Hello, so I am the DM at our table. I made a ruling that one of my players disagrees with. Don't worry, we've talked it out and solved the problem, but I am genuinely curious how other DM's see this problem - as we still disagree on what's permissible in this interaction. The situation is this:
One of my players has a deck of many things, another has a Shield Guardian with an amulet that controls it and a wish spell scroll. The decks of many things was called upon, and its owner drew the rogue card. I will list the 2024 verbatim card description here:
"An NPC of the DM's choice becomes hostile towards you. You don't know the identity of the NPC until they or someone else reveals it. Nothing less than a wish spell or divine intervention will end the NPC's hostility towards you."
I chose the Shield Guardian as the NPC effected by the Rogue card.
The party was pressuring the shield guardian owner to either use the wish or allow the party to take down the Shield Guardian. That peer pressure is what made the game un-fun for my Shield Guardian, Wish carrying player, who felt like they had to give up something cool they just got.
The issue is this, my player made several arguments as to why the deck of many things rogue card does not affect the shield guardian.
Argument 1 - The shield guardian is not an NPC and therefore cannot be a target of the rogue card.
I don't see how there is any gray area here, this is practically a perfect dichotomy. Any character made by the player and is played by the player is a PC, any creature provided by the DM is an NPC.
Argument 2 - The amulet still allows control over the Shield Guardian, so a simple stop command should stop the Shield Guardian on acting on its hostility. In essence, the amulet wielder trumps the rogue card's magical effect.
I disagree with this on multiple levels.
A. If that were the case, the Shield Guardian would be effectively immune to spells like: Command, Compel Duel, sleep, etc. All of these influence behavior/actions. Nowhere in the stat block or the master's amulet magic item description mentions such immunity. B. The Decks of Many things is a Legendary magic item with magic as powerful as the wish spell. In fact, the Moon card allows you to get a wish 1d3 times. It's magic simply is stronger than the amulet, so it absolutely should be able to effect the Shield Guardian imo. It's a legendary item vs a rare item. C. Magic obviously does influence the Shield Guardian, otherwise the amulet would not control it in the first place. D. It renders the effect of a legendary magic item useless if this did not work.
Argument 3 - The Shield Guardian should still not be able to attack, as it requires a command to do so. The Rogue card is not a command or a commander. They mentioned that a computer cannot act outside its purpose without input, as it is not "sentient".
I disagreed because, using their logic, hacking is a thing. The Deck of Many things simply overrides the creature's base function by warping reality. Punching is a function of the Shield Guardian. I think it should be able to attack.
Argument 4 - Just because the Shield Guardian is hostile does not mean it should act on it.
While I agree with this in principle, the drama seemed like a more fun option at the moment. By definition, hostile can mean an enemy. I get you can have enemies that do not act on their hostility. But, for D&D context, an enemy, in this situation, would try to attack imo.
I will concede this, the deck of many things does explicitly say: "In the case of the Rogue card, the enmity is secret and should come from someone thought to be a friend or an ally. As the dungeon master, you should wait for a dramatically appropriate moment to reveal this enmity, leaving the adventurer guessing who is likely to become the betrayer." I did not know this prior to deciding the card's effect. After reading that, I understand now that the Rogue card effect should have been more subtle, and I think I should have chosen a different NPC.
So what do you think?
Is the Shield Guardian an NPC?
Should the Amulet that controls the Shield Guardian be enough to stop the effects of a legendary item that explicitly states nothing but the Wish or Divine intervention spell will stop the NPC's hostility?
Should the Shield Guardian be able to attack on its own if it is targeted by the Rogue card's effect?
And if a creature becomes hostile, particularly mid-combat (and particularly a monster), should that creature attempt to attack?
For those interested in the resolution - the wish player cast wish to go back in time to the start of this dungeon room. Also, we talked after game, and after discovering how un-fun that moment was for the player, I allowed him to get his wish scroll back from the time travel as long as he agreed not to make it a time traveling solve all for every inconvenient interaction. I can definitely see how the peer pressure made it un-fun for him, and I want him to have fun at my table.
Please let us know in the polls and comments below as we are still debating about this. We're laughing about it now, but we are vehemently defending our positions. I disagree with my decision, but I will defend it as long as it makes sense to me.
If as DM you determined that the Deck of Many Things affected the Shield Guardian and made it hostile, it's not unconceivable to think it would attack the PC despite wether it's an NPC or monster normally attacking on command. This is a magic effect afterall!
While I'm glad to hear support for my decision, I am seeking truth here. You seem to imply there may be a difference between NPC's and Monsters. Everyone I talk to brings this up, but I simply don't see it. Also, the polls are currently reflecting this agreement. Can you explain this to me?
From my perspective, PC's (player characters) are characters created AND played by the players. They are the creature the player creates to enter the game.
NPC's (Non-player Characters) is any creature provided by the DM. If we agree upon this definition, then all monsters are NPC's.
I get that the Shield Guardian is under the player's control, but that does not make it a PC. So by definition, I believe it is a valid target for the Deck of Many Things and is an NPC.
While I'm glad to hear support for my decision, I am seeking truth here. You seem to imply there may be a difference between NPC's and Monsters. Everyone I talk to brings this up, but I simply don't see it. Also, the polls are currently reflecting this agreement. Can you explain this to me?
The truth is that everything in this situation is up to DM rulings so there is no real incorrect decision, whatever you decided simply IS the decision. And yes, technically speaking the Shield Guardian probably is an NPC just the same as all other pets or sidekicks or similar creatures the party can gather (from spells or class features or just role-playing) during a campaign. But that doesn't mean that it is a good target for this effect. The Shield Guardian is meant to be an extremely loyal NPC and an very valuable resource at that and having the party choose between that resource or a party member is never going to be fun for anyone, even with the Wish option that is just another resource that needs to be wasted (also a potentially very valuable one depending upon their level). And all this for very little story progress because the problem, and its resolution, is instantaneous.
I agree, and I 100% regret choosing it. It seemed like a fun choice at that moment, but it turned out so wrong for my player's enjoyment. Ironically, the player who drew the rogue card said she thought that moment was great, but I can see how the group peer pressuring their other party member to choose between hanging on to wish (which they just got that session), The Shield Guardian, or losing a party member was a horrible choice to make as a player. If he broke the amulet, he loses his shield guardian. If he used wish, he'd lose his wish. If he did nothing, the rest of the party might resent him. Going forward, I will be more cautious with these kinds of rulings - but I really don't think I'm wrong in saying the Shield Guardian is a valid target for who can carry out the effect when I look at RAW.
Argument 1: You are probably correct, but it depends how you run it.
Argument 2:
Of the spells listed, only command would do anything because the Shield Guardian is immune to exhaustion and compelled duel doesn't force the target to do anything anyways. I don't think that the same logic would apply to command, as the rogue spell doesn't actually force them to take any actions.
You are free to have that opinion.
Correct.
It renders it useless the same way it not affecting the pcs renders it useless.
Argument 3: I agree with them. The rogue spell doesn't force it to take any actions, and would just make the Shield Guardian resent their master. (if it is capable of such emotion)
Argument 4: The answer is similar to 3's. Additionally, Hostile actually has a definition.
A Hostile creature views you unfavorably. You have Disadvantage on an ability check to influence a Hostile creature. See also “Influence.”
You make valid points, except: - Compel duel would limit the Shield Guardian's ability to move more than 30 feet away from the caster. I don't think the amulet's owner should be able to override that spell's influence by simply saying, "Hey, move there, 20 feet out of the spell's range." You're absolutely right about sleep. I think you get my point, though, spells that dowork, should work - and not be thwarted by a player just saying "Yeah, no."
I could see where they were coming from on argument 3, and I absolutely could have ruled it that way. I just did not agree that something like a confusion spell had the potential to achieve something that a legendary magic item could not.
And thanks for sharing the tip on hostile creatures, I actually never knew that.
Argument 1 - The shield guardian is not an NPC and therefore cannot be a target of the rogue card.
100% incorrect. Anything that isn't a PC directly is an NPC, including their summons. (That doesn't mean they're under the control of the DM, just that they aren't PCs.)
Argument 2 - The amulet still allows control over the Shield Guardian, so a simple stop command should stop the Shield Guardian on acting on its hostility. In essence, the amulet wielder trumps the rogue card's magical effect.
It allows general control, but not precise. You can give it commands but once those are complete, it can continue what it was doing. And the Shield Guardian isn't mindless. Its description tells you this.
Argument 3 - The Shield Guardian should still not be able to attack, as it requires a command to do so. The Rogue card is not a command or a commander. They mentioned that a computer cannot act outside its purpose without input, as it is not "sentient".
Nothing states that the Shield Guardian must be commanded to attack, only that it will follow such an instruction.
Argument 4 - Just because the Shield Guardian is hostile does not mean it should act on it.
This is actually correct. Especially since the Deck of Many Things shouldn't be able to override its very reason for existing: To protect its master. Causing a problem between its master and other party members is a great way to break its prime directive.
My advice if you were to do something like this again: They should get hints that it doesn't trust that party member. Watchful gazes, hesitation to help that member (possibly to the extent that assisted actions take penalties), and other such actions. And if that member ever comes under suspicion for having turned against the party, it would be the first to make a move against them (possibly even sending mental feedback to the amulet bearer that signals "protect" to make it clear to the bearer that it believes it's protecting them). But having it basically wipe out all the cool stuff they got isn't a good way to run this. That's just a way to make the players resentful.
That's actually a great way to have resolved the problem while moving forward with the decisions. I wish I had thought of that. I will keep that in mind should situations like this arise in the future.
Argument 1 - The shield guardian is not an NPC and therefore cannot be a target of the rogue card.
100% incorrect. Anything that isn't a PC directly is an NPC, including their summons. (That doesn't mean they're under the control of the DM, just that they aren't PCs.
100% incorrect.
A nonplayer character (NPC) is a monster that has a personal name and a distinct personality. See also “Monster.”
A monster is a creature controlled by the DM, even if the creature is benevolent. See also “Creature” and “NPC.”
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Nothing goes over my head. My reflexes are to fast: I would catch it."
"I cannot comment on an ongoing investigation."
"Well of course I know that. What else is there? A kitten?"
"You'd like to think that, Wouldn't you?"
"A duck."
"What do you mean? An African or European swallow?"
Argument 1 - The shield guardian is not an NPC and therefore cannot be a target of the rogue card.
100% incorrect. Anything that isn't a PC directly is an NPC, including their summons. (That doesn't mean they're under the control of the DM, just that they aren't PCs.
100% incorrect.
A nonplayer character (NPC) is a monster that has a personal name and a distinct personality. See also “Monster.”
A monster is a creature controlled by the DM, even if the creature is benevolent. See also “Creature” and “NPC.”
So NPC is more specific, all NPCs are monsters, and the Shield Guardian is still an NPC by those rules. Got it.
I'm almost certain, if I were to bring this up again, my player would refer to the Player Character's definition.
"A player character is a character controlled by a player. See alsochapter 2."
I cannot find a precise definition of Character.
How do I get him to understand that this is meant to be the creature the player created to enter and play the game, not a monster/NPC supplied by the DM?
How do I get him to understand that this is meant to be the creature the player created to enter and play the game, not a monster/NPC supplied by the DM?
"NPCs might join the adventuring party because they want a share of the loot and are willing to accept an equal share of the risk, or they might follow the adventurers because of a bond of loyalty, gratitude, or love. You can delegate decisions about an NPC’s actions to one of the players, especially in combat, but you can override the player’s decisions to reflect the NPC’s motivations."
It seems like all I need do is prove to him the Shield Guardian is an NPC, but your control over it is not absolute.
This entire interaction has made me nervous to use any form of mind controlling spells or monsters on PC's.
"NPCs might join the adventuring party because they want a share of the loot and are willing to accept an equal share of the risk, or they might follow the adventurers because of a bond of loyalty, gratitude, or love. You can delegate decisions about an NPC’s actions to one of the players, especially in combat, but you can override the player’s decisions to reflect the NPC’s motivations."
It seems like all I need do is prove to him the Shield Guardian is an NPC, but your control over it is not absolute.
This entire interaction has made me nervous to use any form of mind controlling spells or monsters on PC's.
Mind control effects are always a touchy subject and have to be approached with care. When using them on PCs in particular, it's often more fun for them to get to play the results out. Sometimes they can find ways to subtly subvert the commands, sometimes they can't. A couple of examples:
-I cast Dominate Person on a wizard. The wizard player took the command "Kill them all" and threw a Fireball spell that hit enemies and allies alike, avoiding the mage who cast Dominate. "All" was an operative word in the command, and I liked the creativity, so accepted that. -I used an Intellect Devourer to eat the brain of a bugbear barbarian/fighter. Told him the mindset: He's still himself, but he's now part of the hive, connected and loyal to the core. He, uh... He was a little too happy for the chance to play out that role.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hello, so I am the DM at our table. I made a ruling that one of my players disagrees with. Don't worry, we've talked it out and solved the problem, but I am genuinely curious how other DM's see this problem - as we still disagree on what's permissible in this interaction. The situation is this:
One of my players has a deck of many things, another has a Shield Guardian with an amulet that controls it and a wish spell scroll. The decks of many things was called upon, and its owner drew the rogue card. I will list the 2024 verbatim card description here:
"An NPC of the DM's choice becomes hostile towards you. You don't know the identity of the NPC until they or someone else reveals it. Nothing less than a wish spell or divine intervention will end the NPC's hostility towards you."
I chose the Shield Guardian as the NPC effected by the Rogue card.
The party was pressuring the shield guardian owner to either use the wish or allow the party to take down the Shield Guardian. That peer pressure is what made the game un-fun for my Shield Guardian, Wish carrying player, who felt like they had to give up something cool they just got.
The issue is this, my player made several arguments as to why the deck of many things rogue card does not affect the shield guardian.
Argument 1 - The shield guardian is not an NPC and therefore cannot be a target of the rogue card.
I don't see how there is any gray area here, this is practically a perfect dichotomy. Any character made by the player and is played by the player is a PC, any creature provided by the DM is an NPC.
Argument 2 - The amulet still allows control over the Shield Guardian, so a simple stop command should stop the Shield Guardian on acting on its hostility. In essence, the amulet wielder trumps the rogue card's magical effect.
I disagree with this on multiple levels.
A. If that were the case, the Shield Guardian would be effectively immune to spells like: Command, Compel Duel, sleep, etc. All of these influence behavior/actions. Nowhere in the stat block or the master's amulet magic item description mentions such immunity.
B. The Decks of Many things is a Legendary magic item with magic as powerful as the wish spell. In fact, the Moon card allows you to get a wish 1d3 times. It's magic simply is stronger than the amulet, so it absolutely should be able to effect the Shield Guardian imo. It's a legendary item vs a rare item.
C. Magic obviously does influence the Shield Guardian, otherwise the amulet would not control it in the first place.
D. It renders the effect of a legendary magic item useless if this did not work.
Argument 3 - The Shield Guardian should still not be able to attack, as it requires a command to do so. The Rogue card is not a command or a commander. They mentioned that a computer cannot act outside its purpose without input, as it is not "sentient".
I disagreed because, using their logic, hacking is a thing. The Deck of Many things simply overrides the creature's base function by warping reality. Punching is a function of the Shield Guardian. I think it should be able to attack.
Argument 4 - Just because the Shield Guardian is hostile does not mean it should act on it.
While I agree with this in principle, the drama seemed like a more fun option at the moment. By definition, hostile can mean an enemy. I get you can have enemies that do not act on their hostility. But, for D&D context, an enemy, in this situation, would try to attack imo.
I will concede this, the deck of many things does explicitly say: "In the case of the Rogue card, the enmity is secret and should come from someone thought to be a friend or an ally. As the dungeon master, you should wait for a dramatically appropriate moment to reveal this enmity, leaving the adventurer guessing who is likely to become the betrayer." I did not know this prior to deciding the card's effect. After reading that, I understand now that the Rogue card effect should have been more subtle, and I think I should have chosen a different NPC.
So what do you think?
Is the Shield Guardian an NPC?
Should the Amulet that controls the Shield Guardian be enough to stop the effects of a legendary item that explicitly states nothing but the Wish or Divine intervention spell will stop the NPC's hostility?
Should the Shield Guardian be able to attack on its own if it is targeted by the Rogue card's effect?
And if a creature becomes hostile, particularly mid-combat (and particularly a monster), should that creature attempt to attack?
For those interested in the resolution - the wish player cast wish to go back in time to the start of this dungeon room. Also, we talked after game, and after discovering how un-fun that moment was for the player, I allowed him to get his wish scroll back from the time travel as long as he agreed not to make it a time traveling solve all for every inconvenient interaction. I can definitely see how the peer pressure made it un-fun for him, and I want him to have fun at my table.
Please let us know in the polls and comments below as we are still debating about this. We're laughing about it now, but we are vehemently defending our positions. I disagree with my decision, but I will defend it as long as it makes sense to me.
If as DM you determined that the Deck of Many Things affected the Shield Guardian and made it hostile, it's not unconceivable to think it would attack the PC despite wether it's an NPC or monster normally attacking on command. This is a magic effect afterall!
While I'm glad to hear support for my decision, I am seeking truth here. You seem to imply there may be a difference between NPC's and Monsters. Everyone I talk to brings this up, but I simply don't see it. Also, the polls are currently reflecting this agreement. Can you explain this to me?
From my perspective, PC's (player characters) are characters created AND played by the players. They are the creature the player creates to enter the game.
NPC's (Non-player Characters) is any creature provided by the DM. If we agree upon this definition, then all monsters are NPC's.
I get that the Shield Guardian is under the player's control, but that does not make it a PC. So by definition, I believe it is a valid target for the Deck of Many Things and is an NPC.
Can you break this down for me?
The truth is that everything in this situation is up to DM rulings so there is no real incorrect decision, whatever you decided simply IS the decision. And yes, technically speaking the Shield Guardian probably is an NPC just the same as all other pets or sidekicks or similar creatures the party can gather (from spells or class features or just role-playing) during a campaign.
But that doesn't mean that it is a good target for this effect. The Shield Guardian is meant to be an extremely loyal NPC and an very valuable resource at that and having the party choose between that resource or a party member is never going to be fun for anyone, even with the Wish option that is just another resource that needs to be wasted (also a potentially very valuable one depending upon their level). And all this for very little story progress because the problem, and its resolution, is instantaneous.
I agree, and I 100% regret choosing it. It seemed like a fun choice at that moment, but it turned out so wrong for my player's enjoyment. Ironically, the player who drew the rogue card said she thought that moment was great, but I can see how the group peer pressuring their other party member to choose between hanging on to wish (which they just got that session), The Shield Guardian, or losing a party member was a horrible choice to make as a player. If he broke the amulet, he loses his shield guardian. If he used wish, he'd lose his wish. If he did nothing, the rest of the party might resent him. Going forward, I will be more cautious with these kinds of rulings - but I really don't think I'm wrong in saying the Shield Guardian is a valid target for who can carry out the effect when I look at RAW.
Argument 1: You are probably correct, but it depends how you run it.
Argument 2:
Argument 3: I agree with them. The rogue spell doesn't force it to take any actions, and would just make the Shield Guardian resent their master. (if it is capable of such emotion)
Argument 4: The answer is similar to 3's. Additionally, Hostile actually has a definition.
Extended signature
You make valid points, except:
- Compel duel would limit the Shield Guardian's ability to move more than 30 feet away from the caster. I don't think the amulet's owner should be able to override that spell's influence by simply saying, "Hey, move there, 20 feet out of the spell's range."
You're absolutely right about sleep. I think you get my point, though, spells that do work, should work - and not be thwarted by a player just saying "Yeah, no."
I could see where they were coming from on argument 3, and I absolutely could have ruled it that way. I just did not agree that something like a confusion spell had the potential to achieve something that a legendary magic item could not.
And thanks for sharing the tip on hostile creatures, I actually never knew that.
100% incorrect. Anything that isn't a PC directly is an NPC, including their summons. (That doesn't mean they're under the control of the DM, just that they aren't PCs.)
It allows general control, but not precise. You can give it commands but once those are complete, it can continue what it was doing. And the Shield Guardian isn't mindless. Its description tells you this.
Nothing states that the Shield Guardian must be commanded to attack, only that it will follow such an instruction.
This is actually correct. Especially since the Deck of Many Things shouldn't be able to override its very reason for existing: To protect its master. Causing a problem between its master and other party members is a great way to break its prime directive.
My advice if you were to do something like this again: They should get hints that it doesn't trust that party member. Watchful gazes, hesitation to help that member (possibly to the extent that assisted actions take penalties), and other such actions. And if that member ever comes under suspicion for having turned against the party, it would be the first to make a move against them (possibly even sending mental feedback to the amulet bearer that signals "protect" to make it clear to the bearer that it believes it's protecting them). But having it basically wipe out all the cool stuff they got isn't a good way to run this. That's just a way to make the players resentful.
That's actually a great way to have resolved the problem while moving forward with the decisions. I wish I had thought of that. I will keep that in mind should situations like this arise in the future.
100% incorrect.
Extended signature
So NPC is more specific, all NPCs are monsters, and the Shield Guardian is still an NPC by those rules. Got it.
I'm almost certain, if I were to bring this up again, my player would refer to the Player Character's definition.
"A player character is a character controlled by a player. See also chapter 2."
I cannot find a precise definition of Character.
How do I get him to understand that this is meant to be the creature the player created to enter and play the game, not a monster/NPC supplied by the DM?
Perhaps with Creating a Character chapter ?
Lol, trust me, I'm almost certain he will argue that the Shield Guardian is a character that he controls.
I think I found my answer though in the NPC's as Party Members section of the 2024 DMG.
"NPCs might join the adventuring party because they want a share of the loot and are willing to accept an equal share of the risk, or they might follow the adventurers because of a bond of loyalty, gratitude, or love. You can delegate decisions about an NPC’s actions to one of the players, especially in combat, but you can override the player’s decisions to reflect the NPC’s motivations."
It seems like all I need do is prove to him the Shield Guardian is an NPC, but your control over it is not absolute.
This entire interaction has made me nervous to use any form of mind controlling spells or monsters on PC's.
Mind control effects are always a touchy subject and have to be approached with care. When using them on PCs in particular, it's often more fun for them to get to play the results out. Sometimes they can find ways to subtly subvert the commands, sometimes they can't. A couple of examples:
-I cast Dominate Person on a wizard. The wizard player took the command "Kill them all" and threw a Fireball spell that hit enemies and allies alike, avoiding the mage who cast Dominate. "All" was an operative word in the command, and I liked the creativity, so accepted that.
-I used an Intellect Devourer to eat the brain of a bugbear barbarian/fighter. Told him the mindset: He's still himself, but he's now part of the hive, connected and loyal to the core. He, uh... He was a little too happy for the chance to play out that role.