Charm spells vs Protection from Evil? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Charm spells vs Protection from Evil? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Errant
07-07-06, 03:29 PM Not very long ago on a long rambling thread not very far away (at about p.29-30 if you're really keen) a question arose regarding the extent of protection granted by Protection from Evil (etc) against enchantment (charm) spells.

I *thought* I had a pretty good handle on the issue, that Charm Person etc don't give you "ongoing control over the subject" so its not blocked by PfE, but then a_psh made the following observations:

Quoth the SRD description of Enchantment (Charm) spells (http://d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#charm), "A charm spell changes how the subject views you, typically making it see you as a good friend."

Charm person has a non-instantaneous duration, so it is an ongoing effect.

All any Charm effect can do is alter someone's emotional reaction. Anything that actually lets you control someone's mind directly is a Compulsion effect, not a Charm. "Ongoing control" simply cannot be read strictly as direct mind-control, because Charm effects, definitionally, aren't strict mind-control effects.

Indeed, there are only six Charm-subschool spells in the PHB, and five of them are based on the mechanics of charm person. The sixth is enthrall, which just makes you seem very, very interesting. (Thank you, Spell Filter (http://d20srd.org/filters/spell.php)!) If PfE doesn't block charm person and friends, what does it block?

Clearly, if PfE was supposed to only hedge out overpowering mind control rather than all mental manipulation, it would only mention Compulsion effects, since the Charm subschool just can't do that, ever.

Obviously I was limiting Protection from Evil’s effects to blocking direct mind-control effects, but that seems an overly narrow interpretation in light of a_psh’s points, so now I’m stumped.

Rather than bog down the previous thread in yet another side-discussion I thought I’d bring the question here.

So, can anyone offer any further observations that will help clarify the RAW on this issue?

Do I really remain unaffeted by Charm Person/Monser spells as long as I’m under a Protection from Evil/Good/Law/Neutral spell?

Because if I am, my Fighter’s custom made Ring of Protection from Evil just became a LOT more powerful than I previously thought!
Thiez
07-07-06, 03:43 PM a_psh just convinced me. I will join his undead legions.
a_psh
07-07-06, 03:48 PM a_psh just convinced me. I will join his undead legions.Mwaha. =)
tarkin
07-07-06, 04:04 PM That arguement is not convincing at all to me.

There is a difference between influence and control. You can't say Influence is control because you other wise Charm made no sense.

WoTC simply did not alway check to see if restrictions made sense, and they also can be doing it as preventive care.

PfE was supposed to block the compulsion spells, but just to be sure they also stated it COULD block a charm spell if it was control. I.E. They were trying to blocking a loophole/did not bother to check and see if any spells counted.

I see NO way that effects which expressly do not control you behavior can be considered to be exercising mental control.

That is like saying "all real world music is mind control because when I hear it, I become happy/sad/depressed/etc."

It is influence, not control.
a_psh
07-07-06, 04:13 PM I think preventing stuff like dominate is a bigger deal for PCs and most heroic characters. The charm thing mostly just makes protection from ____ more desirable for folks like merchants or aristocrats.

The best thing about the spell, of course, is that the charm/compulsion blocking effect also works against casters of any alignment, so, if you allow these items to be made at all, they have quite a nice dual purpose in a lot of high-magic evil socities: an equivalent ring of Protection from Good will give that Drow Priestess or Tiefling Blackguard or evil overlord or whatever a good little combat boost against Good enemies AND simultaneously give him or her some extra protection against the treacheries and manipulations of other Evil beings (underlings, traitorous allies, sneaky rivals, &c., &c.). Truly priceless to the up-and-coming scion of Evil!

The only real balancing factor, if there is one, is that there are no standard items of this type. I'd price a ring of PfE a bit higher than just "continual 1st-level spell effect" because it seems more powerful than most. But, in the context of what it does, even paying full price for the deflection and resistance bonuses and a bit extra for the other abilities is really, really worth it.

Still, if you allow the item to exist at all, it's definitely worth getting.
a_psh
07-07-06, 04:41 PM That arguement is not convincing at all to me.

There is a difference between influence and control. You can't say Influence is control because you other wise Charm made no sense.

WoTC simply did not alway check to see if restrictions made sense, and they also can be doing it as preventive care.

PfE was supposed to block the compulsion spells, but just to be sure they also stated it COULD block a charm spell if it was control. I.E. They were trying to blocking a loophole/did not bother to check and see if any spells counted.

I see NO way that effects which expressly do not control you behavior can be considered to be exercising mental control.

That is like saying "all real world music is mind control because when I hear it, I become happy/sad/depressed/etc."

It is influence, not control.An Enchantment (Charm) spell cannot completely control an individual any more than an Illusion (Glamer) can directly damage him. Because that would make it a Compulsion. And yet...

Here's the text you're implicitly citing when you say "no control":"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. Any act by you or your apparent allies that threatens the charmed person breaks the spell. You must speak the person’s language to communicate your commands, or else be good at pantomiming."

Note that it specifically refers to the spell's victim as not being controlled "as if it were an automaton", and then goes on to talk about how you can still get the subject to follow most kinds of orders. Yes, it takes an opposed Charisma check to make the target do something he doesn't want to do, but, if you make the check and it's not completely ridiculous, he will do something he doesn't want to do. That's more than a simple friendly reaction - I can't force a friend or ally to do something against his will by just making an opposed check.

The bit about not being an automaton means that the target still expresses various emotions and retains his basic self-preservation instincts. But the power it does grant you over your enemy is clearly much more than what you'd get just by being his friend.

The criterion outlined in your own post was "expressly controling your behavior". Charm person does just that: it completely override your standard reactions to the caster and, on top of that, makes it very hard for you to resist his orders. Just because you're not a total zombie when you're charmed doesn't mean it's still not a form of magical control.
a_psh
07-07-06, 05:21 PM Or you could say that "mental control" specifically refers to spells that establish a telepathic link rather than just spells that control the mind. Then only dominate person and a handful of others actually fit the criterion.

Making that into a ring is still amazingly good, but nowhere near as ridiculous.
aelryinth
07-07-06, 05:28 PM They statted up a Prot/Evil item in Dragon for the Age of Worms, and gave it the whopping price of 30K. Not a cheap defense.

And for the record, in an EVil society, that minion of Evil is probably better off getting Prot/Evil for the resistance bonus against his 'friends' then a Prot/Good for the few times he runs across those wishy-washy do-gooders.

==Aelryinth
mvincent
07-07-06, 06:54 PM From the 3.0 FAQ (still applicable here):
"The second function of the protection from evil spell
blocks any attempt to possess the warded creature or to
exercise mental control over the creature. What, exactly,
counts as mental control?
“Mental control” includes all spells of the school of
Enchantment that have the Charm subschool, such as animal
friendship, charm person, and charm monster. It also includes
some Enchantment spells of the Compulsion subschool if those
spells grant the caster ongoing control over the subject; such
spells include dominate person and dominate monster.
Compulsions that merely dictate the subject’s action at the time
the spell takes effect are not blocked. Such spells include
command, hold person, geas/quest, hypnotism, insanity, Otto’s
irresistible dance, random action, suggestion, and zone of
truth."
a_psh
07-08-06, 01:18 AM From the 3.0 FAQ (still applicable here):
"The second function of the protection from evil spell
blocks any attempt to possess the warded creature or to
exercise mental control over the creature. What, exactly,
counts as mental control?
“Mental control” includes all spells of the school of
Enchantment that have the Charm subschool, such as animal
friendship, charm person, and charm monster. It also includes
some Enchantment spells of the Compulsion subschool if those
spells grant the caster ongoing control over the subject; such
spells include dominate person and dominate monster.
Compulsions that merely dictate the subject’s action at the time
the spell takes effect are not blocked. Such spells include
command, hold person, geas/quest, hypnotism, insanity, Otto’s
irresistible dance, random action, suggestion, and zone of
truth."My first post is correct, then. My correction to that post is not. Good to know.

The geas-supperssing ability might be interesting as a plot point.
Errant
07-08-06, 12:53 PM They statted up a Prot/Evil item in Dragon for the Age of Worms, and gave it the whopping price of 30K. Not a cheap defense.

Thats a handy guideline to know. In light of the much wider application for PfE than I had previously realised I'm going to have to go away and re-calculate the appropriate cost for such items IMC.

That'll put a dent in my Fighter's inventory budget! :(

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Errant 07-07-06, 03:29 PM	Not very long ago on a long rambling thread not very far away (at about p.29-30 if you're really keen) a question arose regarding the extent of protection granted by Protection from Evil (etc) against enchantment (charm) spells. I thought I had a pretty good handle on the issue, that Charm Person etc don't give you "ongoing control over the subject" so its not blocked by PfE, but then a_psh made the following observations: Quoth the SRD description of Enchantment (Charm) spells (http://d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#charm), "A charm spell changes how the subject views you, typically making it see you as a good friend." Charm person has a non-instantaneous duration, so it is an ongoing effect. All any Charm effect can do is alter someone's emotional reaction. Anything that actually lets you control someone's mind directly is a Compulsion effect, not a Charm. "Ongoing control" simply cannot be read strictly as direct mind-control, because Charm effects, definitionally, aren't strict mind-control effects. Indeed, there are only six Charm-subschool spells in the PHB, and five of them are based on the mechanics of charm person. The sixth is enthrall, which just makes you seem very, very interesting. (Thank you, Spell Filter (http://d20srd.org/filters/spell.php)!) If PfE doesn't block charm person and friends, what does it block? Clearly, if PfE was supposed to only hedge out overpowering mind control rather than all mental manipulation, it would only mention Compulsion effects, since the Charm subschool just can't do that, ever. Obviously I was limiting Protection from Evil’s effects to blocking direct mind-control effects, but that seems an overly narrow interpretation in light of a_psh’s points, so now I’m stumped. Rather than bog down the previous thread in yet another side-discussion I thought I’d bring the question here. So, can anyone offer any further observations that will help clarify the RAW on this issue? Do I really remain unaffeted by Charm Person/Monser spells as long as I’m under a Protection from Evil/Good/Law/Neutral spell? Because if I am, my Fighter’s custom made Ring of Protection from Evil just became a LOT more powerful than I previously thought!
Thiez 07-07-06, 03:43 PM	a_psh just convinced me. I will join his undead legions.
a_psh 07-07-06, 03:48 PM	a_psh just convinced me. I will join his undead legions.Mwaha. =)
tarkin 07-07-06, 04:04 PM	That arguement is not convincing at all to me. There is a difference between influence and control. You can't say Influence is control because you other wise Charm made no sense. WoTC simply did not alway check to see if restrictions made sense, and they also can be doing it as preventive care. PfE was supposed to block the compulsion spells, but just to be sure they also stated it COULD block a charm spell if it was control. I.E. They were trying to blocking a loophole/did not bother to check and see if any spells counted. I see NO way that effects which expressly do not control you behavior can be considered to be exercising mental control. That is like saying "all real world music is mind control because when I hear it, I become happy/sad/depressed/etc." It is influence, not control.
a_psh 07-07-06, 04:13 PM	I think preventing stuff like dominate is a bigger deal for PCs and most heroic characters. The charm thing mostly just makes protection from ____ more desirable for folks like merchants or aristocrats. The best thing about the spell, of course, is that the charm/compulsion blocking effect also works against casters of any alignment, so, if you allow these items to be made at all, they have quite a nice dual purpose in a lot of high-magic evil socities: an equivalent ring of Protection from Good will give that Drow Priestess or Tiefling Blackguard or evil overlord or whatever a good little combat boost against Good enemies AND simultaneously give him or her some extra protection against the treacheries and manipulations of other Evil beings (underlings, traitorous allies, sneaky rivals, &c., &c.). Truly priceless to the up-and-coming scion of Evil! The only real balancing factor, if there is one, is that there are no standard items of this type. I'd price a ring of PfE a bit higher than just "continual 1st-level spell effect" because it seems more powerful than most. But, in the context of what it does, even paying full price for the deflection and resistance bonuses and a bit extra for the other abilities is really, really worth it. Still, if you allow the item to exist at all, it's definitely worth getting.
a_psh 07-07-06, 04:41 PM	That arguement is not convincing at all to me. There is a difference between influence and control. You can't say Influence is control because you other wise Charm made no sense. WoTC simply did not alway check to see if restrictions made sense, and they also can be doing it as preventive care. PfE was supposed to block the compulsion spells, but just to be sure they also stated it COULD block a charm spell if it was control. I.E. They were trying to blocking a loophole/did not bother to check and see if any spells counted. I see NO way that effects which expressly do not control you behavior can be considered to be exercising mental control. That is like saying "all real world music is mind control because when I hear it, I become happy/sad/depressed/etc." It is influence, not control.An Enchantment (Charm) spell cannot completely control an individual any more than an Illusion (Glamer) can directly damage him. Because that would make it a Compulsion. And yet... Here's the text you're implicitly citing when you say "no control":"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. Any act by you or your apparent allies that threatens the charmed person breaks the spell. You must speak the person’s language to communicate your commands, or else be good at pantomiming." Note that it specifically refers to the spell's victim as not being controlled "as if it were an automaton", and then goes on to talk about how you can still get the subject to follow most kinds of orders. Yes, it takes an opposed Charisma check to make the target do something he doesn't want to do, but, if you make the check and it's not completely ridiculous, he will do something he doesn't want to do. That's more than a simple friendly reaction - I can't force a friend or ally to do something against his will by just making an opposed check. The bit about not being an automaton means that the target still expresses various emotions and retains his basic self-preservation instincts. But the power it does grant you over your enemy is clearly much more than what you'd get just by being his friend. The criterion outlined in your own post was "expressly controling your behavior". Charm person does just that: it completely override your standard reactions to the caster and, on top of that, makes it very hard for you to resist his orders. Just because you're not a total zombie when you're charmed doesn't mean it's still not a form of magical control.
a_psh 07-07-06, 05:21 PM	Or you could say that "mental control" specifically refers to spells that establish a telepathic link rather than just spells that control the mind. Then only dominate person and a handful of others actually fit the criterion. Making that into a ring is still amazingly good, but nowhere near as ridiculous.
aelryinth 07-07-06, 05:28 PM	They statted up a Prot/Evil item in Dragon for the Age of Worms, and gave it the whopping price of 30K. Not a cheap defense. And for the record, in an EVil society, that minion of Evil is probably better off getting Prot/Evil for the resistance bonus against his 'friends' then a Prot/Good for the few times he runs across those wishy-washy do-gooders. ==Aelryinth
mvincent 07-07-06, 06:54 PM	From the 3.0 FAQ (still applicable here): "The second function of the protection from evil spell blocks any attempt to possess the warded creature or to exercise mental control over the creature. What, exactly, counts as mental control? “Mental control” includes all spells of the school of Enchantment that have the Charm subschool, such as animal friendship, charm person, and charm monster. It also includes some Enchantment spells of the Compulsion subschool if those spells grant the caster ongoing control over the subject; such spells include dominate person and dominate monster. Compulsions that merely dictate the subject’s action at the time the spell takes effect are not blocked. Such spells include command, hold person, geas/quest, hypnotism, insanity, Otto’s irresistible dance, random action, suggestion, and zone of truth."
a_psh 07-08-06, 01:18 AM	From the 3.0 FAQ (still applicable here): "The second function of the protection from evil spell blocks any attempt to possess the warded creature or to exercise mental control over the creature. What, exactly, counts as mental control? “Mental control” includes all spells of the school of Enchantment that have the Charm subschool, such as animal friendship, charm person, and charm monster. It also includes some Enchantment spells of the Compulsion subschool if those spells grant the caster ongoing control over the subject; such spells include dominate person and dominate monster. Compulsions that merely dictate the subject’s action at the time the spell takes effect are not blocked. Such spells include command, hold person, geas/quest, hypnotism, insanity, Otto’s irresistible dance, random action, suggestion, and zone of truth."My first post is correct, then. My correction to that post is not. Good to know. The geas-supperssing ability might be interesting as a plot point.
Errant 07-08-06, 12:53 PM	They statted up a Prot/Evil item in Dragon for the Age of Worms, and gave it the whopping price of 30K. Not a cheap defense. Thats a handy guideline to know. In light of the much wider application for PfE than I had previously realised I'm going to have to go away and re-calculate the appropriate cost for such items IMC. That'll put a dent in my Fighter's inventory budget! :(