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?

  • 15
    \$\begingroup\$ Would you like playing in a campaign where not following another player's ideas resulted in losing control of your character? \$\endgroup\$
    – Melon
    Commented Feb 27, 2013 at 19:27
  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ Required reading: What is "my guy syndrome"? \$\endgroup\$ Commented Aug 5, 2014 at 7:13
  • \$\begingroup\$ How did she have no idea (her character in game) that it was you? Dominate requires that you share a language and give commands. \$\endgroup\$
    – Simanos
    Commented Mar 15, 2015 at 20:00
  • \$\begingroup\$ @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. \$\endgroup\$
    – GMJoe
    Commented Apr 12, 2016 at 1:30

10 Answers 10


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.

  • 6
    \$\begingroup\$ 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. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Feb 28, 2013 at 3:57
  • \$\begingroup\$ 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. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Jul 21, 2015 at 19:38

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.

  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ +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 \$\endgroup\$
    – Ben-Jamin
    Commented Feb 27, 2013 at 19:14
  • 15
    \$\begingroup\$ @MattHamsmith The Law end of the spectrum is all about placing individual freedoms below some greater cause. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Feb 27, 2013 at 23:47

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.


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...) :)


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.


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.

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.

  • \$\begingroup\$ 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. \$\endgroup\$
    – Zach
    Commented Aug 13, 2015 at 8:57
  • \$\begingroup\$ It looks like you've made 2 accounts; you should follow the instructions on this page to have them merged. \$\endgroup\$
    – Miniman
    Commented Aug 13, 2015 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.


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.

  • \$\begingroup\$ 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. \$\endgroup\$
    – Zach
    Commented Aug 9, 2015 at 7:05
  • \$\begingroup\$ @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. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Aug 29, 2015 at 19:24

To answer this, I think it best to look at 3 distinct vectors of analysis. Was it Rules sound, was it socially acceptable, and was it an appropriate choice for your character (and the rest of the party and NPCS). I’ll go in depth, but for those who don’t feel like reading the full analysis and Socratic debate, I’ll give a summary. Yes, it followed the rules. No, it wasn’t something most in the RPG community would consider socially acceptable. But Yes, it can be appropriate, so long as it is in character and other characters (PC and NPC alike) react appropriately, creating an opportunity for character development or both of you.

Now the Analysis.

First, the easiest, are there any rules explicitly forbidding it? No. Yours and the GM’s interpretation of Dominate Person seems sound to me, and there are no mechanical issues here; as far as spells are concerned there is no difference between a PC and an NPC.

Secondly, was it socially acceptable. This is shakier. Within your particular group, it evidently was as only one player complained. In the larger RPG community however, controlling another players character is generally considered a faux-pas. It detracts from their ability to play the character as they see it, and ruins their fun, especially if they aren’t given any way to get around it or adress the issue; even more so if they are given no warning ahead of time (it was unclear in the question wether attempts were made to discuss the issue with Barbarian player ahead of time).

Casting hostile spells against party members falls into the “Player vs. Player” area, and generally is going to antagonize other players; in some cases, more so than simply killing them. A PK will tick people off, but at least you can come in with a new character. Dominating another PC is effectively turning their character into your cohort (or worse, an NPC) whenever you want, and absolutely detracts from the player’s experience; frankly, if this had happened in one of my own games (DMing or playing) I would expect an immediate “What the Hell Hero?” from the dominated player (and likely the rest of the table).

Admittedly the closest approximation I’ve had was (my own character) using “Hostile Levitation” to keep the party’s AntiPaladin (Very Chaotic Game) from shredding a church. Notably in that case, I chose “Hostile Levitation” rather than something more direct because it allowed his character to still play, to still react (by shouting that the Priest of the Church of Abadar we were in was a Fascist, through the stained glass window he was floating by, but that’s beside the point). Dominating a player though, means that they can’t even complain in character, especially if they don’t know that it’s even happening or who’s doing it. Maybe this will come off hypocritical, but to me, restricting another player’s options to avoid conflict is alright (as long as it’s justified in character), but completely removing their choices or character opportunities is not, as it detracts from their fun.

Now to third branch of analysis, was it appropriate in story, given that, as presented, it seems to have been motivated more by player annoyance than character annoyance (particularly among other players). [Before stepping here, I should state my own bias towards Chaos, so if it sounds like I’m playing Protean’s (or more often Azata’s) advocate, it’s because that’s my natural tendency.]

As presented, your character was noted to be Lawful Good, and restricting other people’s options or freedoms for a greater purpose is the classic embodiement of what law is (at least from a chaotic perspective). That is the function of lawful society, rules are put in place to keep people in line. [It is worth noting here though, that depending on local edicts, what you did may be questionably lawful, if the agressive use of such spells were forbidden, or if their use were restricted to individuals of certain position or with some lawful authority over the victim, i.e. a law-enforcement officer could do so, or a lord over his vassal, but it may be a violation for a common citizen to do so to another citizen of equal peerage].

However, while what you did was, most likely, lawful, it was not “good” by the standards of a full two thirds of that spectra. And given that you described the group as generally “Good” not “Lawful Good,” that leads me to guess there were some Neutral to Chaotic Good characters (The rogue maybe?) in the party, though even a Paladin may be uncomfortable with this, depending on deity.

Perhaps the most common moral dictum is the Golden Rule, “Do unto others as you would have done unto yourself,” and this seems to fit to a Tee the Good alignment in Pathfinder. So from with that in mind, how would you feel if the tables were flipped, if in a Chaotic Party, another party member attempted to Dominate your character for whatever reason? Would you be frustrated, angry or annoyed? Then you can understand why the Barbarian player was unhappy, and more to the point, you can understand why doing this, while lawful, is not a “Good” act.

So here we get to the old to be good or to be lawful debate. Your character, as described and being a follower of Abadar (LN), I’m guessing veered toward Lawful, in which case this makes sense in character. An individual’s habits, while not evil, were causing unnecessary trouble, so you resolved the issue by placing a restriction on their freedom. You created a law [wether you had the authority to do so is another matter, but that’s for the Abadan theologists]. An instrumentalist approach, the ends justify the means.

However a Chaotic or Neutral Good Character would likely see things very differently. To a Neutral Good perspective, you have chosen to do harm to another person not because it was necessary, but because it was the most expedient solution, you could have talked to them or given them a warning but instead you chose to just put them in, metaphysical, chains. Looking at the core Neutral Good Deities, from a Sarenraen perspective you gave them no chance at redemption and from a Shelynite perspective you have forbidden their self expression, both No-No’s in their respective faiths, and while their theology may not be relvant to your character specifically, It would likely be relevant to other party members (especially if the Paladin was a follower of either [Or other more “good” LG deities, such as Erastil]).

I’m not sure it’s even worth bringing up how a Chaotic Good character or a follower of the deities of that area (Cayden Caylean, Desna) would react; the answer is poorly. Both Cayden and Desna [I say this as someone who almost always plays Caydanites or Desnans] are overwhelmingly against any form of slavery, which it isn’t hard to argue spells like “Dominate Person” fall under. You are explicitly controlling another person without their consent, not in the way Suggestion nudges them toward a course of action they consider “reasonable,” or in the way Geas can make a target pursue a goal or follow an edict, but explicit mind control. Domination. And while I am using Cayden and Desna as examples here, this extends to most character’s with a Chaotic Good mindset as well, and a large portion of Neutral Goods as well.

Taken together, we find a situation where it is questionable why the other character’s were okay with this, or why anyone who might have noticed was (given spotting someone being affected by enchantment magic isn’t hard). While it may have been in character of your character to do this (an argument you could very easily turn back around on the barbarian player), was it in character for others to react as they did and for no one to call you out on this.

So, to reiterate the summary. I do not believe that this action violated any rules in game, and I believe the DM’s ruling was justified in this scenario. However, your choice to do this constitutes a significant faux-pas without the culture around Tabletop RPGs, and the Barbarian player’s frustration was entirely justified. But, that does not mean that it was wrong of you to do it, as a character; However, the other players, and the DM through the Medium of NPCs, should have called you out on it or otherwise taken some action to turn it into an opportunity for character development for both of you.

  • \$\begingroup\$ The in-game issues you bring up were largely glossed over in this case, specifically because of my character's race. Serpentfolk follow a caste system; the upper class holds control over the brutish half of the race, largely through mind control. It's not even a spell for them, but a racial spell-like ability. Growing up in that society, my character thought his actions completely sound. The other PCs and NPCs didn't notice it because Serpentfolk are telepathic, and that's how he issued his commands. The DM at the time allowed it, so to her it felt like there was no means to prevent it. \$\endgroup\$
    – Zach
    Commented Aug 15, 2018 at 9:28
  • \$\begingroup\$ Ah. That makes sense, though I would still doubt the “Goodness” of the action. D&D has always run on a quite firm Objective Morality, if a given species’s culture diverges from that, then the species as a whole is not Lawful Good (from their perspective). Ex, Hobgoblins are predominantly Lawful Evil, Orcs Chaotic Evil, and Elves Chaotic Good, even if by the standards of their society that mentality would be Lawful Good. A Caste system that uses mind control to dominate others is Lawful Evil, in that objective morality system,thus following that mentality is also considered Lawful Evil. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Aug 16, 2018 at 14:54

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.

  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ The barb is Chaotic Neutral. Also, your personal preference for characters doesn't really factor into this. \$\endgroup\$
    – GreySage
    Commented Aug 7, 2015 at 18:18

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .