bypassing protection from evil - the enchanter's plight [Archive] - Wizards Community

bypassing protection from evil - the enchanter's plight [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
azygus
10-14-07, 08:53 PM I have a true neutral enchanter. I would like to utilize spells or magic items to "protect" my charmed and dominated targets from the effects of protection from evil and protection from evil 10' radius. Ideas so far include:
a ring of counter spell would work one time for one spell
minor globe of invulnerability would work short term, but I would like an "always on" option

Anyone else have a solution?
runestar
10-14-07, 09:30 PM Use spells which are not blocked out by prot from evil on your minions instead, such as suggestion or geas.
azygus
10-16-07, 12:10 AM interesting, so because suggestion and geas do not grant ongoing control by the caster they are not subject to the effects of protection from evil. I hadn't thought of that.

The problem still arises with charms and dominates because I would like to use some creatures as tanks for awhile. There is a member of our party that has a 10' circle of protection evil around him which I don't want to interrupt my control. In addition, I don't want the any caster with a protection from evil spell to be able turn my charmed creatures into additional enemies
Someone
10-16-07, 01:53 AM I don't think charm person is "mental control" in the same scope as dominate person. So protection from evil wouldn't stop them from seeing you as a friend, nor would it stop them from taking your verbal requests (such as "beat up those strangers over there") in a favorable light.
Nirid
10-16-07, 02:32 AM OK. I'll agree that PfE is too powerful if it blocks things like charm person and suggestion and I agree about toning it down. But doesn't it by RAW? It says explicitly it blocks charm effects if they would grant ongoing control. The core charm spell is of course the charm chain. I don't think there is a better example of the sub-school. So why is it called out if it's not covered?

Are there ANY charm effects that would meet your qualification for ongoing mental control even out of core? If not why does the spell say explicitly that charms are covered if charms are incapable of producing an effect that would qualify in the first place? Isn't that like saying you are protected from evocations that act like dominate person? An exaggeration, but you get the point. No reason to point out a situation that could never happen.

Also what about patterns? I think making you stand there like an idoit for as long as I'm willing to concentrate would fall under mental control. The spell simply cites enchantments as examples but does not say that is the limit. In fact it's disturbingly vague.

As far as suggestion goes... it's a mind affecting compulsion with a duration that allows you to layout a short, reasonable course of action for the subject to follow. What part of that is not covered by PfE?
ArcTan
10-16-07, 03:22 AM I don't think charm person is "mental control" in the same scope as dominate person. So protection from evil wouldn't stop them from seeing you as a friend, nor would it stop them from taking your verbal requests (such as "beat up those strangers over there") in a favorable light.

PfE *specifically says* it blocks Charm spells.
ArcTan
10-16-07, 03:39 AM As far as suggestion goes... it's a mind affecting compulsion with a duration that allows you to layout a short, reasonable course of action for the subject to follow. What part of that is not covered by PfE?

The description under the Compulsion subschool in the PHB says that there are three kinds of Compulsions: Ones that have an explicit, set effect that's always the same when cast, ones that let you dictate what effect they have when cast, and ones that give you "ongoing control".

PfE only protects against spells that grant "ongoing control". Given the definition we have, that means that "ongoing control" must *only* mean spells that let you keep on feeding new instructions to the target as long as the spell is active and having the target keep on changing its behavior according to your instructions.

Therefore spells like command, suggestion, and geas/quest all *don't count*, because they all involve giving an *initial* set of instructions that you are powerless to change afterwards.

The only PHB spells in the Compulsion subschool that are affected by PfE, therefore, are the dominate spells, whereas all the Charm subschool spells fall under this definition (since you can keep on giving friendly "advice" to your charmed targets and making them do what you want for as long as the spell lasts) except enthrall, which only has the one, specific effect of making people stand there taking no actions.

The full list of PHB spells that PfE works against, in my judgment, is:

Charm person
Charm animal
Charm monster
Mass charm person
Symbol of persuasion
Dominate person
Dominate animal
Dominate monster

There are other such spells too, of course, in other non-core books, but I'm a tad too lazy to search through them all right now. In the SRD there's a few extra examples, like the Epic spells Enslave and Soul Dominion.

Also, psionic powers:

Telempathic projection
Attraction (arguable, but I think it counts)
Psionic charm
Psionic dominate
Mind seed

Notice that I'm just listing things that fall into the Charm or Compulsion "ongoing control" category. PfE *also* blocks or suppresses possession attempts, i.e. use of the magic jar spell or mind switch power.
runestar
10-16-07, 04:09 AM Prot from alignment and magic circles allow will saves to negate. Hopefully, as 1st lv and 3rd lv spells respectively, your fighters will have a fair chance of making their will saves if they are ever the target of these spells.
Nirid
10-16-07, 09:47 AM So Arc would you say that the compulsion is completely surpressed or that no further instructions are possible when the dominated creature is affected by PfE?
ArcTan
10-16-07, 12:00 PM So Arc would you say that the compulsion is completely surpressed or that no further instructions are possible when the dominated creature is affected by PfE?

The spell is suppressed completely for PfE's duration.

I.e. if the dominator's last command was "Dance the Macarena until I get back", PfE frees them from dancing the Macarena until PfE wears off.

And for the duration of PfE, charmed victims no longer like the charmer and no longer want to do what they say.
Someone
10-16-07, 01:37 PM PfE *specifically says* it blocks Charm spells.No, it blocks spells of the [charm] subschool that grant "ongoing control", such as dominate person. Not all [charm] spells grant control. The charm person spell reads "The spell does not enable you to control the charmed person as if it were an automaton..."

What I'm saying is that spells that merely "influence" the subject, rather than outright control the subject, are not stopped by PfE.
ArcTan
10-16-07, 05:44 PM No, it blocks spells of the [charm] subschool that grant "ongoing control", such as dominate person. Not all [charm] spells grant control. The charm person spell reads "The spell does not enable you to control the charmed person as if it were an automaton..."

Dominate person is not a Charm spell. It's a Compulsion spell.

What I'm saying is that spells that merely "influence" the subject, rather than outright control the subject, are not stopped by PfE.

By that interpretation no Charm spells are stopped by PfE at all and that's a useless clause. The *definition* of a Charm spell is that the control it gives you is incomplete because it's based on, well, charm, making him like you, rather than on direct mental control, which is the Compulsion subschool.

BTW, the degree of control charm person gives you is not absolute, but it's still pretty damn strong. With an opposed Cha check, you can make a Paladin strangle a baby if you tell him to nicely.
Kyuketsukiouji
10-16-07, 09:27 PM BTW, the degree of control charm person gives you is not absolute, but it's still pretty damn strong. With an opposed Cha check, you can make a Paladin strangle a baby if you tell him to nicely.

No! It's Charm Person, not Dominate, dammit! It makes the spell's target "your friend". What kind of moronic idiot would commit murder and violate all his priciples for a friend, no matter how convincing he or she is? At best, that paladin will drag you to the local cleric's to get -you- cured if you try and pull something ridiculously inane.
runestar
10-16-07, 09:35 PM In real life, I have read reports of men who gave away their infant children to their friends simply because they lost a dumb bet and wanted to honour it. "You can have my child if he is a male", and wouldn't you know it...:rolleyes:

What kind of moronic idiot would commit murder and violate all his priciples for a friend, no matter how convincing he or she is?

To be fair, I am sure these sort of people are a dime and dozen on the streets. They might not necessarily be outright evil, but I think they do have skewed opinions of friendship and honour and all that.

It *might* be very difficult to get a paladin to strangle a baby, but I wouldn't say that it is impossible altogether...;)
ArcTan
10-16-07, 11:12 PM No! It's Charm Person, not Dominate, dammit! It makes the spell's target "your friend". What kind of moronic idiot would commit murder and violate all his priciples for a friend, no matter how convincing he or she is? At best, that paladin will drag you to the local cleric's to get -you- cured if you try and pull something ridiculously inane.

The spell does not enable you to control the charmed person as if it were an automaton, but it perceives your words and actions in the most favorable way. You can try to give the subject orders, but you must win an opposed Charisma check to convince it to do anything it wouldn’t ordinarily do. (Retries are not allowed.) An affected creature never obeys suicidal or obviously harmful orders, but it might be convinced that something very dangerous is worth doing.

If you win an opposed Cha check, a charmed target does anything you tell him to do, even if it goes against his basic nature, as long as it's not suicidal.

This is why high Cha makes charm person a far more useful spell; it's one of the few major, obvious advantages Sorcerers have over Wizards.
azygus
10-16-07, 11:34 PM Prot from alignment and magic circles allow will saves to negate. Hopefully, as 1st lv and 3rd lv spells respectively, your fighters will have a fair chance of making their will saves if they are ever the target of these spells.

The save helps with PfE, but if the magic circle is cast on another person and the charmed creature is within the radius no save or spell resistance is allowed. I considered Spell Immunity as a bypass of the magic circle of PfE, but because the spell targets someone else it would not work.
Someone
10-17-07, 02:08 AM Suggestion is a (compulsion) spell that grants influence, as opposed to dominate person, a (compulsion) that grants control. From this, it should follow there are (charm) spells that grant influence, and (charm) spells that grant control. Charm person is the former, that we can't seem to find any of the latter doesn't mean they don't exist or won't

If the enchantment school is going to differentiate between influence and control, then I would think PfE would as well.

Also, wouldn't "strangle a baby" fall under "obviously harmful orders", with the whole lose-paladinhood-for-evil-act thing, and thus never obeyed?
ArcTan
10-17-07, 02:48 AM Suggestion is a (compulsion) spell that grants influence, as opposed to dominate person, a (compulsion) that grants control. From this, it should follow there are (charm) spells that grant influence, and (charm) spells that grant control. Charm person is the former, that we can't seem to find any of the latter doesn't mean they don't exist or won't

Again. The Compulsion subschool is divided into three parts: Things that have a *defined effect* upon casting, things that let the *caster define the effect* on casting, and "ongoing control".

The standard for "ongoing control" is whether the control is *ongoing*, not how "complete" the control is. The only thing that matters is whether you can give a command, cancel it and replace it with another command.

Charm person most certainly does give you control. It does not give you *complete* control, but it gives you control.

It would be stupid for the spell to mention Enchanment (Charm) effects separately from Enchantment (Compulsion) effects if this is what they meant, because *by definition* Enchantment (Charm) effects only grant partial control, not total control. (No spell grants *total* control, not even dominate person, which still allows Will saves to resist being made to act against your nature and such.)

If the enchantment school is going to differentiate between influence and control, then I would think PfE would as well.

The terms "influence" and "control" as opposites are never used in PfE. Influence is a degree of control.

Also, wouldn't "strangle a baby" fall under "obviously harmful orders", with the whole lose-paladinhood-for-evil-act thing, and thus never obeyed?

Okay, then a Lawful Good upstanding citizen who's *not* a Paladin and won't have his magic powers suddenly vanish upon doing something Evil.

You can't get around the fact that I can make you do nasty, horrible things against your nature with an opposed Cha check if I have you charmed. Trying to mush "obviously harmful" and "would not ordinarily do" into the same category is clearly not the intent of the spell.

I mean, okay, throw aside the baby-strangling -- charm person lets me say "Spin around three times and cluck like a chicken" as long as I win an opposed Cha check. It's not nearly as weak as you're making it out to be.
Someone
10-17-07, 01:12 PM Charm person is a "defined effect"- the subject becomes friendly. Otherwise, hold person could also be considered "ongoing control", in this case the control would be to stop movement.

You say I'm making charm person weaker than it is, I say you're making it stronger than it is. Impersonating a chicken in the middle of a battle would be dangerous (it draws an AoO), doing so in front of a dragon would certainly seem suicidal.
Damned slayer
10-17-07, 01:39 PM Haven't you already have full thrust in a close friend
he/she/they could ask you anyting and you might do it sometimes with asking question while some other even without asking
That you like what he ask you or not you would probably do it anyway even if it harms you a bit or a lot
talking to boys especially fathers : Who wouldnt sacrifice himself for his children or wife, who woulnd't enter a fight that you will most certainly die of to give a chance to your childrens to flee... I know its a bound stonger than friendship but you see my point you woulld give your life without lot of questionning. Some friends can become as close as family.

major change of aspect :
Haven't you ever did something your boss wanted you to do that was agaisnt your virtue or will?? Did you do it if yes he just won his cha check and he has influence over you probably the same degree that charm person would give
It's a tricky spell because every person doesn't value the same things in the same order

BTW if your going to to says that influence is blocked by PfE than a bard in such group would become totaly useless since he INFLUENCE the attitude by giving MORAL bonus

For those who wouldnt think that a paladin could kill a baby just convince him that that child is a demon... than he would most certanly kill him even if this would bring remorse

and a 1st level spell giving protection over spells of lvl 6 (geas i think) would seem unbalancing to me

In my opinion this spell was designed in the christian optic, to avoid that the big bad demon takes controll of your body and soul. Kinda like a preventive exorcism

GTG ill put more later
ArcTan
10-17-07, 02:49 PM Charm person is a "defined effect"- the subject becomes friendly. Otherwise, hold person could also be considered "ongoing control", in this case the control would be to stop movement.

Okay, dude, the spell specifically says you can give people orders, and that you can make them do things they wouldn't normally do by succeeding on an opposed Cha check. You can houserule it otherwise if you want, but that is, in fact, what the spell does.

You say I'm making charm person weaker than it is, I say you're making it stronger than it is. Impersonating a chicken in the middle of a battle would be dangerous (it draws an AoO), doing so in front of a dragon would certainly seem suicidal.

The spell says that while you can't convince someone to do something *obviously* suicidal you can convince them to do something very dangerous, like "holding off" a Red Dragon for a minute while you run away. It is supposed to be a powerful spell that you can use to get someone into serious trouble.
ArcTan
10-17-07, 02:52 PM BTW if your going to to says that influence is blocked by PfE than a bard in such group would become totaly useless since he INFLUENCE the attitude by giving MORAL bonus

Again, the difference between "influence" and "control" is not at issue here. The difference between non-ongoing control and ongoing control is.

Using Inspire Competence or casting heroism doesn't count as "control" because it doesn't let you give separate orders to the person you use it on and have him obey them. Charm person does. The fact that charm person doesn't let you *perfectly* control them is not the issue.

and a 1st level spell giving protection over spells of lvl 6 (geas i think) would seem unbalancing to me

Well, PfE is very clearly supposed to give protection against the dominate spells, including dominate monster, which is a 9th-level spell.

This isn't unbalanced. PfE only *suppresses* dominate monster (and other spells) for a few minutes at a time. These spells all have durations of hours or days, so a low-level caster who has access to PfE but not greater dispel magic is only buying himself an hour or so in which he and his friend can desperately look for someone to take the domination off before it comes back.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
azygus 10-14-07, 08:53 PM	I have a true neutral enchanter. I would like to utilize spells or magic items to "protect" my charmed and dominated targets from the effects of protection from evil and protection from evil 10' radius. Ideas so far include: a ring of counter spell would work one time for one spell minor globe of invulnerability would work short term, but I would like an "always on" option Anyone else have a solution?
runestar 10-14-07, 09:30 PM	Use spells which are not blocked out by prot from evil on your minions instead, such as suggestion or geas.
azygus 10-16-07, 12:10 AM	interesting, so because suggestion and geas do not grant ongoing control by the caster they are not subject to the effects of protection from evil. I hadn't thought of that. The problem still arises with charms and dominates because I would like to use some creatures as tanks for awhile. There is a member of our party that has a 10' circle of protection evil around him which I don't want to interrupt my control. In addition, I don't want the any caster with a protection from evil spell to be able turn my charmed creatures into additional enemies
Someone 10-16-07, 01:53 AM	I don't think charm person is "mental control" in the same scope as dominate person. So protection from evil wouldn't stop them from seeing you as a friend, nor would it stop them from taking your verbal requests (such as "beat up those strangers over there") in a favorable light.
Nirid 10-16-07, 02:32 AM	OK. I'll agree that PfE is too powerful if it blocks things like charm person and suggestion and I agree about toning it down. But doesn't it by RAW? It says explicitly it blocks charm effects if they would grant ongoing control. The core charm spell is of course the charm chain. I don't think there is a better example of the sub-school. So why is it called out if it's not covered? Are there ANY charm effects that would meet your qualification for ongoing mental control even out of core? If not why does the spell say explicitly that charms are covered if charms are incapable of producing an effect that would qualify in the first place? Isn't that like saying you are protected from evocations that act like dominate person? An exaggeration, but you get the point. No reason to point out a situation that could never happen. Also what about patterns? I think making you stand there like an idoit for as long as I'm willing to concentrate would fall under mental control. The spell simply cites enchantments as examples but does not say that is the limit. In fact it's disturbingly vague. As far as suggestion goes... it's a mind affecting compulsion with a duration that allows you to layout a short, reasonable course of action for the subject to follow. What part of that is not covered by PfE?
ArcTan 10-16-07, 03:22 AM	I don't think charm person is "mental control" in the same scope as dominate person. So protection from evil wouldn't stop them from seeing you as a friend, nor would it stop them from taking your verbal requests (such as "beat up those strangers over there") in a favorable light. PfE specifically says it blocks Charm spells.
ArcTan 10-16-07, 03:39 AM	As far as suggestion goes... it's a mind affecting compulsion with a duration that allows you to layout a short, reasonable course of action for the subject to follow. What part of that is not covered by PfE? The description under the Compulsion subschool in the PHB says that there are three kinds of Compulsions: Ones that have an explicit, set effect that's always the same when cast, ones that let you dictate what effect they have when cast, and ones that give you "ongoing control". PfE only protects against spells that grant "ongoing control". Given the definition we have, that means that "ongoing control" must only mean spells that let you keep on feeding new instructions to the target as long as the spell is active and having the target keep on changing its behavior according to your instructions. Therefore spells like command, suggestion, and geas/quest all don't count, because they all involve giving an initial set of instructions that you are powerless to change afterwards. The only PHB spells in the Compulsion subschool that are affected by PfE, therefore, are the dominate spells, whereas all the Charm subschool spells fall under this definition (since you can keep on giving friendly "advice" to your charmed targets and making them do what you want for as long as the spell lasts) except enthrall, which only has the one, specific effect of making people stand there taking no actions. The full list of PHB spells that PfE works against, in my judgment, is: Charm person Charm animal Charm monster Mass charm person Symbol of persuasion Dominate person Dominate animal Dominate monster There are other such spells too, of course, in other non-core books, but I'm a tad too lazy to search through them all right now. In the SRD there's a few extra examples, like the Epic spells Enslave and Soul Dominion. Also, psionic powers: Telempathic projection Attraction (arguable, but I think it counts) Psionic charm Psionic dominate Mind seed Notice that I'm just listing things that fall into the Charm or Compulsion "ongoing control" category. PfE also blocks or suppresses possession attempts, i.e. use of the magic jar spell or mind switch power.
runestar 10-16-07, 04:09 AM	Prot from alignment and magic circles allow will saves to negate. Hopefully, as 1st lv and 3rd lv spells respectively, your fighters will have a fair chance of making their will saves if they are ever the target of these spells.
Nirid 10-16-07, 09:47 AM	So Arc would you say that the compulsion is completely surpressed or that no further instructions are possible when the dominated creature is affected by PfE?
ArcTan 10-16-07, 12:00 PM	So Arc would you say that the compulsion is completely surpressed or that no further instructions are possible when the dominated creature is affected by PfE? The spell is suppressed completely for PfE's duration. I.e. if the dominator's last command was "Dance the Macarena until I get back", PfE frees them from dancing the Macarena until PfE wears off. And for the duration of PfE, charmed victims no longer like the charmer and no longer want to do what they say.
Someone 10-16-07, 01:37 PM	PfE specifically says it blocks Charm spells.No, it blocks spells of the [charm] subschool that grant "ongoing control", such as dominate person. Not all [charm] spells grant control. The charm person spell reads "The spell does not enable you to control the charmed person as if it were an automaton..." What I'm saying is that spells that merely "influence" the subject, rather than outright control the subject, are not stopped by PfE.
ArcTan 10-16-07, 05:44 PM	No, it blocks spells of the [charm] subschool that grant "ongoing control", such as dominate person. Not all [charm] spells grant control. The charm person spell reads "The spell does not enable you to control the charmed person as if it were an automaton..." Dominate person is not a Charm spell. It's a Compulsion spell. What I'm saying is that spells that merely "influence" the subject, rather than outright control the subject, are not stopped by PfE. By that interpretation no Charm spells are stopped by PfE at all and that's a useless clause. The definition of a Charm spell is that the control it gives you is incomplete because it's based on, well, charm, making him like you, rather than on direct mental control, which is the Compulsion subschool. BTW, the degree of control charm person gives you is not absolute, but it's still pretty damn strong. With an opposed Cha check, you can make a Paladin strangle a baby if you tell him to nicely.
Kyuketsukiouji 10-16-07, 09:27 PM	BTW, the degree of control charm person gives you is not absolute, but it's still pretty damn strong. With an opposed Cha check, you can make a Paladin strangle a baby if you tell him to nicely. No! It's Charm Person, not Dominate, dammit! It makes the spell's target "your friend". What kind of moronic idiot would commit murder and violate all his priciples for a friend, no matter how convincing he or she is? At best, that paladin will drag you to the local cleric's to get -you- cured if you try and pull something ridiculously inane.
runestar 10-16-07, 09:35 PM	In real life, I have read reports of men who gave away their infant children to their friends simply because they lost a dumb bet and wanted to honour it. "You can have my child if he is a male", and wouldn't you know it...:rolleyes: What kind of moronic idiot would commit murder and violate all his priciples for a friend, no matter how convincing he or she is? To be fair, I am sure these sort of people are a dime and dozen on the streets. They might not necessarily be outright evil, but I think they do have skewed opinions of friendship and honour and all that. It might be very difficult to get a paladin to strangle a baby, but I wouldn't say that it is impossible altogether...;)
ArcTan 10-16-07, 11:12 PM	No! It's Charm Person, not Dominate, dammit! It makes the spell's target "your friend". What kind of moronic idiot would commit murder and violate all his priciples for a friend, no matter how convincing he or she is? At best, that paladin will drag you to the local cleric's to get -you- cured if you try and pull something ridiculously inane. The spell does not enable you to control the charmed person as if it were an automaton, but it perceives your words and actions in the most favorable way. You can try to give the subject orders, but you must win an opposed Charisma check to convince it to do anything it wouldn’t ordinarily do. (Retries are not allowed.) An affected creature never obeys suicidal or obviously harmful orders, but it might be convinced that something very dangerous is worth doing. If you win an opposed Cha check, a charmed target does anything you tell him to do, even if it goes against his basic nature, as long as it's not suicidal. This is why high Cha makes charm person a far more useful spell; it's one of the few major, obvious advantages Sorcerers have over Wizards.
azygus 10-16-07, 11:34 PM	Prot from alignment and magic circles allow will saves to negate. Hopefully, as 1st lv and 3rd lv spells respectively, your fighters will have a fair chance of making their will saves if they are ever the target of these spells. The save helps with PfE, but if the magic circle is cast on another person and the charmed creature is within the radius no save or spell resistance is allowed. I considered Spell Immunity as a bypass of the magic circle of PfE, but because the spell targets someone else it would not work.
Someone 10-17-07, 02:08 AM	Suggestion is a (compulsion) spell that grants influence, as opposed to dominate person, a (compulsion) that grants control. From this, it should follow there are (charm) spells that grant influence, and (charm) spells that grant control. Charm person is the former, that we can't seem to find any of the latter doesn't mean they don't exist or won't If the enchantment school is going to differentiate between influence and control, then I would think PfE would as well. Also, wouldn't "strangle a baby" fall under "obviously harmful orders", with the whole lose-paladinhood-for-evil-act thing, and thus never obeyed?
ArcTan 10-17-07, 02:48 AM	Suggestion is a (compulsion) spell that grants influence, as opposed to dominate person, a (compulsion) that grants control. From this, it should follow there are (charm) spells that grant influence, and (charm) spells that grant control. Charm person is the former, that we can't seem to find any of the latter doesn't mean they don't exist or won't Again. The Compulsion subschool is divided into three parts: Things that have a defined effect upon casting, things that let the caster define the effect on casting, and "ongoing control". The standard for "ongoing control" is whether the control is ongoing, not how "complete" the control is. The only thing that matters is whether you can give a command, cancel it and replace it with another command. Charm person most certainly does give you control. It does not give you complete control, but it gives you control. It would be stupid for the spell to mention Enchanment (Charm) effects separately from Enchantment (Compulsion) effects if this is what they meant, because by definition Enchantment (Charm) effects only grant partial control, not total control. (No spell grants total control, not even dominate person, which still allows Will saves to resist being made to act against your nature and such.) If the enchantment school is going to differentiate between influence and control, then I would think PfE would as well. The terms "influence" and "control" as opposites are never used in PfE. Influence is a degree of control. Also, wouldn't "strangle a baby" fall under "obviously harmful orders", with the whole lose-paladinhood-for-evil-act thing, and thus never obeyed? Okay, then a Lawful Good upstanding citizen who's not a Paladin and won't have his magic powers suddenly vanish upon doing something Evil. You can't get around the fact that I can make you do nasty, horrible things against your nature with an opposed Cha check if I have you charmed. Trying to mush "obviously harmful" and "would not ordinarily do" into the same category is clearly not the intent of the spell. I mean, okay, throw aside the baby-strangling -- charm person lets me say "Spin around three times and cluck like a chicken" as long as I win an opposed Cha check. It's not nearly as weak as you're making it out to be.
Someone 10-17-07, 01:12 PM	Charm person is a "defined effect"- the subject becomes friendly. Otherwise, hold person could also be considered "ongoing control", in this case the control would be to stop movement. You say I'm making charm person weaker than it is, I say you're making it stronger than it is. Impersonating a chicken in the middle of a battle would be dangerous (it draws an AoO), doing so in front of a dragon would certainly seem suicidal.
Damned slayer 10-17-07, 01:39 PM	Haven't you already have full thrust in a close friend he/she/they could ask you anyting and you might do it sometimes with asking question while some other even without asking That you like what he ask you or not you would probably do it anyway even if it harms you a bit or a lot talking to boys especially fathers : Who wouldnt sacrifice himself for his children or wife, who woulnd't enter a fight that you will most certainly die of to give a chance to your childrens to flee... I know its a bound stonger than friendship but you see my point you woulld give your life without lot of questionning. Some friends can become as close as family. major change of aspect : Haven't you ever did something your boss wanted you to do that was agaisnt your virtue or will?? Did you do it if yes he just won his cha check and he has influence over you probably the same degree that charm person would give It's a tricky spell because every person doesn't value the same things in the same order BTW if your going to to says that influence is blocked by PfE than a bard in such group would become totaly useless since he INFLUENCE the attitude by giving MORAL bonus For those who wouldnt think that a paladin could kill a baby just convince him that that child is a demon... than he would most certanly kill him even if this would bring remorse and a 1st level spell giving protection over spells of lvl 6 (geas i think) would seem unbalancing to me In my opinion this spell was designed in the christian optic, to avoid that the big bad demon takes controll of your body and soul. Kinda like a preventive exorcism GTG ill put more later
ArcTan 10-17-07, 02:49 PM	Charm person is a "defined effect"- the subject becomes friendly. Otherwise, hold person could also be considered "ongoing control", in this case the control would be to stop movement. Okay, dude, the spell specifically says you can give people orders, and that you can make them do things they wouldn't normally do by succeeding on an opposed Cha check. You can houserule it otherwise if you want, but that is, in fact, what the spell does. You say I'm making charm person weaker than it is, I say you're making it stronger than it is. Impersonating a chicken in the middle of a battle would be dangerous (it draws an AoO), doing so in front of a dragon would certainly seem suicidal. The spell says that while you can't convince someone to do something obviously suicidal you can convince them to do something very dangerous, like "holding off" a Red Dragon for a minute while you run away. It is supposed to be a powerful spell that you can use to get someone into serious trouble.
ArcTan 10-17-07, 02:52 PM	BTW if your going to to says that influence is blocked by PfE than a bard in such group would become totaly useless since he INFLUENCE the attitude by giving MORAL bonus Again, the difference between "influence" and "control" is not at issue here. The difference between non-ongoing control and ongoing control is. Using Inspire Competence or casting heroism doesn't count as "control" because it doesn't let you give separate orders to the person you use it on and have him obey them. Charm person does. The fact that charm person doesn't let you perfectly control them is not the issue. and a 1st level spell giving protection over spells of lvl 6 (geas i think) would seem unbalancing to me Well, PfE is very clearly supposed to give protection against the dominate spells, including dominate monster, which is a 9th-level spell. This isn't unbalanced. PfE only suppresses dominate monster (and other spells) for a few minutes at a time. These spells all have durations of hours or days, so a low-level caster who has access to PfE but not greater dispel magic is only buying himself an hour or so in which he and his friend can desperately look for someone to take the domination off before it comes back.