorite customer and I should give him everything for free. I don't know why I did, seeing as I've never met the man before." It's definitely gonna set off some alarm bells. He wasn't directly harmed, though potentionally indirectly, and he was capable of complying with the suggestion. Fun consequences are much better than telling the PC a flat out, "No."
My big question is, does this type of activity make the game more enjoyable for the DM to run? Does your DM like running campaigns where the players use power and magic to act like miscreants and rob the poor folk. I'm not going to ask about alignment, since you would obviously be Chaotic even to consider it. What should be the consequences? I usually let my players know right off that no matter how high they level, there will always be some form of law enforcement that will be up to the task if they go too far out of line. Of course, it could be perfectly reasonable for you to give up all your hard earned loot to that nice old man in the tall hat. He seemed to be in such need. I'm sure he'll make great use of your Spellbook and scrolls.
to satisify the 'reasonable' part and to add story, have the store be run by someone who is answerable to someone else and that someone else has made it clear that if they don't make profits they will be harmed. thus now the shopkeeper will be physically threatened if they give items away. this a bit hard to come up with on the fly thought
I would let it work just fine, but it would be pretty much the same as robbing the shopkeeper from the town guards' point of view. It would also be an evil act, unless there were some other factors involved. (ie, we need this stuff to save the town and we'll only take what we need; or this shop is run by the mafia that we're trying to shut down, etc).
Is it “reasonable” for the shopkeeper to give away his money and items. Of course not, he is in this business to make money and wouldn't do it even for friends or family. If you were a trusted friend, you might receive a discount or the ability to buy something not normally available.
You might be able to make a separate deception check to say: This item is a cursed item magic item or it's broken to receive a discount. Perhaps, you could claim that an item was stolen from you and you are collecting it, etc.... The police are looking for this item, sell it to me for a discount.
All said, these actions aren’t that fun for the party. The rogue that steals on the street, the wizard charming the shop keeper, etc. One person is try to get some free money and it’s not glorious but underhanded. That might be the nature of your campaign though.
The easiest way to tell if a suggestion is "reasonable" is to see if the player or DM who is the caster of the spell would find it reasonable to have said suggestion happen to their own PC/NPC. For instance, would the PC who is suggesting that the shopkeeper surrender all his money and goods find it reasonable if a NPC wizard suggested the same of the PC?
If the PC wouldn't balk, then I say the shopkeeper parts with the goods. However, should the player have a history of disputing such things in the past as unfair, or contend if it happend to him it would be unfair; the suggestion then fails.
This doesn't work for every situation, but it is a really good place to start. At the very least, it assures both "sides" are on the same page.
I have to say, a lot of you seem to be nerfing the suggestion spell into oblivion. If you can't make a creature do something against its interests, what good is the spell?
I would say the Nerf came with the term "Reasonable."
The way I see it, the spell needs to lose that reasonable clause and go back to only prohibiting directly physical self destructive acts (like commiting suicide or jumping off a cliff) such as it was in previous editions. Or another way to do it, in the case of the shopkeeper mentioned above, should the group deem the suggestion as unreasonable, a second save would be called for, and should that save be failed the suggestion is carried out as long as it doesn't result in direct physical harm.
jaelis wrote:
I wouldn't allow 'Give me everything in your shop because I'm your favourite customer'.
I WOULD allow 'give me everything in your shop so I can take it down to the market and sell it for you, I'll be back tomorrow with the cash'.
In your case I'd rule the player's ruse was too shallow to be taken as a valid Suggestion - but it's up to each individual DM of course.
Also in a D&D setting I think the DM really has to be a bit more robust when dealing with magic-using characters. Starting to cast a spell, in a shop or public place, should be met with immediate response from the guard or the shopkeeper himself along the lines of 'Oi, no spellcasting in here, wizard!!'. Continuing to cast should lead to an attack on the character or the shopkeeper fleeing for help.
In a world with magic it makes ZERO sense that shopkeepers are blissfully unaware of it - unless you're playing a low magic campaign setting.
Kishri wrote:
first of all, what is the alignment of the character:
He just stole (chaotic action) from an shopkeeper.
