Definitely a special exception, nothing about the charmed condition in and of itself suggests a willingness to be attacked or otherwise harmed by the charmer. Only that the charm victim cannot harm the charmer.
You literally do not have control over your own will while the spell is in effect.
If you have no control over your own will, that's contrary of willing. Being willing relate to the will or power of choosing and having no control is being powerless with regards to willingness.
If you have conscious control over something you can be controlled into exercising that control. It is mind control, not body control. If the person was in control of their will, they would not be willing. However the moment they fail the save, they lose control of their consciousness, of their will. They are made to be willing to accept everything asked of them, short of physical damage (and even then it is only a fresh save, not an automatic break).
Kotath, I'm not sure if we are ever going to come to consensus here. You are arguing that it is possible for a creature to have their will controlled and yet still be able to themselves control it. You are making a paradoxical argument here that I don't quite understand. Saying that I can make you be "willing" to accept a spell is by default removing your ability to be "willing" in the first place. The spell isn't asking if I am willing for you to be subjected to the spell effect, it is asking if you are willing. Me imposing my will onto you does not replace the requirement that you exercise your will; if you are unable to exercise your will, you cannot by default be willing. Functionally, it is no different from you being unconscious. The only way that a dominated creature could be subject to a spell with a "willing" requirement would be if the dominated creature is independently willing, regardless of the commands given to it by the controller, at least as I understand the concepts of "will" and "willing"
But it's not a point that any of us will find in the RAW, because 1) the terms aren't clearly defined, and 2) they have never provided guidance on the intersection in an official format. So we are clear to agree to disagree, and rule differently at our respective tables.
Dominate Person clearly specifies you give orders telepathically, i.e. verbally but via direct mind contact rather than spoken. They are orders. You can alternatively take direct control by way of a full action but you are normally giving orders, which they must obey. When not otherwise ordered, they defend and preserve themselves to the best of their ability, implying they have some choice into how. It is like dealing with someone with 100% trust and 100% loyalty.
but it's not, because your example still gives the 100% trusting and loyal creature the choice to follow the orders (even if they won't). The spell does nothing to alter the dominated targets disposition towards the caster (compared to say Charm Person, which does). If it did, I would be more inclined to agree with you. A dominated creature will do anything ordered regardless of the creatures will or choice, but it doesn't make them like doing it. So if you order them to kick the puppy, they might be crying and apologizing as they do so, but the puppy is getting kicked (Sorry puppy).
It is not that a dominated creature can never be the subject of a spell with a "willing" requirement by the way. They still can, if they themselves are willing. The only thing that is impossible is for the caster to force them to be willing when they themselves are not, because that in and of itself means that they are no longer willing; their own will no longer exists for that decision.
If the person did not have a separate existence, direct control would be the only option and they would not even be able to defend themselves when not controlled into doing so.
To split that hair, I don’t mind unconscious characters being willing, if the player is willing, since I think playr/DM agency is what is being tracked… but I could be persuaded to call them unwilling too.
I've always operated under the assumption that RAW an unconscious creature cannot be willing or unwilling, as they have no will to exert in the condition, but in practice, I rule more or less as you would (if the creature is an NPC, I base it on the relationship status of the NPC to the caster prior to their falling unconscious).
They have no conscious will to accept it, but they still have will. Creatures do not lose sentience in their sleep.
Sentience and Will are not the same. Sentience is the capacity to be aware of feelings or sensations. Will is the capacity to decide or initiate action.
Your definition is faulty. You are saying that someone paralyzed has no will
Where did I say that? Paralyzation affects the body not the mind, and the question being asked is a question of the mind (Is a creature willing to be the target of a spell). Will is a state of mind, not of body. The OP and you are suggesting using Domination to force the mind to do something. If you are forcing the mind to do something, then the creature no longer has will over their mind. "willing" is a state of mind, and if you cannot control your mind, you have no will.
Your definition is faulty. You are saying that someone paralyzed has no will
Where did I say that? Paralyzation affects the body not the mind, and the question being asked is a question of the mind (Is a creature willing to be the target of a spell). Will is a state of mind, not of body. The OP and you are suggesting using Domination to force the mind to do something. If you are forcing the mind to do something, then the creature no longer has will over their mind. "willing" is a state of mind, and if you cannot control your mind, you have no will.
4a: mental powers manifested as wishing, choosing, desiring, or intending
One can desire even in one's sleep. One can, in theory at least, shape one's dreams while unconscious.
Sure you can, but we aren't casting dominate person in your dreams are we? You cannot shape your reality while unconscious.
All of this is irrelevant. The person controlling a character determines what they will and what they don't will. This is not a character level interaction, but instead a player level interaction. You decide what your character does or does not will.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
A saving throw--also called a save--represents an attempt to resist a spell, a trap, a poison, a disease, or a similar threat. You don’t normally decide to make a saving throw; you are forced to make one because your character or monster is at risk of harm.
To make a saving throw, roll a d20 and add the appropriate ability modifier. For example, you use your Dexterity modifier for a Dexterity saving throw.
A saving throw can be modified by a situational bonus or penalty and can be affected by advantage and disadvantage, as determined by the DM.
Each class gives proficiency in at least two saving throws. The wizard, for example, is proficient in Intelligence saves. As with skill proficiencies, proficiency in a saving throw lets a character add his or her proficiency bonus to saving throws made using a particular ability score. Some monsters have saving throw proficiencies as well.
The Difficulty Class for a saving throw is determined by the effect that causes it. For example, the DC for a saving throw allowed by a spell is determined by the caster’s spellcasting ability and proficiency bonus.
The result of a successful or failed saving throw is also detailed in the effect that allows the save. Usually, a successful save means that a creature suffers no harm, or reduced harm, from an effect.
Can you mentally command or magically charm someone to not resist a disease, or not resist a poison?
If an effect is harmful, and offers a save, you get to make that save. Unless specifically told otherwise specifically and in black and white. You won't have to guess if this happens, the rules will be very obvious about it.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Can you mentally command or magically charm someone to not resist a disease, or not resist a poison?
It bears noting that you can issue any command you like. For example, you can say to someone, "stop getting better from the flu!" Magically charming someone may make them more willing to obey you, but that doesn't make them physically capable of obeying you. Similarly, you can order someone to jump into the air and float. They may even be willing to do it. That doesn't mean they can do it. There's a significant difference between what someone is willing to do and what they can do.
What's relevant to this thread is that you can't be forced to do anything against your will. Not in the real world, and not in D&D, because that's what will means. You can be put under duress, sure. You can be told "Pick up this coin or I'll kill you", and you can believe the threat. Now you have a choice to make: pick up the coin, or take your chances with not picking it up and see what happens. But fundamentally and forever, you make all of your own choices.
Mind control spells work by coercing those choices - for example, if you're hit with a suggestion to pick up the coin, you're magically bound to be willing to pick up the coin, which is why you pick up the coin. If you remained unwilling to pick up the coin after the spell resolved, you wouldn't pick it up. In fact, that's what it means to pass Suggestion's Wisdom save - maintaining your free will in the face of the suggestion spell. But the suggestion spell does nothing at all if it can't change what you're willing to do, since you just won't do things you're not willing to.
I think it's interesting that the Vampire specifically mentions that people Charmed by their power are willing to be bitten.
Either that's spelling out a normal consequence of being charmed (as a reminder, as it were, that this is a good tactic for Vampires to use), or it's to be read as a special exception for willingness.
It's a special exception to me
But I guess the point is correlated with "dominate" -- Dominate says you're charmed and can make people do stuff. Half of this argument says you can't be made to be willing by Dominate because the definition of Willing is the freedom to choose.
The Vampire has a charm power that makes you willing to take an attack. If the people arguing "willing requires having freedom of choice", the Vampires power is a pointed counter example to that, wouldn't you say?
4a: mental powers manifested as wishing, choosing, desiring, or intending
One can desire even in one's sleep. One can, in theory at least, shape one's dreams while unconscious.
An unconcious person cannot consent and be willing. Where i live, anything sexual done to someone unconcious is illegal abuse. A person who is unconscious isn’t able to consent to such things their consent is invalid, even if they gave it before falling asleep or losing consciousness. Same laws also says a person’s consent is invalid if not freely given, ie. forced.
Now a paralyzed creature might not be able to physically express being willing (other than telepatically) but for spell purposes, it could still allow itself to be eligible target by being willing to.
Lets not bring real world consent into it, legal or moral or sexual. I think we can all agree that compromising someone’s decision making, even just with intimidation, makes “consent” impossible. But we’re talking about a rule in a game about what spells you permit or resist or actions you choose to take on your turn, it’s not tied up with “consent.”
Animals and dumb creatures must be able to take “willing” actions and be willing targets, so don’t get too wrapped up in informed consent.
If you have conscious control over something you can be controlled into exercising that control. It is mind control, not body control. If the person was in control of their will, they would not be willing.
Right, and if you cannot choose to be unwilling, you are not willing. #powerofchoice
I had to laugh at this one. If you cannot choose to be unwilling you are unwilling doesn't work If you can't be unwilling.
If you don't have control over your own will, then the person that does have control needs to be willing. You can be mad about it after the fact, and rightfully so, but you are still forced to do the thing you were Dominated to do. That is what the spell does.
Just as a reminder, Dominate Person is a terrible ability that would be illegal pretty much anywhere in the real world, because it strips a person of their own free will and replaces it with the will of another.
Edit: I am thoroughly convinced that the School of Enchantment and College of Glamour are the most Evil subclasses in the game because of their ability to strip people of their will.
Can you mentally command or magically charm someone to not resist a disease, or not resist a poison?
Mind control spells work by coercing those choices - for example, if you're hit with a suggestion to pick up the coin, you're magically bound to be willing to pick up the coin, which is why you pick up the coin.
You're fabricating this explanation. Suggestion at no point says your "will" is overridden.
If you remained unwilling to pick up the coin after the spell resolved, you wouldn't pick it up. In fact, that's what it means to pass Suggestion's Wisdom save - maintaining your free will in the face of the suggestion spell. But the suggestion spell does nothing at all if it can't change what you're willing to do, since you just won't do things you're not willing to.
Again, this is entirely fabrication. None of this appears in the text whatsoever. Suggestion does not override your "will" unless it says it does. Which it does not. Spells do what they say they do.
In the case of suggestion, it forces you to act. It doesn't force you to willingly act.
If a spell is forcing you to perform an action you wouldn't otherwise normally perform, by definition it is against your will.
Heck in prior editions it wasn't called wisdom save this effect fell under Will save. Like, charms and compulsions are a serious violation of your will.
What am I describing? ---> "Spells and magic that forces the target to act against their will".
The fact you can describe compulsion type magic, all the enchantment based mind control, as 'forcing someone to act against their will'... should be all the answer anyone needs to this question. You cannot force someone to be willing. Only they decide what it is.
You can fool them into changing it, trick them into changing it, beguile and mislead them, persuade or cajole them into changing it... but only they can do the changing of their will.
Very few effects can actually overwrite someone's will itself, and if they can, they will straight up say as much.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Just as a reminder, Dominate Person is a terrible ability that would be illegal pretty much anywhere in the real world, because it strips a person of their own free will and replaces it with the will of another.
It forces them to act against their will. They still have a will, it just isn't controlling their actions any longer. But you're right, it is a truly wicked deed to use this type of magic. The emotional trauma it would cause could last a lifetime.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
People keep trying to inject real life values into a fantasy game where the player's chars would be imprisoned for vigilante activities, at best, murder and mayhem at worst.
That's called verisimilitude. Most D&D games benefit from including some of it. But it is a personal preference. Some people prefer just consequence free murder hobo games.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Let's not derail this thread into talking about the morality of mind control, or murderhobo adventuring in general. Again, while "consent" is a very important part of real life legally and morally, what we're talking about is "willing" as a game system definition for when a course of action or spell in combat is or is not taken by one character (a humanoid, an animal, or even something unthinking like a programmed golem), rather than another who is magically puppeting their body or mind.
It is real simple. While under Charm Person, or Dominate Person, that target will accept the commands that are connected to the word "willing". It has always been that way.
Let's not derail this thread into talking about the morality of mind control, or murderhobo adventuring in general. Again, while "consent" is a very important part of real life legally and morally, what we're talking about is "willing" as a game system definition for when a course of action or spell in combat is or is not taken by one character (a humanoid, an animal, or even something unthinking like a programmed golem), rather than another who is magically puppeting their body or mind.
It is real simple. While under Charm Person, or Dominate Person, that target will accept the commands that are connected to the word "willing". It has always been that way.
I can see the argument for dominate person, where you could say tell them to accept the spell, and they do it.
Charm person doesn't give you the ability to control someone. The ONLY thing the charm person spell tosses on top of the basic charmed condition is that the target views you as a friendly acquaintance. But that doesn't mean you'll do anything they tell you to. All charm does is make it so you can't harm the charmer and give them advantage on social checks. Charm, in and of itself, isn't full blown mind control, though its treading in that general direction.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Definitely a special exception, nothing about the charmed condition in and of itself suggests a willingness to be attacked or otherwise harmed by the charmer. Only that the charm victim cannot harm the charmer.
but it's not, because your example still gives the 100% trusting and loyal creature the choice to follow the orders (even if they won't). The spell does nothing to alter the dominated targets disposition towards the caster (compared to say Charm Person, which does). If it did, I would be more inclined to agree with you. A dominated creature will do anything ordered regardless of the creatures will or choice, but it doesn't make them like doing it. So if you order them to kick the puppy, they might be crying and apologizing as they do so, but the puppy is getting kicked (Sorry puppy).
It is not that a dominated creature can never be the subject of a spell with a "willing" requirement by the way. They still can, if they themselves are willing. The only thing that is impossible is for the caster to force them to be willing when they themselves are not, because that in and of itself means that they are no longer willing; their own will no longer exists for that decision.
Sentience and Will are not the same. Sentience is the capacity to be aware of feelings or sensations. Will is the capacity to decide or initiate action.
Where did I say that? Paralyzation affects the body not the mind, and the question being asked is a question of the mind (Is a creature willing to be the target of a spell). Will is a state of mind, not of body. The OP and you are suggesting using Domination to force the mind to do something. If you are forcing the mind to do something, then the creature no longer has will over their mind. "willing" is a state of mind, and if you cannot control your mind, you have no will.
Sure you can, but we aren't casting dominate person in your dreams are we? You cannot shape your reality while unconscious.
All of this is irrelevant. The person controlling a character determines what they will and what they don't will. This is not a character level interaction, but instead a player level interaction. You decide what your character does or does not will.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Saving Throws
Can you mentally command or magically charm someone to not resist a disease, or not resist a poison?
If an effect is harmful, and offers a save, you get to make that save. Unless specifically told otherwise specifically and in black and white. You won't have to guess if this happens, the rules will be very obvious about it.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Neat Tweet about spell willingness by Mr Crawford
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Lol, JC is such a troll.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
It bears noting that you can issue any command you like. For example, you can say to someone, "stop getting better from the flu!" Magically charming someone may make them more willing to obey you, but that doesn't make them physically capable of obeying you. Similarly, you can order someone to jump into the air and float. They may even be willing to do it. That doesn't mean they can do it. There's a significant difference between what someone is willing to do and what they can do.
What's relevant to this thread is that you can't be forced to do anything against your will. Not in the real world, and not in D&D, because that's what will means. You can be put under duress, sure. You can be told "Pick up this coin or I'll kill you", and you can believe the threat. Now you have a choice to make: pick up the coin, or take your chances with not picking it up and see what happens. But fundamentally and forever, you make all of your own choices.
Mind control spells work by coercing those choices - for example, if you're hit with a suggestion to pick up the coin, you're magically bound to be willing to pick up the coin, which is why you pick up the coin. If you remained unwilling to pick up the coin after the spell resolved, you wouldn't pick it up. In fact, that's what it means to pass Suggestion's Wisdom save - maintaining your free will in the face of the suggestion spell. But the suggestion spell does nothing at all if it can't change what you're willing to do, since you just won't do things you're not willing to.
But I guess the point is correlated with "dominate" -- Dominate says you're charmed and can make people do stuff. Half of this argument says you can't be made to be willing by Dominate because the definition of Willing is the freedom to choose.
The Vampire has a charm power that makes you willing to take an attack. If the people arguing "willing requires having freedom of choice", the Vampires power is a pointed counter example to that, wouldn't you say?
The vampire has an ability that makes you willing, explicitly. That has no similarity to other spells that do not say they do that.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
An unconcious person cannot consent and be willing. Where i live, anything sexual done to someone unconcious is illegal abuse. A person who is unconscious isn’t able to consent to such things their consent is invalid, even if they gave it before falling asleep or losing consciousness. Same laws also says a person’s consent is invalid if not freely given, ie. forced.
Now a paralyzed creature might not be able to physically express being willing (other than telepatically) but for spell purposes, it could still allow itself to be eligible target by being willing to.
Lets not bring real world consent into it, legal or moral or sexual. I think we can all agree that compromising someone’s decision making, even just with intimidation, makes “consent” impossible. But we’re talking about a rule in a game about what spells you permit or resist or actions you choose to take on your turn, it’s not tied up with “consent.”
Animals and dumb creatures must be able to take “willing” actions and be willing targets, so don’t get too wrapped up in informed consent.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I had to laugh at this one. If you cannot choose to be unwilling you are unwilling doesn't work If you can't be unwilling.
If you don't have control over your own will, then the person that does have control needs to be willing. You can be mad about it after the fact, and rightfully so, but you are still forced to do the thing you were Dominated to do. That is what the spell does.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Just as a reminder, Dominate Person is a terrible ability that would be illegal pretty much anywhere in the real world, because it strips a person of their own free will and replaces it with the will of another.
Edit: I am thoroughly convinced that the School of Enchantment and College of Glamour are the most Evil subclasses in the game because of their ability to strip people of their will.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
You're fabricating this explanation. Suggestion at no point says your "will" is overridden.
Again, this is entirely fabrication. None of this appears in the text whatsoever. Suggestion does not override your "will" unless it says it does. Which it does not. Spells do what they say they do.
In the case of suggestion, it forces you to act. It doesn't force you to willingly act.
If a spell is forcing you to perform an action you wouldn't otherwise normally perform, by definition it is against your will.
Heck in prior editions it wasn't called wisdom save this effect fell under Will save. Like, charms and compulsions are a serious violation of your will.
What am I describing? ---> "Spells and magic that forces the target to act against their will".
The fact you can describe compulsion type magic, all the enchantment based mind control, as 'forcing someone to act against their will'... should be all the answer anyone needs to this question. You cannot force someone to be willing. Only they decide what it is.
You can fool them into changing it, trick them into changing it, beguile and mislead them, persuade or cajole them into changing it... but only they can do the changing of their will.
Very few effects can actually overwrite someone's will itself, and if they can, they will straight up say as much.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
It forces them to act against their will. They still have a will, it just isn't controlling their actions any longer. But you're right, it is a truly wicked deed to use this type of magic. The emotional trauma it would cause could last a lifetime.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
That's called verisimilitude. Most D&D games benefit from including some of it. But it is a personal preference. Some people prefer just consequence free murder hobo games.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Let's not derail this thread into talking about the morality of mind control, or murderhobo adventuring in general. Again, while "consent" is a very important part of real life legally and morally, what we're talking about is "willing" as a game system definition for when a course of action or spell in combat is or is not taken by one character (a humanoid, an animal, or even something unthinking like a programmed golem), rather than another who is magically puppeting their body or mind.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Disagree :)
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I can see the argument for dominate person, where you could say tell them to accept the spell, and they do it.
Charm person doesn't give you the ability to control someone. The ONLY thing the charm person spell tosses on top of the basic charmed condition is that the target views you as a friendly acquaintance. But that doesn't mean you'll do anything they tell you to. All charm does is make it so you can't harm the charmer and give them advantage on social checks. Charm, in and of itself, isn't full blown mind control, though its treading in that general direction.