Protection from Evil seems to me to be a rather confusing spell in terms of working out what spells one is protected against.
Specifically I'm interested in the part regarding mental control.
From the SRD:
Second, the barrier blocks any attempt to possess the warded creature (by a magic jar attack, for example) or to exercise mental control over the creature (including enchantment (charm) effects and enchantment (compulsion) effects that grant the caster ongoing control over the subject, such as dominate person).
So my reading seems to indicate that some one with Protection Good is immune to all Enchantment (Charm) Spells. That parts not very hard - there are like 4 spells in the entire game with this school and sub school (Charm Person, Mass Charm Person, Charm Monster etc.).
Its the second part that's sort of throwing me for a loop - all compulsion spells that grant ongoing control. I don't see ongoing control as a descriptor anywhere and yet I kind of get the impression that one exists in some kind of nebulous state that's not quite in RAW but not exactly removed from it either.
I mean I don't think this is meant to protect one from all Compulsions otherwise one might as well say that this makes one immune to spells with the Mind Affecting Descriptor. But then what the heck qualifies as ongong control? How long does the control have to go on for? What is meant by 'control' - actually being able to move the controlled individual around like a puppet or is just being able to play with their emotions enough?
Is Touch of Fatigue blocked by Protection from Good? How about Crushing Despair? Suggestion? Command?
My feeling is that Touch of Fatigue and Crushing Despair will work fine as they involve no actual control, Suggestion I'm not really sure about while Command definitely fails.
|
Protection from Evil seems to me to be a rather confusing spell in terms of working out what spells one is protected against.
Specifically I'm interested in the part regarding mental control.
From the SRD:
Second, the barrier blocks any attempt to possess the warded creature (by a magic jar attack, for example) or to exercise mental control over the creature (including enchantment (charm) effects and enchantment (compulsion) effects that grant the caster ongoing control over the subject, such as dominate person).Is Touch of Fatigue blocked by Protection from Good? How about Crushing Despair? Suggestion? Command?
My feeling is that Touch of Fatigue and Crushing Despair will work fine as they involve no actual control, Suggestion I'm not really sure about while Command definitely fails.
There's definitely room for DM interpretation here, I think. I agree that Touch of Fatigue and Crushing Despair are not protected against, as they don't involve control. I'd be more inclined to say it protects against Suggestion and Geas than Command, since Command can in no way be described as ongoing.
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
It bears mentioning that the spell only protects against such spells and effects if generated by a creature of the alignment being protected against. Protection from Good will prevent the CG bard from charming you but you are still vulnerable to the LN wizard's dominate person.
In our games, 'spells that grant ongoing control' are defined as spells which allow the caster to DIRECTLY CONTROL the subject (i.e. dominate person). Suggestion, command, and all those work normally. As for touch of fatigue, it specifically states 'enchantments' so that one is right out (since its a necromancy).
But what about spells like Hold Person and Tashas Hideous Laughter (both enchantment compulsions)?
Well. Now I know you can't put italics in the thread titles! :)
More to the point, I would allow the spell to defend against hold person, Tasha's hideous laughter, and suggestion. Those are Enchantment (compulsions) with a duration greater than one round. That is how I would define ongoing control.
EDIT- Oh, and the spell needs to allow the caster direct influence over the target's actions, so crushing despair is not warded against. Also, I presume you meant touch of idiocy instead of touch of fatigue, considering that the later is in no-way a mind-affecting spell that would be under the jurisdiction of protection from evil.
Touch of idiocy is a tricky one. I would definitely allow protecion from evil to ward against hold person, but that's because it [b]does[/i] directly control the target's actions. Touch of idiocy doesn't, so I would have to rule it as similar to crushing dispair, and say that protection from evil doesn't block it.
|
|
It bears mentioning that the spell only protects against such spells and effects if generated by a creature of the alignment being protected against. Protection from Good will prevent the CG bard from charming you but you are still vulnerable to the LN wizard's dominate person.
That's incorrect. There are subheadings under the spell description. One is the protection against attacks from creatures of the given alignment. Protection from mind control effects is listed separately and makes no mention of alignment. Likewise with defending against summoned creatures.
Great thread and a subject that was a sore spot for me for a long time.
The key is protecting the warded creature against ongoing mental control. It does not give complete immunity to Enchantment (compulsion, charm) effects. For example, confusion does not give the caster any control whatsoever over the warded creature. Their actions are random. Thus, pro. from evil does not protect against it. The part in the spell description that cites Enchantment (compulsion, charm) effects does not mean ALL spells from that school/subschool. It means specifically, those types of spells that give the caster control to command/control the subject to do what he/she commands them to do.
Great thread and a subject that was a sore spot for me for a long time.
The key is protecting the warded creature against ongoing mental control. It does not give complete immunity to Enchantment (compulsion, charm) effects. For example, confusion does not give the caster any control whatsoever over the warded creature. Their actions are random. Thus, pro. from evil does not protect against it. The part in the spell description that cites Enchantment (compulsion, charm) effects does not mean ALL spells from that school/subschool. It means specifically, those types of spells that give the caster control to command/control the subject to do what he/she commands them to do.
Really all of this could have been resolved with a Mental Control Descriptor. Then it would have been clear what spells did or did not give one mental control and we would all be playing by the same rules. As it stands two perfectly reasonable DMs can come to different conclusions on what RAW means.
It bears mentioning that the spell only protects against such spells and effects if generated by a creature of the alignment being protected against. Protection from Good will prevent the CG bard from charming you but you are still vulnerable to the LN wizard's dominate person.
Not sure where your getting this. The second part defends one from 'ongoing control' and possession. At least in the case of possession the SRD clearly states that alinement's is not an issue and at best the material on ongoing control simply does not mention alignment one way or the other. I certainly don't see anything saying that the would be controller has to fit a specific alignment.
However this spell is busted in more ways then one. As far as I can tell by RAW Protection from Evil protects you against nut real summoned creatures (but not against good ones) while all the rest of the protection spells protect you only from summoned creatures of the specific alignment. In other words they don't actually all say the same thing.
Here is the enchantment school along with its two sub schools to add to the debate.
From the SRD:
Enchantment
Enchantment spells affect the minds of others, influencing or controlling their behavior.
All enchantments are mind-affecting spells. Two types of enchantment spells grant you influence over a subject creature.
Charm
A charm spell changes how the subject views you, typically making it see you as a good friend.
Compulsion
A compulsion spell forces the subject to act in some manner or changes the way her mind works. Some compulsion spells determine the subject’s actions or the effects on the subject, some compulsion spells allow you to determine the subject’s actions when you cast the spell, and others give you ongoing control over the subject.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
Not sure where your getting this. The second part defends one from 'ongoing control' and possession. At least in the case of possession the SRD clearly states that alinement's is not an issue and at best the material on ongoing control simply does not mention alignment one way or the other. I certainly don't see anything saying that the would be controller has to fit a specific alignment.
It just makes sense to me that protection from X would only protect you against 'X'. Protection from Evil would not hamper the effects of a good creature against you. Protection from Law would not save you from a slaad's charm spells. It just seems silly to me for a 1st level spell to grant universal protection. Think about the ramifications of having a PERMANENT protection from evil cast on someone. You would be IMMUNE to charms and dominations. Comparable items that replicate these effects are fairly expensive and you'd save yourself a lot of money by getting it this way.
It just makes sense to me that protection from X would only protect you against 'X'. Protection from Evil would not hamper the effects of a good creature against you. Protection from Law would not save you from a slaad's charm spells. It just seems silly to me for a 1st level spell to grant universal protection. Think about the ramifications of having a PERMANENT protection from evil cast on someone. You would be IMMUNE to charms and dominations. Comparable items that replicate these effects are fairly expensive and you'd save yourself a lot of money by getting it this way.
I don't disagree with your analysis of the implications but I don't think its true by RAW. I'll note that we already have this problem is some places in D&D. How often do you bump into plagues in D&D? Not so often because the fairly low level cure disease spell makes the whole thing a rather moot challange and hence adventures rarely feature plague except maybe as some kind of back drop. The players aren't about to fear any mundane disease. Their pretty much immune.
I don't think this is meant to protect one from all Compulsions otherwise one might as well say that this makes one immune to spells with the Mind Affecting Descriptor. But then what the heck qualifies as ongong control? How long does the control have to go on for? What is meant by 'control' - actually being able to move the controlled individual around like a puppet or is just being able to play with their emotions enough?
Is Touch of Fatigue blocked by Protection from Good? How about Crushing Despair? Suggestion? Command?
My feeling is that Touch of Fatigue and Crushing Despair will work fine as they involve no actual control, Suggestion I'm not really sure about while Command definitely fails.
This is answered almost entirely by the 3.0 FAQ:
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. [u]Compulsions that merely dictate the subject’s action at the time the spell takes effect are not blocked.[/u] Such spells include command, hold person, geas/quest, hypnotism, insanity, Otto’s irresistible dance, random action, suggestion, and zone of truth.
Touch of fatigue is a necromancy spell, so I'm not sure why you're even asking about it. Crushing despair clearly does not grant ongoing control, so it would not be affected.
As far as Fatespinner's contention that protection from evil only protects against charms/compulsions generated by evil creatures, that is clearly incorrect by the RAW.
This is answered almost entirely by the 3.0 FAQ:...
Why they did not port it to 3.5 I'll never know. It makes sense but is essentially unofficial in 3.5 though considering the mess we are in I guess I'll use this as the ruling.
The Necromancy Spell I included was just crossed wires or some such. Obvously it ought not to even be in the list.
I e-mailed WoTC about this issue a month or two ago and here is the response they sent me. I'll present the actual question and the answer they gave me.
Me: I'm trying to figure out what type of Enchantment(compulsion) spells that Protection from evil helps against. It has to be ongoing control like dominate person. So I assume spells like Feeblemind that are instantaneous are not effected. How about Otto's Irresistible Dance? Just let me know about these two spells and I can use that to make a baseline for these sorts of DM judgement calls in the future. Thank you!
WoTC:Thank you for contacting us.
Correct in that it won't affect feeblemind (due to being an instantaneous effect). It would suppress the Otto's irresistable dance effect however for the duration of the protection from evil spell.
Not much but I hope it helps!
I guess I always assumed that the protection against domination or compulsion effects was effective against those generated by one alignment type only. Granted that the wording may be a bit loose, but what's the rationale for having protection from evil be able to ward against domination by good creatures and vice-versa? (Of course, compulsions are kind of iffy from a good-aligned standpoint, but that's another discussion).
Granted that the wording may be a bit loose, but what's the rationale for having protection from evil be able to ward against domination by good creatures and vice-versa?
Protection from evil is one of those spells that really hearkens back to non-D&D folklore. Traditionally, a charm or amulet might protect one from being "possessed" by spirits or ensorcelled by faeries or molested by demons or what have you. The spell is intended as a sort of general cure-all for those sorts of perils. The alignment-specific stuff is almost an afterthought, thrown in to make the spell worth preparing/casting in situations other than the relatively rare ones described above.
Although I personally like the spell as written (and don't find it at all confusing), it's one of the most misunderstood things in the game, and as such it would benefit from a drastic overhaul. That probably won't happen, though, because it's a real "legacy" spell that has existed in essentially the same state since 1st edition.
I e-mailed WoTC about this issue a month or two ago and here is the response they sent me. I'll present the actual question and the answer they gave me.
Me: I'm trying to figure out what type of Enchantment(compulsion) spells that Protection from evil helps against. It has to be ongoing control like dominate person. So I assume spells like Feeblemind that are instantaneous are not effected. How about Otto's Irresistible Dance? Just let me know about these two spells and I can use that to make a baseline for these sorts of DM judgement calls in the future. Thank you!
WoTC:Thank you for contacting us.
Correct in that it won't affect feeblemind (due to being an instantaneous effect). It would suppress the Otto's irresistable dance effect however for the duration of the protection from evil spell.Not much but I hope it helps!
Don't like this answer. Much prefer the 3.0 FAQ. This just kind of leaves us back were we started.
Wow, guess I never really read that spell thoroughly.
I have to say that since charm spells allow you to make repeated and different requests of the affected creature (where Suggestion limits you to one instantly given command like a greater version of the Command spell) they would all be blocked by Pro Evil.
These types of spells seem to me to be what you get protection from. Spells that can "compel" you to perform more than one action, no matter what type of spell it is.
|
|
I guess I always assumed that the protection against domination or compulsion effects was effective against those generated by one alignment type only. Granted that the wording may be a bit loose, but what's the rationale for having protection from evil be able to ward against domination by good creatures and vice-versa? (Of course, compulsions are kind of iffy from a good-aligned standpoint, but that's another discussion).
The wording is not loose. I checked my 3.5e PHB. It says something to the effect of "The protection this spell offers from mind-control works independently of the alignment of the enchanter." I don't have the exact wording with me, but it's explicitly stated.
"This second effect works regardless of alignment."