If he stole stuff that he really needed for himself and for the group from a crook who makr up all the price then this wouldn't change the good-evil alignement (just like a mother stealing bread to feed her family, or robin hood stealing from the corrupted king to give back to society)
If he stole stuff that he wanted (but didn't need) then he might move slightly toward being evil, specially if the merchant is an hnest merchant.
So their might be an alignement shift here depending on the situation.
Then for sure, in a world where magic is everywhere, I'm pretty sure their is law against using spell for illegal purposes (including mind control) and there is a squad of spellcaster speciallise in tracking spell caster abusing there spell against honest merchants.
Actually, it's been established - repeatedly - in this thread that for a shopkeeper to give away too many of his goods for free is, in fact, physically harmful to him. It takes away his ability to earn a living and obtain food, clothing, and shelter. Can anyone here explain to me how that ISN'T harmful?
Hello?
Didn't think so.
No, not reasonable.
The knight giving away his warhorse example stinks, too, if he's more likely to die in battle without his horse.
JackOfAllTirades wrote:
JackOfAllTirades wrote:
This shop owner doesn't carry any sort of insurance with his merchant guild? Sounds like bad business, and like some far fetched fantasy.
Goods are replaceable. Nowhere does it say the spell can't royally eff up your day. Or put you into harship for that matter. The transaction causes no immediate harm to the guy. Which is what the spell prohibits.
A robbery, such as this, isn't going to cause harm to the shop owner. There's more than enough evidence of foul play that the shop will be back to running notmally in no time.
JackOfAllTirades wrote:
Seems perfectly reasonable now that there's more context from the OP. There'd be some hell for your character to pay if was your DM. Of course I would've told you that before you went through with your plan, though.
KnSoulreaver wrote:
Danny_Montanny wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Danny_Montanny wrote:
Orethalion, what in your mind would be a legitimate use for the spell then? And what would make that use legitimate compared to the other things we've been discussing?
jaelis wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
iserith wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
jaelis wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
iserith wrote:
In any case, the interpretation some are suggesting for "reasonable," sounds an awful lot like reaching to find ways to say "No" to a player. "Somewhere down the line, this insignificant shopkeep will be destitute and though we'll be long gone from focusing on these nobodies 10 minutes from now, I'm going to go ahead and say that your suggestion is not reasonable. So no."
I still submit that my interpretation of "reasonable" is the most reasonable.
iserith wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Suggestion and many of the illusion spells fall into this category of GM decides. It's really does the GM think they will work well and really it's total up to the GM to determine how these types of spells will function. Which can be anywhere from total uselessness to abuse.
It would make sense to have a 'rich' shop keeper employ magics to prevent himself from being robbed. Likely to employ his own wizard/guard to prevent him from harm and theft. There might be additional magic items that would detect or prevent such charm effects. Additionally, if someone where to be robbed in this way, which would be commonly known in a magical world. The party members could be hunted by a party that contained a high level wizard to track them down and put them in jail.
I would consider any store that sells magic items to be rich and employ such defenses. If you want to steal some food or beer from the corner store or a bar, that would go without being hunted.
Additionally, a nice GM would tell the players what would happen if they try such actions.
OoftaMeg wrote:
Danny_Montanny wrote:
As far as I can tell Suggestion only effects one target. A shopkeeper could protect themselves from Suggestion by the simple expediant of hiring one other person to assist in the store. A semi-competent guard would also be a good investment. If the shopkeeper started giving away items for free they could call the guards or take another appropriate action to protect their employer.
Spell casting would absolutely not be allowed in just about any store I would run. It's the equivalent of drawing a weapon. In addition I suspect that the authorities would take a dim view of a caster that was caught getting a "Suggested discount".
So part of this is an inexperienced DM.
As to the effectiveness of the spell. Consider that the caster could also just hit the shopkeeper with 3 Scorching Rays, kill him and take whatever he wanted. Suggestion is only slightly better. Certainly there are individuals that could not be trusted with that power. <*cough*BillCosby*cough*>
iserith wrote:
jaelis wrote:
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
KnSoulreaver wrote: