See, you cited the order as 'attack' not 'kill.' There is a difference. Even 'Dominate' is still dependent on the orders you give.
If it is ok for the issue never coming up, it isn't anywhere near as crucial to your plot as you paint it.
I am not going to have another argument over word choice. If a player is choosing to follow the letter of the rules (attack your allies) but refusing to follow the spirit (attack the ally that you could actually realistically hit, and attack them as if they were a proper enemy), that is going to be treated as them attempting to cheat the system and I am 110% going to take away their ability to do so any longer. If the player calls foul, I will tell them they brought this upon themselves. They are free to leave if they truly feel that i am being unfair, but i will not allow my players to ruin the game for me or the other players by attempting to cheat.
My argument is not plot based, my argument is mechanics based. I'm not going to force my players to be mind controlled (no rolls, you just are mind controlled), but i'm also not going to use an enemy who can mind control and they just never do. The question also gets murky depending on what the player does and does not define as "player/character agency". Like i can probably build a campaign where you won't be cut scene bound and forced to deal with terrible terrible stuff. But i'm going to struggle building a campaign where 20-40% of all spells/abilities/checks have to be removed because the player gets triggered if they are ever limited in their choices of what they can and can not do.
D&D Beyond makes this pretty easy. They have a catalog of 527 spells. Of these, 17 involve the Charmed condition. Animal Friendship, Awaken, and Dominate Beast can't be used on a PC. Dispel Evil and Good and Greater Restoration remove the condition. That leaves no more than 12 spells you'd have to remove, which is 2%.
There's no easy search for monsters that deal with the Charmed condition, but my guess is it's much less than 20%.
i’m only going to directly remove your agency/autonomy if you attempt to cheat the system. I hope to never have to do that, but I’m willing to if I have to.
You wouldn't just handle it out of game? Or by 'cheat the system' are you referring to cheese?
mostly referring to cheese. Like your character gets mind controlled and ordered to attack their friends. And you spend the next 3 turns attacking with your weakest ability on the target who is most likely to not be effected. EX: Throwing a dagger at the monk, while ignoring the prone wizard 20 feet to your left.
Being mind controlled doesn't have to mean doing exactly what the controller wants based on instructions that are open to interpretation. Personally I'd assume the target of the effect tries to fight it as much as possible, even if failing the save means they can't resist it completely (obviously the same goes for NPCs being influenced by PCs). Not saying you're doing it wrong, just that it is one option out of several that can all be right.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
See, you cited the order as 'attack' not 'kill.' There is a difference. Even 'Dominate' is still dependent on the orders you give.
If it is ok for the issue never coming up, it isn't anywhere near as crucial to your plot as you paint it.
I am not going to have another argument over word choice. If a player is choosing to follow the letter of the rules (attack your allies) but refusing to follow the spirit (attack the ally that you could actually realistically hit, and attack them as if they were a proper enemy), that is going to be treated as them attempting to cheat the system and I am 110% going to take away their ability to do so any longer. If the player calls foul, I will tell them they brought this upon themselves. They are free to leave if they truly feel that i am being unfair, but i will not allow my players to ruin the game for me or the other players by attempting to cheat.
My argument is not plot based, my argument is mechanics based. I'm not going to force my players to be mind controlled (no rolls, you just are mind controlled), but i'm also not going to use an enemy who can mind control and they just never do. The question also gets murky depending on what the player does and does not define as "player/character agency". Like i can probably build a campaign where you won't be cut scene bound and forced to deal with terrible terrible stuff. But i'm going to struggle building a campaign where 20-40% of all spells/abilities/checks have to be removed because the player gets triggered if they are ever limited in their choices of what they can and can not do.
D&D Beyond makes this pretty easy. They have a catalog of 527 spells. Of these, 17 involve the Charmed condition. Animal Friendship, Awaken, and Dominate Beast can't be used on a PC. Dispel Evil and Good and Greater Restoration remove the condition. That leaves no more than 12 spells you'd have to remove, which is 2%.
There's no easy search for monsters that deal with the Charmed condition, but my guess is it's much less than 20%.
There are far more that a dozen spells in the game that "mind control" a char. Ones that have the condition of "charmed" in them, that might be true. Enemies Abound, Confusion, Fear, Phantasmal Force, Phantasmal Killer, Zone of Truth, one of the flavours of Bestow Curse, which easily come to mind and have nothing to do with the charmed condition. I am quite certain there are many more. And as said a few days ago, that does not even begin to touch on the various subclass features. Because if someone is traumatized by having their char mind controlled, they certainly don't want to witness someone, even a fellow player, doing it to an NPC or monster.
I am visualizing this conversation. This is not hyperbole, but the natural conclusion if one adds up all the comments made in this thread:
Those aren't mind control.
Player A: I want to play an Enchantment Wizard.
DM: Sorry, that subclass is not available in my game.
Player A: OK, how about an Eloquence Bard?
DM: Nope, sorry, there is someone in the group that has sensitivity to mind control spells or effects.
Player A: So half the Warlock subclasses, Conquest and Vengeance Paladins, Order Domain Cleric, to name a few, are off the table as well, I guess.
DM: Yeah, anything that might take away a char, or NPC, or monster's in-game choices has to be removed from my game. Tell you what, give me a short list of subclasses you want to play, that have a direct mind control feature, or rely on a set of spells like Command as a subclass spell, or anything that is mind control adjacent. I will then relay that list to the player in question, and we will see if they OK your selections. Oh, and BTW, whatever future spells you choose, may at the moment you want to cast that spell, may be nixed by someone in the party saying that it makes them uncomfortable. It is entirely possible that something you chose a month ago now makes a player uncomfortable. So you had best discuss every one of your spell selections with the party.
Why would they have to be removed? It's unlikely anyone needs them entirely removed from the game. That's like someone saying they are allergic to dogs so can you not bring yours around to your shared workplace, then you responding, "So what? You want me to kill all the dogs then? That's the only logical conclusion. Where am I going to find the time to kill all the dogs Lisa? I have a family, you know."
But wouldn't the game table be sort of like the workspace? This gets to the earlier concern that so "we have these effects in game" that one cubicle occupied by player Y can't come into contact with them. Doesn't that effectively remove such magics from game unless you want to go with the "party may use it but not subject to it" problem. How do you practice harm reduction to one person in a place of play in a equitable way otherwise?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
See, you cited the order as 'attack' not 'kill.' There is a difference. Even 'Dominate' is still dependent on the orders you give.
If it is ok for the issue never coming up, it isn't anywhere near as crucial to your plot as you paint it.
I am not going to have another argument over word choice. If a player is choosing to follow the letter of the rules (attack your allies) but refusing to follow the spirit (attack the ally that you could actually realistically hit, and attack them as if they were a proper enemy), that is going to be treated as them attempting to cheat the system and I am 110% going to take away their ability to do so any longer. If the player calls foul, I will tell them they brought this upon themselves. They are free to leave if they truly feel that i am being unfair, but i will not allow my players to ruin the game for me or the other players by attempting to cheat.
My argument is not plot based, my argument is mechanics based. I'm not going to force my players to be mind controlled (no rolls, you just are mind controlled), but i'm also not going to use an enemy who can mind control and they just never do. The question also gets murky depending on what the player does and does not define as "player/character agency". Like i can probably build a campaign where you won't be cut scene bound and forced to deal with terrible terrible stuff. But i'm going to struggle building a campaign where 20-40% of all spells/abilities/checks have to be removed because the player gets triggered if they are ever limited in their choices of what they can and can not do.
D&D Beyond makes this pretty easy. They have a catalog of 527 spells. Of these, 17 involve the Charmed condition. Animal Friendship, Awaken, and Dominate Beast can't be used on a PC. Dispel Evil and Good and Greater Restoration remove the condition. That leaves no more than 12 spells you'd have to remove, which is 2%.
