Role-playing Games Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for gamemasters and players of tabletop, paper-and-pencil role-playing games. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

In a recent game of 10th level characters, we had a small issue in the group. To set the scene, my character was a serpentfolk witch, specializing in enchantment and specifically mind-magic. We had a were-tiger barbarian, a half-dragon bugbear paladin (worshiped Apsu the Waybringer), and a dark stalker rogue. (It was a monster campaign, in case that wasn't obvious).

Well, the focus of the campaign was supposed to be monstrous entities overcoming social taboos in order to aid a kingdom from a threat that only they would have the power to overcome. The problem was, while the majority of the group was good-aligned, the barbarian was chaotic neutral.

My character, on the other hand, was lawful good, and worshipped Abadar. Specifically, being raised in a caste-system, he was of the belief that the most good came from conforming to the law.

So, when the chaotic barbarian continuously thwarted our attempts to negotiate with the local royalty (with the gods on high who had bid us to complete the mission continuously saying that All of Us were needed) I decided to dominate her.

It worked. She stopped being chaotic, at least at the times we needed her to be. Also, having no knowledge of spellcasting, she had no idea it was me who had done it. The game continued, the GM agreed that it was within reason for my character to do this, and everyone had fun.

Except her. She got horribly upset, claiming that she should be the only one who can control her character, and that if she wants to be chaotic then she should be allowed to. No one disagreed, because we play that the player has complete control of the character, so long as the player can give some kind of reason why the character would act that way (which only really prevents characters from acting completely insane.)

So, here's my question; Was what I did wrong? I broke no rules, no one else in the group blames me (except her, and she's less mad at me and more mad at the DM for letting me do it) and I never abused the ability. All I did was keep her from being chaotic at important moments.

To put it another way: Is controlling another player's character, specifically through rules allowed in the game, acceptable behavior?

share|improve this question
Would you like playing in a campaign where not following another player's ideas resulted in losing control of your character? – Melon Feb 27 '13 at 19:27
Required reading: What is "my guy syndrome"? – SevenSidedDie Aug 5 '14 at 7:13
How did she have no idea (her character in game) that it was you? Dominate requires that you share a language and give commands. – Simanos Mar 15 '15 at 20:00
@Simanos It doesn't actually require that you share a language (you can give basic commands even without one) and you give commands through a telepathic link rather than through speaking, so it's possible to interpret that as controlling the content of the victim's thoughts rather than transmitting commands in the caster's recognisable voice. – GMJoe Apr 12 at 1:30
up vote 38 down vote accepted

This is an extremely tricky and delicate situation. As a DM, I generally do not allow social skills (Diplomacy, Intimidate, etc) to be used on other PCs, and while I've never had the issue come up, I don't think I would allow mind-control magic to be used either. The reason?

People play RPGs to participate in a group story with a character under their own control.

By taking away that player's autonomy, even just at certain times and even just for specific and generally noble reasons, you're taking away that player's fun.

I played under an extremely controlling GM once, and it was a miserable experience. It was so long ago I don't remember the specifics, but one particular incident that stands out in my memory is when my character did something that all the other players considered reasonable, but which didn't follow the path the GM wanted us to follow. The GM had an NPC knock me out (no saving throw, no defenses, just boom! unconscious), throw me in a bag, and literally drag me along in the plot. He argued that it was the right thing to do because it forwarded the plot, but I stopped playing shortly after, because it's not fun when someone else controls my character. After all, why am I even there, then?

One way you might have handled your situation without taking away the player's autonomy would be to talk to her, out of game, about how her character and her choices were interfering with the group and the game. Ask her for ways that her character could be more closely integrated into the group's goals, and discuss what might happen if she insists on playing in a counterproductive manner.

As an example, in one of my more recent games, I played a chaotic barbarian in a generally good-aligned group, not unlike your situation in many ways. My character had been magically altered to have a "trigger" that would send her into an unstoppable rage when set off. At first it was an interesting roleplay opportunity, but later an unfortunate series of events caused my character to kill an important NPC while in one of those rages, which lost our party major face with key political figures. After that session, the GM suggested to me that my character might not be a good fit for the party, and asked me to consider rolling up a new one. I could see the problems and I was aware that the party was upset about the NPC's death, so I agreed.

In my situation, the GM was on the ball, both about handling things out of game, and about finding a way for my character to exit the party gracefully. Your GM could have dealt with the matter differently, by talking to the player out of character, or by telling the group to find a way to resolve it in-character (and making it possible by finding a way around the "All of you" decree).

So in short, yes, it was wrong to take away another player's autonomy and choices, no matter the reason. If it must be done, then discuss it with the player first, and make sure you have their full consent before doing it.

share|improve this answer
Well, some games give other players the chance to control parts of your character. Dogs in the Vineyard is famous for it; you retain ultimate control over what your character thinks about their actions, but if you lose a conflict your literally and figuratively lose control and your character will do something determined by the winner. My quibble is with the unqualified "people play RPGs to…" part, which says all people play to do that, which isn't true. – SevenSidedDie Feb 28 '13 at 3:57
You could've stopped after here "By taking away that player's autonomy, even just at certain times and even just for specific and generally noble reasons, you're taking away that player's fun". Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I disagree with any of the rest you said or belittling it in any way. That statement just adequately sums up what should have been initially obvious. – claudekennilol Jul 21 '15 at 19:38

Is it Lawful Good to control another being to suit your own ends, even if they are Lawful Good ends?

Also, what would be the in-game consequences of the were-tiger finding out about that the witch had charmed her?

It's almost always a bad idea to take control of another player's character for whatever reason without their consent, because the whole point of playing is to control your character. But beyond that, if I were the DM, and upon talking to the players realized that this was a problem but not one that threatened the viability of the game as a whole, I'd resolve the issue in-game.

For example, anyone who is actually Lawful Good might object to the mind control and inform the were-tiger. Or perhaps a secret opponent of the group was watching and will do it to sow discord. Or perhaps the court wizard noticed and cautions the royalty against you, seeing as how you feel it necessary to use mind control magic on each other--who knows what you will stoop to or what you are capable of if you will do that?

So: bad idea overall unless you knew the other player was cool with it, but I would recover (with the were-tiger's player feeling at least somewhat vindicated) in game if possible.

share|improve this answer

To answer your straight-up question of "Was what I did wrong?", I would say this:


Technically, you did nothing wrong in terms of gameplay. As you say, you broke no rules in game.

However, Yes

On several levels, I think you did something wrong. The other answers here are good reasons why it was wrong from a meta-game perspective (i.e., don't take control of another PC). In game, @Ichoran had a couple good points, and I have a few more to add.

1) I find it difficult to see how the barbarian would have no idea who dominated her. Sure, she may not have understood that she was the victim of a spell, but after wanting to do some action but being forced by a telepathic command to do elsewise, it doesn't take a rocket-scientist to understand that a magical compulsion is in play. And, it takes even less mental acuity to connect the dots to figure out that the party's mentalist is the one pulling the strings. Domination is not subtle, and it does not make the target comatose or unaware of what is going on, nor does it wipe away the memory of the domination once the spell's duration expires. After the domination wears off, you should have one extremely angry barbarian, who, if she is not a complete idiot, probably knows exactly who mentally controlled her.

2) The nature of domination is not goodly, as @Ichoran already brought up. Using it on enemies, like using a sword on them, is acceptable. Using it on friends seems to qualify as an evil act.

3) It is not in the best interest of the party's goals to dominate party members. Working out differences with other party members on an equal footing builds trust and camaraderie. Dominating a party member ruins that trust and equanimity. What would the other characters think about you doing this? Wouldn't they be scared of you and trust you less? Wouldn't they also take issue with you treating the barbarian as some kind of puppet? Teamwork would be destroyed.

share|improve this answer
+1 for everything EXCEPT #2. While you could argue it isnt lawful (still debatable) there is nothing inherently evil about using this spell anymore than using a sleep spell – Ben-Jamin Feb 27 '13 at 19:14
@MattHamsmith The Law end of the spectrum is all about placing individual freedoms below some greater cause. – SevenSidedDie Feb 27 '13 at 23:47

In our group where almost every player is also a GM at some point (in different campaigns) we generally tend to avoid these situations in the first place.

When we start a new campaign or introduce a character into an existing group we make sure that the group consists of characters that are more or less compatible to one another. That does not mean, that the characters must all be happy-clappy best-friends-forever.

But everyone of us somehow understands that large enough differences in terms of political/eth(n)ical/moral alignment can break the group.

So, if a player really does not see how his choice would heavily disturb the play in a group -- "but I really want to play my chaotic evil orc necromancer!" -- the GM would just tell him to shut up and pick something else. (Generally supported by the rest of the players...) :)

share|improve this answer

I think this is fairly easy to fix. In fiction, would you stick with a group if a guy mind-control you all the time? I would try to fix this in roleplay. Saying: "I'm acting against the law because I'm chaotic" is not a really good excuse. I don't donate money to charity because I'm good, I do it because it makes me feel good. Alignment is not for justification, it's a representation of your behavior.

That being said, I would try to fix this in game as much as possible. "I'm not going to dominate you again if you stop acting stupid in front of nobility". In many games with possible confrontation with players (like Vampire), that's what you do. If you don't respect the law and most of your party do, then why keeping you in the party? If players disagree about what kind of party they should be playing then you fix this as players.

You don't bring the kleptomaniac thief to a castle full of nobles and precious things for a diplomacy session with the King. You ask him to stay at the inn while the public relationship expert do his job. You don't ask the 300 lb full-plated half-orc with no skills in stealth to follow you on an infiltration mission.

share|improve this answer

Edit: I failed to answer the question so let me try again.

The broad answer is that I don't think that it's 'wrong' as player interaction using character abilities is a fundamental part of roleplaying. If an ability isn't meant to be used on player characters it usually states so in the description - see Diplomacy.

You can change the initial attitudes of nonplayer characters with a successful check.

If a player doesn't want to participate in a group activity that involves other players interacting with their character using their in game abilities then they'd be better off playing something that gives them more control. There have been plenty of times that I've played a chaotic character and done something that resulted in other player characters grappling, silencing me, or even attacking me. That's not exactly dominate person but it's in a similar vein. The player of Barbarian probably wouldn't feel that it was inappropriate to pin another party member who annoyed them.

The problem that I have with the scenario as described is that there's no way for the player to respond in character which limits them to out of character responses. I think that that's the critical mistake more than taking control over them for a finite amount of time because that gives them no avenue but taking the issue out of character. In my experience drama is better resolved IC than OOC since that keeps the focus on the game and not on interpersonal dynamics.

There is the broader question of how to respond socially to players who get upset when their plans in a game are thwarted - this happens a lot in my experience and not just in roleplaying. My response is often to evaluate which is more important to me, this issue or the relationship. Depending on the answer I then decide if it's worth the effort for me to try to resolve the conflict or to let that relationship diminish.

Original Reply: As DM I would allow it but with consequences.

First, the barbarian is tipped off - someone in the court passes the sense motive and points out the obvious mind control. The court wizard gets called to cast detect magic. Could be a very awkward moment diplomatically.

Second, the Barbarian is given the opportunity to persue mind control defenses. Really not that expensive if you're as powerful as it sounds.

Third, spies for the BBEG notice this hole in your party's defenses and the BBEG sends a minion with dominate to the next encounter. Suddenly it's in the group's best interest to guard the Barbarian's mind.

Finally, addressing the initial problem, I'd rely on consequences again... If the CN character is ruining diplomatic encounters but the others are acing them then that character misses out on some valuable boons, is simply removed by the host for being disruptive, or is challenged to a sparring match by the castle guard while the others talk business.

share|improve this answer
You've missed the point of the question. Neither the rules involved, nor how the situation was handled are under scrutiny here, which is what your answer focuses on. If you look at other, more highly rated answers, you'll see they all focus on the moral and social implications of my actions, and revolve around how the choice affects the group, both as a whole and as individual players. You've given a very interesting alternative to addressing the issue, but you failed to explain Why it needed addressed, and in this case, the 'why' was supposed to be the main point. – Zach Aug 13 '15 at 8:57
It looks like you've made 2 accounts; you should follow the instructions on this page to have them merged. – Miniman Aug 13 '15 at 10:58

I understand both aspects of the situation and honestly I don't feel the actions were all that out of line. Barbarians are some what weak willed by nature and in all honesty mind magic seems a perfectly viable way to keep a barbarian at bay, if the player doesn't want to be susceptible to mind magic there are feats and magic items and ways to help defend against these things. I'd say the situation could make for some good RP. If the barbarian were to ever learn of the mind magic used on her I'm sure she'd have her own relations she could use or at the very least threaten to turn the caster into a fine smear on the wall if he ever tries to get into her mind again with magic. That said, I'd argue some out of character discussion could be warranted to make sure everyone's still having a good time, but characters should accept that they will each be good at doing what they are good at doing and at the time they will have their weaknesses. A barbarian failing a will save isn't exactly unheard of and should be expected from time to time.

share|improve this answer

I'd say you didn't do anything wrong, though it's clear she's not happy for having you controlling her character. I run a campaign in which the enemies have many mind control enchanters, but my players also value their freedom. What I do is to have the mind control be only used rarely, and when it is used there is a way to stop. In your situation you might tell the Barbarian that you would stop mind controlling him if he starts cooperating with the nobles. If he refuses, though, do note that forcing someone to do something against their nature gives a second save with a bonus. If you force he uncivilized CN Barbarian to be polite and diplomatic when dealing with nobles, it's clear that it's against his nature here.

share|improve this answer
Even with a +2 to the save, the barbarian would still have to roll a natural 20, twice in a row, to make the save. Mind control was what that specific character was made to do, in a game where the point of character creation was to break our characters as much as possible. It may not have been the best idea, but that's what we did. – Zach Aug 9 '15 at 7:05
@Zach Oh, that might be a bit of a problem then. At least he'll be able to avoid one in four hundred conversations. Being serious, then, I'd go with offering him a deal that you'll stop if he starts behaving. – Fluffy Mcpotatoepies Aug 29 '15 at 19:24

You said yourself the barb was trolling the campaign by being evil. You could have kicked her out of the group but instead found a creative in game solution. I really don't enjoy chaotic characters in my campaigns and heavily DM hammer anyone who trolls the plot just to chaotic constantly. If this was real a group of lawful good wouldn't team up with chaotic evil.

share|improve this answer
The barb is Chaotic Neutral. Also, your personal preference for characters doesn't really factor into this. – GreySage Aug 7 '15 at 18:18

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.