Theodor Snuddletusk's page

I agree regarding charges. If you dont need to have permanent invisibility available. Just have it for 2-3 times each day. Why spend X times more gold?

Regarding limitations for religions or genders or similar things i dont view them as a bad move, generally yes, but not completely.

If a church of some religion gives out swords to their followers than they would not want them to be used by none-believers, or sold by fallen followers etc.

Just like Judge Dread`s gun that is imprinted with his dna, it would lower the creation cost quite a lot.

I am terrible at item creation, so i come here to get a few answers.

I am wondering if there are ways to make an item cheaper, but making it "worse".

Lets take a ring of invisibility as an example.

If i got my in game church to make this item, and they sat charges (3 each day), and parameters around only followers of the god can use it, or only good aligned people can use it. (Lets say the church is the church of Tyr).

How about only male users allowed? If for example it is made from a dojo where they train men only.

Make a magic circle .....

Exelent :)

Sure a dm can break this easy enough. But i think it is immersive, and fun to view your house as warded through thees means. Not just the standard "glyph at door, protection from X".

To know that the salt imbeddes in the stones in all walls and door frames protect against most fey creatures. Cold iron nails are used to ward against some devils. In the lines of the tiles there are silver to protect against X.

But the thing is that we are the PC`s, and we are building a mansion in downtime system.

We have primarily undeads as our main enemies, but also creatures summoned by wizards.

And therefor i would love it if there was some stuff in the mansion itself, in the building prosess to make it safer.

Sure i agree with you all, the cost of going against spells and magic are to large to even begin to grasp at.

But what i am after here is what GypsyMischief so eloquently called "traditional mythology.

My gm is all about that, and i find the focus on this in PF to be quite slim.

So give me your suggestions :)

Salt, Lead, steel, silver etc etc..

In one of my campaigns we are currently building a mansion.

And it got me thinking about how to make the mansion protected against most foul things.

Sure, traps and shit takes care of simple humans. But how can you make a house, a large house, safe against other creatures.

I am now not thinking about spells, or well.. give me those as well, but i would pref. some cooler ways to do it.

For example, Vampires have a major problem with Mirrors. It does not hurt them, but it states "they recoil from mirrors".
So mirrors on the floor in the tiles by every entry.
Or another example is that there are quite a lot of elements that protect against summoned creatures.

But how to make your house secure against a lich, a devil, demon, doppelganger etc.

Thank you guys:)

Great answers, both plainly written for an item-creator-noob such as myself, and informative.

A few questions regarding magical item creation.

1) If i want to make an item with a spell that is continuous. How much does that increase the items value.

The item in question is a ring of lead blades. A spell that usualy has a duration, but i want to create it so that i never need to use the wand again.

2) The cost is based on caster level, and a ranger only gets this spell at lvl 4 i think (first time casting lvl 1 spells).

But "At 4th level and higher, his caster level is equal to his ranger level – 3."

Does that decrees the item cost, as his caster lvl is basically 1?

3) A rule that i have read and heard of is the rule regarding all items that are made must be seen in contrast to similar items. How would a ring of constant lead blades be seen in this "ruling"?

Your "damned sniper" isn't following the rules. An archer trying to 'pin you down' has to hold their action- such as "I shoot at NPC 1 if he moves"

I am sorry, but i should have written that way more detailed. With increased AoO reach for example, and "pinning shot" (i think its called that) he could have had my character pinned quite severly.

To not say that the character would not use the ring to get away, or to get the upper hand would be in my eyes wrong.

You would not do a full withdraw in ranged combat, you just double move.

I can agree with that assumption on a general base.

But if my character is under constant fire from an archer, and it is clear that he has Snap Shot. Since every time i try to move about he gets in free shots.

And at the same time i know that my own magical item gives me invisibility if i withdraw from the threatened area, than that is something my character would use to get out of the pickle.

Esp. if the archer has the ability to pin you to the ground with AoO. Than you really need to get away without provoking AoO.

Further, if my character knows that when i do this complete withdrawl than i become invisible and therefor able to get he upper hand on the "damned sniper". Than it is an even further reason to do so.

....

I agree.

One should talk with the dm and ask what he defines as melee combat. Since threatening is never mentioned it should not be a "surprise prerequisite", but what IS melee combat. That is the key to this.

If i have a freaking 10 ft pole with a sharpened end, and i poke some enemie from far away, is he not engaged in melee combat? Sure he may 5ft away, he may move closer, but should he not also be able to withdraw? I think so yes.

I don't think you expected the rules pedantry into which this thread degenerated into.

I most certainly did not.

So if i view the arguments correctly it boils down to this:

Withdraw states melee combat, but it does not state anything regarding being threatened. Something that is even more hard to find a correct ruling on regarding the feats like snapshot.

And i was than wondering how about reach, if they threaten you, but you do not. Is that melee combat, or is it not? And if you have reach, but they do not. Same question.

And Theconiel is quite correct, this debate started in my group when i was viewing the Decoy ring.

When viewing the rules regarding shooting into melee it states "Two characters are engaged in melee if they are enemies of each other and either threatens the other".

"Withdrawing from melee combat is a full-round action."

Does this mean that you have the be in a threatened square to withdraw, as you are per say not in melee combat without someone without someone able to attack you in melee?

Can you withdraw from range for example?

Yes, it technically works, and isn't even all that powerful - note that DMs may rule against you to prevent this combo as there are some unwritten rule shenanigans with 'hands' that (although they don't really apply here) are vague enough that a GM *could* apply them here if they wanted to shut you down, even in PFS.

So, I recommend checking with your GM first. Considering it's a bit of an odd-duck mechanics wise it shouldn't be tooo surprising if he says no.

Yeah i agree. And i think its quite powerfull tbh.

You get to have a fast way to get fullround attacks and at the same time get full use of the shield. A combination not to easy to achieve.

Raw i see this as possible, but the number of free-actions should restrikt it.

On another note, if the weapon is large does that effect the combo?
I am now refering to the fact that after a fullround attack you hold the sword in one hand, and use the shield in the other. Is this possible? Or do you have to sheath the weapon?

Weapon Size raises the effort you need to bring in order to handle it.

Even with Proficiency a large Bastard Sword can not be used one-handed.

It is effectivly a two-handed weapn with -2 to-hit and 2d8 / 19-20/x2.

It costs you a feat over Greatsword and for that you get -2 to-hit for +2 damage. This is generally what peole consider "not a good deal".

But does he use the sword one-handed? As i see it, he does not. He draws it, uses it two handed, draw the shield and just hold it in his offhand.

Sure, he does not threaten with it, and therefor no AOO with it.

But does he get full 1.5 strength on the attack, and full shield bonus after his round?

And than next round, remove shield, strike with two hands, draw shield and hold sword on handed.

And he does not use a feat, he is an Inquisitor and his god is Kelemvor. Kelemvor`s weapon of choice is a bastard sword and the Inquisitor states "An inquisitor is proficient with all simple weapons, plus the hand crossbow, longbow, repeating crossbow, shortbow, and the favored weapon of her deity."

Character has quickdraw shield, quickdraw feat and is fully proficient with a bastard sword.

Can he: He is unarmed, draws the weapon as a free action and takes a two handed swing with it full round. Draws the shield after attacks, holds the sword in his offhand and get full AC from shield?

If the weapon is one size-category larger than him, can he do the same?

Bludgeoner (Combat)
You can knock foes out cold with just about any blunt instrument.

Benefit: You take no penalty on attack rolls for using a lethal bludgeoning weapon to deal nonlethal damage.
Normal: You take a –4 penalty on attack rolls when using a lethal weapon to deal nonlethal damage. You cannot use a lethal weapon to deal nonlethal damage in a sneak attack.

Special: A rogue with this feat can use a lethal bludgeoning weapon to deal nonlethal damage with a sneak attack.

I thought i found it somewhere on this forum, but now i cant re-find it.

I have a knife master rogue and i would love to use the sap adapt/master feats.

Problem is ofc that my daggers do not deal non-lethal damage, but i am quite sure there was a way to fix that. The post i read earlier at least said so, but i was drunk and on my phone, so now i cant find it :P

Ok i see the picture.

One final question than.

What defines as "aware of". I am referring to situations where the target knows that something is up, but can not pin-point you.

Lets take a few examples.

1) Some giant birds guarding a nest. We knew that as we approached they would probably attack. Just not exactly when, or even exactly where the nest was.

You can be startled by sudden action even if you are expecting it. You may know it is coming but not when it is coming, and that can still result in a surprise.

2) You are in a fight with someone but suddenly he does not know where you are. Lets say you throw a smoke pellet, a smokestick or magical darkness. You withdraw a bit, make your stealth checks and attack again. I cant imagine he is surprised by your presses, but he should be caught flat-footed as he had no clue of when or from where you attacked.

Yeah i agree with you all. I still just dont think it is much logical. But than again, that is just my opinion.

Could you use diplomacy to your advantage? If they are hostile and you get the right roll they end up indiffrent. Than you can take another to make the request "can we just settle this with words?"

If i found someone i was indiffrent to in my house i would not be threatened by them. Lets say an old lost man.

Not a small handxbow. :)

Yeah i agree with you there, but at the same time. If i suddenly now in 1 min find a thief in my house, dagger drawn. Than we argue and he begins to leave, i would not trust him. But if he in a moment when i look towards my gf throws the dagger at me, than i would be caught surprised as hell.

Question 1: Antonio the gypsy rogue has found out that the assassins in the town are lead by vampires. He is afraid of them and their power, but intrigued by the power and wealth that follows their organisation.

Should he help his friend the "naive" dwarven rogue Dranbalt to contact the church of Kelemvor and destroy the vampires, or should he search them out for a possibility to join the assassins guild?

7

Antonio is neutral evil, Follower of Mask.

Question 2: Should Antonio the rogue help in destroying the foothold of the church of Talona in the town, or support their work? The town is struck by a deadly plague.

1

Question 3: Theodor the gnomish bard is branded a traitor in the eyes of Lathander (rightfully so) based on some dangerous prank he pulled on one of their apprentices. He does not see the error of his ways because humans dont really get his humor, but his only source of healing is a priest of Lathander. Should he swallow his pride and lipservice for forgiveness, or were the humans just wrong, because they never understood his joke?

Theodor is chaotic neutral, follower of Tymora.

3

Hmm.. i think you are right and i agree with you.

But what i must ask than is that what line of sight can effect.

If they view me as an opponent, than they are aware of me. Is it so that if i pull up a small xbow behind the maid, lets say i aim it under her arm and through her robe. This with an awesome slight of hand, and with another awesome bluff about "lets all relax now, i will lower my knife and we sort this out". Than i lower my knife, but shot them through the dress with the unseen xbow.

Is that a surprise? :P

I am sorry if i fiddle with rules here, i just dislike the feeling that they are aware of me and no matter what i do, say or hide they are not surprised by it.

Crecent: So i would not get a surprise round (vs flatfooted) in the example?

I just cant really see that there is no line between aware of opponent and aware of someone that would actually attack you.

Sure, they might be aware of me as an intruder, or even as a thief. But to claim that at the same time they are aware of my willingness to straight out attack them mid-sentence would come as a surprise to them. If feks the thief let the maid go, stated that he was sorry and that he would leave. Showing all signs of remorse and fear. And than when his daggers are lowered, or even tucked into his belt he produces a hidden dagger (with a slight of hand) out of his wrist-sheath and throws it at the guard.

And lets make it even more difficult, lets say he waits for the right moment, just when the guards seem unfocused by the maid.

Goddity: They wish to arrest the thief, but would be willing to kill if pressed. They would not follow him if he ran.

I have a situation that i am unsure of.

It is concerning when combat starts, what is "aware of" and what gives a surprise round.

If you are a thief in a room where you are surely not meant to be and the guards find you. You have a hostage (the maid) and a dagger at her throat.

There are some namecalling and some argument, the guards wants you to leave, you on the other hand are afraid what might happen if you lower your defenses.

1) Is this combat?
2) Are they aware of me as an opponent?
3) If i mid-sentence throw my knife at one of them is he surprised, or did he see this coming? (Do i get a flat-footed attack as a surprise round).
4) If i use bluff to give the impression that i am giving up, letting the maid go and such. And the guards fail their sense motive. And than i attack. Are they still aware?

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic-items/wondrous-items/wondrous-items/h-l/iron- flask

So mostly it is go go but some items are cheap?

What about items that shape the land etc?

I remember a horn in d&d that made mountains into lakes and plains into mountains etc.

What magical items goes into your "no way in hell" pile?

Maybe they are to powerfull, or the consequences of it falling into the players hands are to risky to accept.

And is it just items of imens goldcost, or are there such powerfull/risky items on lower costs?

Weirdo: "Your inquisitor may intend ..."

But this is where i belive different. It is true, if the same idea that the inquisitor has is used by another person (or himself) and it is an innocent, or the torture is done on a basis that is evil. Fx: To find out where the innkeeper stashes his gold. Than it is evil. But if the intent is good, the motivation is good, and the result is good, than the evil act (as i see it) is not enought to alter the allignment of the inquisitor.

The common people`s condition has not been worsened, as the pre-requisits to torture validly is, a good motivation, a good result and a good intent. You also need to be in the right setting lawwize. A commoner cant do it, but a representative high up in the chain of command in the police can.

Just becouse a cop aloes one starving mother to steel a bread from the baker, does not result in every singel person in town having their condition worsened based on the laws disregard for any thievery..

"You act as if ..."

I dont view it that way. To just go up to a person and do the classic "you are evil, i see it with my divine ways. I kill you!" does not work in a land of law. It would result in you being charged with manslaughter, it would result in your church being responsible and it would most likely result in other damaging acts.

But to go up to a person, show him your "i am the law" paper, take him with you together with members of the law and torture/interrogate a confession from him without glee, fun or any other sadism. If it is proven to be correct than you cant be charged with murder, as you were the "tool of the law", your church is know to do what is necessary to find the culprit, and you at the same time create a respect/fear in the hearths of the rich and powerful. Not even them are above the law.

Mikaze: I did not wish to go down that road and i shall not. Anyway, i am sorry for the example and i feel like i should not have said it. I wish to focus on the torture part.

Chengar: "If a character is torturing often enough for it to be a major defining aspect of his character, I'd be hard-pressed to call them a good person."

I am 100% in agreement.

As i view it, the entire aspect of the torture argument is that people dont want to view it as an alternative because it goes against most human morals. But in truth it CAN be an alternative, but the demands to use it must be set as the highest possible.

Weirdo: A lowlvl inquisitor in a lowlvl setting might have to be forced to use it as a tool. If the spells are avalible and he just cba to use them it is by far not a good sign for his allignment.

Durngrun; And this is where i disagree. Just having the term "torturer" on your cv do not make you evil. Just like the term healer dont directly make you good.

If torture is used to ensure personal goals or pleasure. Or you use it on the slightest wim, or even if it is used when you could have ysed less brutal meens, than its an evil act. But as the last resort, to ensure good and with a sad and defeated heart. I belive it is not.

Dead: His own well-being no. He would die for the weak and innocent any day.

What i meant are more sinister repercussions, like fx the lord of the land. To kill him straight out would most likely get your church banished, or at least shame it immensely, at the same time the son of the lord might use this murder to punish the entire countryside. After all, he has all the right, since his dad got smashed by some random religious adventurer.

And similar repercussions might occur. A simple law-breaking murder is not right to every person, esp. not someone who views laws as a strict code to achieve help to the poor and weak. Maybe the innkeeper you lived at would be killed as a punishment for your blatant murder, or maybe the kind old woman that gave you permission to sleep in her barn one night. With a murdered father in mind a man can do much that his power can grant him.

But with a signed confession and further evidence, given by an inquisitor, there is not much that can be done. Not unless you go all out evil, and than the quest for "punishment" carries on.

Durngrun, than the quest has moved further and the inquisitor has another person he must look into (the friend in a higher place). The difference between the two torture-insidents is the reason to do it.

One is to make an guilty friend escape the crime he has done by forcing an innocent person to take the fall.
The other is to make a guilty person make the final and crucial evidence against himself.

The point in my case is still that it is a matter of reason behind the act.

LazarX: Than we have a different view on it. Or.. well. i can agree on the good character crossing a line, but that it is evil i do not agree on. His "penalty" will come in form of mental problems with what he has done and the way he copes with that.

What i am looking for? Nothing, i argue becouse i feel like it is a wrong point of view to make a rp game so bound by black and white, that you can make a list and state that "every possible reason, every possible situation can not change the fact that this is evil". :P

LazarX. Well i believe as stated above and above that again, that acts of evil and good comes from the mind of the one that does it. Not the act in itself.

If you torture to get information, but while doing so find pleasure and joy in the screams of the victim. And even after you have what you need, you carry on just to further enjoy the situation. Than that is evil. As your moral compass is powered by the suffering of others, and the feeling of causing physical harm to others.

But again, if you have done your best and the person you know is behind all the murder-kidnappings, but his friends in high places makes the demand for proof to high for even you to get. Than with a sad heart, and a broken will, you torture the location of the girls from him, and where the bodies are buried. They are found, and with the confession in hand you hang the man. The friends cant demand higher proof than a confession and the girls.
Than it is actually an evil act, but it would not bring any "points" on the evil-alignment scale.

Most situations are different, and therefor it is a gray area. Alignment should be based on your actions, and your reasons to do them.

Chengar - Yeah, neutral is an option. But i feel like a persons reasons, goals and focus areas are more the things that define alignment, not just an action.

You can have the kindest man do gruesome or "evil" things if you set the right scene. A father that beats his daughters rapist to death with a tire iron, or a cop that frames a rich man that have bought his freedom five times after hit and runs.

A good person that hates the fact that he must kill someone, he does not want to, and he wishes it would just resolve. But he knows that it will not and time runs out. With a sad heart, a broken spirit, but a strong will he does it, and he does not regret, but he is sadden.

The idea of my inquisitor when (or if) he tortures someone than he hates the fact that he must do such an act to reach the goals that he should have reached without those means. He sees it as a personal failure and as a result he often drinks and is sad by the fact that he has done those acts.

But at the same time it was what was needed to be done, and it was the last and only resort he had. If he had not done it, someone else, someone weak and innocent would be harmed. His lack of will would condemn someone else into pain and misery.

I agree. But i do at the same time feel like it is a bit gray and not all black and white.

If he does this based on good motives, makes sure he is correct. And does not find joy or pleasure in the acts than i do not view them as evil enough acts for him to fall.

LazarX; that i agree with completly. But such is often the life of the inquisitor.
And as i said earlier to Durngorn.

LazarX; No clue. But as i argue that it is the situation and the reason behind the deed that should define its evil/necessary intent.
Just like torture as a last resort to get the evildoer.

I do not agree, i can to some extent agree that the act itself is evil, but based on the reason it is an accepted evil done to achieve good.

Chengar; i agree

LazarX;
Raw that is true. But the way my group play and how i feel the game should be played, there are always exeptions based on setting or circumstances.

If the witch has cast a spell that if she is a virgin (live or dead) at 00.00 than the demon prince nesguch is summoned onto the mortal plane. Than you cant kill her or reson with her.

One of the ways that can be solved is for the good alligned charracter to make sure she no longer is a virgin. Forcefully so.
Evil act no. Kind or cuddle, no. But not evil.

Durngrun; I agree that it is a dark path that is nothing but a downward spiral.
Sooner or later you will target the wrong person, enjoy the act of torture or just kill someone innocent. And than it is done.

Kain; It is not truly lawfull good, but my arguments are based on the fact that some times you must do an act you hate to achieve the right goal. The goal and reason behind it is LG. But the tool you use is not.

Deadmanwalking; In a world of law and where the reporcutions of a plain murder are to grand to handle. My inquisitor follows the teachings of Helm and therfor views law as a tool to save the weak and injured. To torture the final confession out of him and find him guilty is better than to murder a highranking official.

He hates it, he despices the act and wishes it would never be done. But it is the last resort he has to ensure the protection of the people.

The problem with torture in Pathfinder is that while in this world you have your law and order, even in the smallest redneck town. And there is always some way to make things right.

In pathfinder there often is no way.

If the lord of the land is an evil greedy bastard, and he has enough money to give him the power of law, than it is not so easy to get the proof needed to make him drop.

And than who is to take him down, and even further what will stop his friends of not killing your good-aligned ass with law in hand?

This is where torture can (in the eyes of my inquisitor) be used. When proof is good, when you know he is evil, when there are none other than yourself to stand up for the weak and wounded.

Than you get the lord of the land, find the paper with all the accusations you have, and the proof you have gathered, and make him sign it. Because in court there will be no justice, if you just turn your back the weak will still be broken by the man. But with a signed paper in hand, and the proof to back up your claims, than even the highest, most powerful landlord can be sentenced to death.

If all that it takes is for one man to torture the final signature out of him, to ensure the safety of the land, to ensure the power of unbribed law, than it is needed.

Thanks for showing exactly what is so wrong with torture. You want to use it to get confessions when you can't prove anything. Welcome to the witch hunts. You can make anyone say anything through torture. You can make anyone sign a confession that they are an archdevil in human disguise if you torture them long enough. Torturing for confessions is the exact opposite of a "necessary evil". Your inquisitor is lawful evil. Period.

I do not agree. If my inquisitor has desent proof, just not good enough to tople thibgs like wealth, power or high status in society, than torture is the last grusome resort to get the final evidence.

I agree with the fact that if it is the wrong guy than the punishment for the inquisitor must be severe. But if it is right than i do not view it as an "torture = evil allignment" deal.

It is just another tool if the confession is true, when it is not it is one of the worst deeds there are. That is the double edged blade that is torture.

In my point of view it is an absolute last resort, when the alternative is unacceotable, that can backfire imensely.

Like most "evil deed", there are exeptions that make the act no longer evil.

True true.

But i will argue that to an inquisitor torture is an evil act if it does not bring a threat into justice (if that is his goal). To torture a person just for the sadistic glee is pure evil, but to torture a confecion out of a suspect a nececary evil.

I dislike the face that raw should dictate it. And i am glad my dm views it the same way.

But if than the suspect is proven to be innocent the inquisitor has a major problem.

My inquisitor is lawfull good, follows a doctrine of protecting the weak. And now all evidence point at an evil heartless noble that buy up the land and tried to create a famin to lower prices. The evidence is not rock solid, but he thinks he can find the truth with some physical motivation.

Hmm.. true enough. But as the good old inquisitors belived. In the fires of the gods the truth shall come.

If it is a conviction one need and not information, than torture under the guidance of your god can bring you what you need.

To me (in game) torture is an extreme tool, but that it is always and in every situation an unjustifiable evil act is not my opinion.

I am currently playing in a low magic, low lvl setting. Much focused on the same "state of society" as the good old grim medieval ages.

I am playing an Inquisitor and currently we have take into custody a person that every indication shows that he has done some pretty bad deeds, he is evil and does not hide it, but we have no ironhard proof.

In my view as a inquisitor i have tools to find the truth. And torture is one of them.

"They answer to their deity and their own sense of justice alone, and are willing to take extreme measures to meet their goals."

As i view it the inquisior uses this extreme measure to ensure that his "judgment" of the poor target is rightfully so. If it is revealed that it was wrong, and he tortured out a wrongfully confecion from the target than the inquisitor is in for some real problems.

I understand. I like the way you discribe it Darling :)

Exelent suggestion.

I think i understand a bit more regarding their place in the world, but i still cant get rid of the feeling that with helm you either are a puppet of whoever holds your loyalty. Unless he breaks your moral views, or just a traveling goon for someone.

If you hold the law and society up as high as i feel Helmites do than i am not sure how you handle it when law breaks with good. For example the shopkeeper from above.

Yes you are correct in that its Helm from forgotten realms :)

Hmm... i see your view on the use as stooges and i belive you are correct i your description of the followers.

But i feel the dogma breaks a bit with the cold view of the law. If the storeowner increase the prices based on a hunger in the land, than when confronted he says he is a shopowner and can change the prices as he wants.

Does not that also indanger the weak and hungry?

And than i must ask, what does he inquisinate?

I view him as more of a traveling judge that wants to protect the weak and needing, but is boumd by the chains of the law.

I need some advice and suggestions regarding the personality and motivations of my upcomming character.

He is an inquisitor of helm. I view him as a person that sees law and society as the only way to keep the needing and weak out of the arms of chaos. Where law and society lack the weak suffer, for eksample an orcish area. Lacking of law for the weak but strong in brute force from the strong.

The reason he is an inquisitor is becouse the other helmites view their wovs as nutral and often support greedy and brutal rulers becouse they are the only leaders that can keep the citys safe. For eksample a greedy barron who tax the land to the bone. But at the same time use the gold for an militia strong enough to keep the orcs at bay and the trade safe.

So my problem is;
1 how does he inquisate (lol)? Does he find lawbreakers at any cost and punish them according to the law? Or does he view the thief who steal to feed his child as a product of the greedy barons own breaking of the laws of a good society?

2 what does he do with the barron? Sure he detects him as evil, but he knows that without the barron the land might suffer even greater threats.

Etc etc.. I am starting to feel he is to "good" for helm.

How about a command on a enemie npc to disregard evil acts?

Just like a person scared of water is commanded to not act on that fear, you command this npc to not act against evil deeds.
And than you attack his companion? Or just pickpocket a bystander or maybe you take aim with a crossbow towards the queen.

The guard may see the deed, recognise them as evil, wish to act (alarm others/stop the act) but is forced not to.

I know i have a lot to learn :)

Its just that when playing an evil campaign i seldom settle for something as simple as him guarding the place. I want to enjoy seeing the hightemplar of the town slaughter down the orphanage :P

To me its a bit lame that when the command is worded so that it uses the insane duration of the spell and the lameass wording of the spell, it is shut down that way.

It feels like you command him "stand at this spot" and he does that until he is bored. And it is against his nature to just stand idly by while he is bored and therefor gets a new save.

Sure it is a major difference between killing all you encounter and standing bored to death, but what i wanted to emphasis is that just because your command is larger than "go get me that stick" it is still just a singel command, and should get a singel save..