There's no easy search for monsters that deal with the Charmed condition, but my guess is it's much less than 20%.
There are far more that a dozen spells in the game that "mind control" a char. Ones that have the condition of "charmed" in them, that might be true. Enemies Abound, Confusion, Fear, Phantasmal Force, Phantasmal Killer, Zone of Truth, one of the flavours of Bestow Curse, which easily come to mind and have nothing to do with the charmed condition. I am quite certain there are many more. And as said a few days ago, that does not even begin to touch on the various subclass features. Because if someone is traumatized by having their char mind controlled, they certainly don't want to witness someone, even a fellow player, doing it to an NPC or monster.
Several of the spells you've named impose the Frightened condition, which isn't problematic in the same way as Charmed, because it only states what you can't do, not what you must or should do. Likewise Zone of Truth and Bestow Curse don't have any way to force you to do anything, only to prevent you from doing something.
I think you have a point about Enemies Abound and Confusion. It's possible there are a few other mind control spells that aren't tagged with Charmed, but I don't think you're going to find 105 to justify Zhule's 20% estimate.
Being mind controlled doesn't have to mean doing exactly what the controller wants based on instructions that are open to interpretation. Personally I'd assume the target of the effect tries to fight it as much as possible, even if failing the save means they can't resist it completely (obviously the same goes for NPCs being influenced by PCs). Not saying you're doing it wrong, just that it is one option out of several that can all be right.
I dislike this. I imagine that if a DM lets their players "fight" being mind controlled/charmed (once they are already mind controlled/charmed). The same kindness should be given to enemies that the party mind controls/charms. So that goblin you quickly cast charm on, decides to scream speak with you which "just so happens" to alert the other goblins/hobgoblins and basically everything else in a 100 foot radius, that you are there. Thus negating the point of charming the goblin in the first place.
I'm not saying the player has to do exactly what i would do/ use their biggest and best spell or ability, but I'm going to call BS when they decide burn their movement and throw a knife at the monk who was 60-70 feet away, rather then turn around and use their 3 melee attacks on the caster who was 10 feet behind them.
D&D Beyond makes this pretty easy. They have a catalog of 527 spells. Of these, 17 involve the Charmed condition. Animal Friendship, Awaken, and Dominate Beast can't be used on a PC. Dispel Evil and Good and Greater Restoration remove the condition. That leaves no more than 12 spells you'd have to remove, which is 2%.There's no easy search for monsters that deal with the Charmed condition, but my guess is it's much less than 20%.
Near the beginning of the conversation there was a debate around spells/abilities that cause the stun, restrained, prone, slowed, etc... and how some might argue those also count as "removing character agency". Basically any spell/ability that limits the choices you would have in any given situation. There was also some debate on if the DM should be able to roll persuasion checks against the party, and if so what the save for that would be.
D&D Beyond makes this pretty easy. They have a catalog of 527 spells. Of these, 17 involve the Charmed condition. Animal Friendship, Awaken, and Dominate Beast can't be used on a PC. Dispel Evil and Good and Greater Restoration remove the condition. That leaves no more than 12 spells you'd have to remove, which is 2%.There's no easy search for monsters that deal with the Charmed condition, but my guess is it's much less than 20%.
Near the beginning of the conversation there was a debate around spells/abilities that cause the stun, restrained, prone, slowed, etc... and how some might argue those also count as "removing character agency". Basically any spell/ability that limits the choices you would have in any given situation. There was also some debate on if the DM should be able to roll persuasion checks against the party, and if so what the save for that would be.
I might be wrong, but I think most of that discussion was around whether or not it's fun to be Incapacitated / Paralyzed / Petrified / Stunned, not whether it's a trauma trigger that they insist not be part of the game. Those are relevant as they reduce your player agency temporarily to zero, but they don't place that agency in someone else's hands. Restrained, prone, and slowed don't even reduce your agency to zero. You can still take actions with those conditions. And those aren't usually something that affects your mind. Rather they affect your body, in the same way being physically tied up does.
Now I can see if a player had a particular trauma, or for whatever reason, they might even be uncomfortable with having their character tied up. And that's something you can discuss, though it might be hard to accommodate in a game that has "dungeons" in the title.
If only playing D&D were a job in an at will employment state and not something many people want to do with their friends.
It seems you want absolutism where this is a place where reasonable folks are going to disagree and can talk over their difference respectfully. Creating parodies of people's position and essentialists claims isn't really a productive persuasive approach. There are many ways to play the game, but this isn't really a space soliciting denunciations. There is plenty of critique going on, but it's more productive than whatever it is you're trying to accomplish (maybe "win"?) with your tact.
And some people have said that part of the problem with loss of agency is that it's boring. What they find fun is making decisions to further their character's goals, and if you take that away, they're not interested in the game.
"Further their character's goals" isn't always the highest priority for a player.
Some players like to see where the story takes them, such as "going with the flow" of any domination effect.
Several of the spells you've named impose the Frightened condition, which isn't problematic in the same way as Charmed, because it only states what you can't do, not what you must or should do. Likewise Zone of Truth and Bestow Curse don't have any way to force you to do anything, only to prevent you from doing something.
I think you have a point about Enemies Abound and Confusion. It's possible there are a few other mind control spells that aren't tagged with Charmed, but I don't think you're going to find 105 to justify Zhule's 20% estimate.
For some, the "Zone of Truth" is taking away player agency because it is preventing their character (maybe a persistent liar/deceiver) from being able to act according to their nature.
D&D Beyond makes this pretty easy. They have a catalog of 527 spells. Of these, 17 involve the Charmed condition. Animal Friendship, Awaken, and Dominate Beast can't be used on a PC. Dispel Evil and Good and Greater Restoration remove the condition. That leaves no more than 12 spells you'd have to remove, which is 2%.There's no easy search for monsters that deal with the Charmed condition, but my guess is it's much less than 20%.
Near the beginning of the conversation there was a debate around spells/abilities that cause the stun, restrained, prone, slowed, etc... and how some might argue those also count as "removing character agency". Basically any spell/ability that limits the choices you would have in any given situation. There was also some debate on if the DM should be able to roll persuasion checks against the party, and if so what the save for that would be.
Yes, there was a lot of straw manning. Still is. As pav said, this is not about diminishments but rather removal. There are some specific diminishments that might apply but they tend to be specific (such as people having a thing about outright mind control, but usually being ok with fear).
Re: Your comment about the Eloquence Bard, replace with the Glamour Bard. I note that you skipped the rest of that partial list.
I really don't think many of you get what I am saying. I created a parody of how far some of you have gone with this entitlement of individual players in a game. Yet some believe that is an actual template of how to organize a game.
Under no circumstances does a self-respecting DM allow a player, or minority of players, dictate any terms of what can be allowed in a game. He might listen to their concerns, but as stated before, might take them under advisement. More likely, he will tell the player "you won't be happy at my table, best find another one." And then you walk like some have said they would.
To create another analogy, one using the person allergic to a dog/workplace that was brought up, here is how it works in the real world.
You are being interviewed for a job. You note that at least one person in the office has a dog at their desk. The boss has no dog in the office when you are being interviewed, but their is a dog basket on the floor, and picture of their dog on the desk. You state early in the interview, "well, for me to work here, that dog in the office will have to go." The interviewer says "nice meeting you, I wish you good luck with your job search."
OR:
You are being interviewed for a job. You don't see any dog's in the office, and get the job, say nothing about your allergy. In the 2nd week of the job, the boss or one of the office workers brings their dog into the office, and you realize this is a dog friendly office. You tell the boss "oh, I am allergic to dogs". The boss says "gee, that is too bad, you seemed like a good worker. I can give you a reference, but it has only been a week, so don't know if it is much good".
OR
You are being interviewed for a job. You see dog's in the office, and get the job, and have no allergy of dogs. In the 6th month of the job, you are bitten by a dog and are now uncomfortable around them. You tell the boss "oh, I am now uncomfortable around dogs". The boss says "gee, that is too bad, you are a good worker. I will give you a good reference."
and finally:
You walk into a room where there are about 3 or 4 people who are clearly in the beginnings of a start up company. You are sitting down for an interview with 2 of them, including the boss. You state up front "I don't like dogs, and will not work in an office with them." The boss looks at you and says "I am a dog lover. It was nice meeting you. I hope you find a job situation that is more conducive to your needs"
This whole premise screams adversarial DM....
This is a group of friends playing a game together to have fun...not a company whose first purpose is to make money.
You would think if you wanted to play a game with friends that you would put a priority of everyone's good time over pretty much anything else....why else are you playing a game?
Your example is like saying the DM is first out to create their story which takes priority over everything else and that they are literally willing to alienate friends just so they do not have to adjust the story at all?
Also your example I am pretty sure the employee who got the job but did not see a dog or have hint of a dog would have some pretty good grounds for a lawsuit as the employer did not even ATTEMPT to help them separate workspace before they just suggest they leave or fire them?
What kind of place are you working in where the boss makes literally 0 attempt at accommodating their employees at all when its obvious it was on them that they did not warn them about working conditions?
It's almost impossible to remove a player's ability to choose, even temporarily. It is possible to do it to their character. Once again, temporarily. Take it from someone like me, I know what it's like to have a status effect permanently applied. It isn't any fun at all.
That's really what the problem with that whole thing about the guy having a problem with dogs is. The guy got turned away every time. In the real world, it's against the law to turn away people who are handicapped. You're supposed to come to a "reasonable accommodation" and if you are unwilling to do so, you have committed a felony. People who get turned away from job or fired because they have a problem frequently go straight to a lawyer. The lawyer will be reasonably willing to accommodate them, I'm sure. Filing suits is one of the better ways for them to make money.
Dungeons and Dragons isn't set in the real world, and as hard as it tries, it's only a sort of simulation. I haven't actually seen the real world presented as a source-book. I've seen Eberron, I've seen a peek as a tiny bit of the Forgotten Realms, I've seen some others, I don't really see a reason to list them.
One of my most memorable moments in D&D is being mind controlled back in 3e and attacking my party. Turned out pretty bad for the bard!
Had an incident where my rogue was cursed and was made to turn against the party. It's actually the closest we've ever come to a tpk because it happened right after a brutal boss fight. If not for a lucky wis save allowing her to temporarily resist its control and feed a healing potion to the way of mercy monk in the group, it may have been a tpk. Was a fun and tense moment.
While I greatly dislike removing player agency, if someone were to say, "I hate when it comes to my turn in Monopoly and I am forced to roll the dice and move that fixed number of spaces and then I am forced to pay the owner of that space should there be one." You would likely ask them why are they playing Monopoly then. D&D is a bit more complex, but in reality it is still a game. The Character is not you any more than the Shoe is in Monopoly. If your Character happens to come under the effect of one of the Rules of the Game that causes it to act in a nature that you don't approve of then don't worry, the rules also ensure that it is a temporary situation.
The example of not being able to shake an Condition due to poor dice rolls is not that different that making attack roll and getting constantly bad rolls. Some nights just don't go your way. It is just part of a game and nothing more. Getting hit with Fire Ball, getting hit with an Axe or failing to resist Dominate Person are all just part of the game of D&D.
Where I disapprove of the removal of player agency is anytime that there is no dice roll to save. If the DM decides that a player character does something without the player's input in any way, that is a problem. Having crappy dice rolls is not the same thing.
That's pretty much what I was saying. I'm fine with the rules as they stand. I think they work pretty well. What I keep saying is simply that forcing people to do things that they wouldn't realistically do isn't fun. My character is my avatar. When I play Monopoly, I don't question the rules at all. I call the game "Monotony" because I get bored with it quickly. If someone wants to add a house rule that makes it more fun? Great! If they want to add a house rule I don't like? I'll vote with my feet. I value myself more to than I value a pair of shoes.
I'm nobodies pair of shoes in D&D. If you keep forcing me to act like them, I'll put them on. You know what I'll do then.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
<Insert clever signature here>
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
D&D Beyond makes this pretty easy. They have a catalog of 527 spells. Of these, 17 involve the Charmed condition. Animal Friendship, Awaken, and Dominate Beast can't be used on a PC. Dispel Evil and Good and Greater Restoration remove the condition. That leaves no more than 12 spells you'd have to remove, which is 2%.
There's no easy search for monsters that deal with the Charmed condition, but my guess is it's much less than 20%.
Being mind controlled doesn't have to mean doing exactly what the controller wants based on instructions that are open to interpretation. Personally I'd assume the target of the effect tries to fight it as much as possible, even if failing the save means they can't resist it completely (obviously the same goes for NPCs being influenced by PCs). Not saying you're doing it wrong, just that it is one option out of several that can all be right.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
But wouldn't the game table be sort of like the workspace? This gets to the earlier concern that so "we have these effects in game" that one cubicle occupied by player Y can't come into contact with them. Doesn't that effectively remove such magics from game unless you want to go with the "party may use it but not subject to it" problem. How do you practice harm reduction to one person in a place of play in a equitable way otherwise?
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Several of the spells you've named impose the Frightened condition, which isn't problematic in the same way as Charmed, because it only states what you can't do, not what you must or should do. Likewise Zone of Truth and Bestow Curse don't have any way to force you to do anything, only to prevent you from doing something.
I think you have a point about Enemies Abound and Confusion. It's possible there are a few other mind control spells that aren't tagged with Charmed, but I don't think you're going to find 105 to justify Zhule's 20% estimate.
I dislike this. I imagine that if a DM lets their players "fight" being mind controlled/charmed (once they are already mind controlled/charmed). The same kindness should be given to enemies that the party mind controls/charms. So that goblin you quickly cast charm on, decides to scream speak with you which "just so happens" to alert the other goblins/hobgoblins and basically everything else in a 100 foot radius, that you are there. Thus negating the point of charming the goblin in the first place.
I'm not saying the player has to do exactly what i would do/ use their biggest and best spell or ability, but I'm going to call BS when they decide burn their movement and throw a knife at the monk who was 60-70 feet away, rather then turn around and use their 3 melee attacks on the caster who was 10 feet behind them.
Near the beginning of the conversation there was a debate around spells/abilities that cause the stun, restrained, prone, slowed, etc... and how some might argue those also count as "removing character agency". Basically any spell/ability that limits the choices you would have in any given situation. There was also some debate on if the DM should be able to roll persuasion checks against the party, and if so what the save for that would be.
I might be wrong, but I think most of that discussion was around whether or not it's fun to be Incapacitated / Paralyzed / Petrified / Stunned, not whether it's a trauma trigger that they insist not be part of the game. Those are relevant as they reduce your player agency temporarily to zero, but they don't place that agency in someone else's hands. Restrained, prone, and slowed don't even reduce your agency to zero. You can still take actions with those conditions. And those aren't usually something that affects your mind. Rather they affect your body, in the same way being physically tied up does.
Now I can see if a player had a particular trauma, or for whatever reason, they might even be uncomfortable with having their character tied up. And that's something you can discuss, though it might be hard to accommodate in a game that has "dungeons" in the title.
D&D is not a job and the DM is not the boss.
If only playing D&D were a job in an at will employment state and not something many people want to do with their friends.
It seems you want absolutism where this is a place where reasonable folks are going to disagree and can talk over their difference respectfully. Creating parodies of people's position and essentialists claims isn't really a productive persuasive approach. There are many ways to play the game, but this isn't really a space soliciting denunciations. There is plenty of critique going on, but it's more productive than whatever it is you're trying to accomplish (maybe "win"?) with your tact.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
"Further their character's goals" isn't always the highest priority for a player.
Some players like to see where the story takes them, such as "going with the flow" of any domination effect.
For some, the "Zone of Truth" is taking away player agency because it is preventing their character (maybe a persistent liar/deceiver) from being able to act according to their nature.
This whole premise screams adversarial DM....
This is a group of friends playing a game together to have fun...not a company whose first purpose is to make money.
You would think if you wanted to play a game with friends that you would put a priority of everyone's good time over pretty much anything else....why else are you playing a game?
Your example is like saying the DM is first out to create their story which takes priority over everything else and that they are literally willing to alienate friends just so they do not have to adjust the story at all?
Also your example I am pretty sure the employee who got the job but did not see a dog or have hint of a dog would have some pretty good grounds for a lawsuit as the employer did not even ATTEMPT to help them separate workspace before they just suggest they leave or fire them?
What kind of place are you working in where the boss makes literally 0 attempt at accommodating their employees at all when its obvious it was on them that they did not warn them about working conditions?
One of my most memorable moments in D&D is being mind controlled back in 3e and attacking my party. Turned out pretty bad for the bard!
It's almost impossible to remove a player's ability to choose, even temporarily. It is possible to do it to their character. Once again, temporarily. Take it from someone like me, I know what it's like to have a status effect permanently applied. It isn't any fun at all.
That's really what the problem with that whole thing about the guy having a problem with dogs is. The guy got turned away every time. In the real world, it's against the law to turn away people who are handicapped. You're supposed to come to a "reasonable accommodation" and if you are unwilling to do so, you have committed a felony. People who get turned away from job or fired because they have a problem frequently go straight to a lawyer. The lawyer will be reasonably willing to accommodate them, I'm sure. Filing suits is one of the better ways for them to make money.
Dungeons and Dragons isn't set in the real world, and as hard as it tries, it's only a sort of simulation. I haven't actually seen the real world presented as a source-book. I've seen Eberron, I've seen a peek as a tiny bit of the Forgotten Realms, I've seen some others, I don't really see a reason to list them.
<Insert clever signature here>
Had an incident where my rogue was cursed and was made to turn against the party. It's actually the closest we've ever come to a tpk because it happened right after a brutal boss fight. If not for a lucky wis save allowing her to temporarily resist its control and feed a healing potion to the way of mercy monk in the group, it may have been a tpk. Was a fun and tense moment.
While I greatly dislike removing player agency, if someone were to say, "I hate when it comes to my turn in Monopoly and I am forced to roll the dice and move that fixed number of spaces and then I am forced to pay the owner of that space should there be one." You would likely ask them why are they playing Monopoly then. D&D is a bit more complex, but in reality it is still a game. The Character is not you any more than the Shoe is in Monopoly. If your Character happens to come under the effect of one of the Rules of the Game that causes it to act in a nature that you don't approve of then don't worry, the rules also ensure that it is a temporary situation.
The example of not being able to shake an Condition due to poor dice rolls is not that different that making attack roll and getting constantly bad rolls. Some nights just don't go your way. It is just part of a game and nothing more. Getting hit with Fire Ball, getting hit with an Axe or failing to resist Dominate Person are all just part of the game of D&D.
Where I disapprove of the removal of player agency is anytime that there is no dice roll to save. If the DM decides that a player character does something without the player's input in any way, that is a problem. Having crappy dice rolls is not the same thing.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
That's pretty much what I was saying. I'm fine with the rules as they stand. I think they work pretty well. What I keep saying is simply that forcing people to do things that they wouldn't realistically do isn't fun. My character is my avatar. When I play Monopoly, I don't question the rules at all. I call the game "Monotony" because I get bored with it quickly. If someone wants to add a house rule that makes it more fun? Great! If they want to add a house rule I don't like? I'll vote with my feet. I value myself more to than I value a pair of shoes.
I'm nobodies pair of shoes in D&D. If you keep forcing me to act like them, I'll put them on. You know what I'll do then.
<Insert clever signature here>