Attacking a Charmed Creature


Pathfinder Society

Dark Archive 4/5 Venture-Agent, Colorado—Colorado Springs aka Dust Raven

In issue arose yesterday when the group cleric opted to channel positive energy to destroy a few skeletons. On of these skeletons was currently under the influence of a command undead spell cast by another player. The player commanded the skeleton said this counted as PVP, I said it was not because the skeleton didn't belong to the PC and was merely "charmed".

Now I'm curious. Is this really PVP? On the one hand, the PC did expend resources to gain control the skeleton, but on the other control does not equal ownership.

Would this have been different if it was a summoned creature rather than a charmed/commanded one? Again, it is a spell effect which the PC would have spend resources to acquire, but again not actually owned. In either case it's a spell being cast.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

It is not PvP.

It didn't damage the character.

It didn't damage a permanent aspect of that character (animal companion).

I think people are, in general, way too quick to call PvP. It is seriously irritating.

5/5 5/55/55/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

hmmmm tricky.

If the cleric was trying to destroy the necromancers charmed skeleton and ONLY the necromancers charmed skeleton i would say yes without hesitating: you're trying to take something away from another player that they spent a resource on.

But the cleric is trying to take out a room full of skeletons. Its not that he's trying to kill another players skeleton its just that the skeleton is in a bad spot.

I would say that if the cleric can move or selective channel to avoid the skeleton in question he should, if not his friend is acceptable collateral damage.


I was one of the players in question. To add to this, the cleric used selective channel the first round to not attack the commanded skeleton. The second round, he chose to include the commanded skeleton in his blast with no gain other that just attacking the skeleton.

I don't see this as much different that moving your fireball one square to the left of where it needed to be so that you could also include your druid's animal companion in the blast.


Andrew Christian wrote:

It is not PvP.

It didn't damage the character.

It didn't damage a permanent aspect of that character (animal companion).

I think people are, in general, way too quick to call PvP. It is seriously irritating.

This is one of the threads I have seen that echoes what Fenris just said about attacking resources counting as PVP. http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2nr8x?Question-about-paladins-oath-against-fien ds#5

I have seen others where developers have said similar things; no freeing another person's slaves, sabotaging their faction missions unless completing your own, and what not.

Dark Archive 4/5 Venture-Agent, Colorado—Colorado Springs aka Dust Raven

I didn't rule this as PVP because the creature attacked/damaged was not a familiar/animal companion/etc. and was actually an enemy who happened to be charmed/commanded.

I can't find any reference to attacking a charmed/controlled creature as counting as PVP.

Dark Archive

Its under the dont be a dick rule. If he could exclude he should exclude. If he cant thats ok. It sounds like this guy just wanted to take away from someone else. D.B.A.D. dont be a dick.

Grand Lodge

I don't think it's PvP, but I would say it was poor table manners. Seeing that the spell lasts 1 day/level, the caster would have been able to utilize the skeleton the entire scenario. Assuming the skeleton would have been destroyed at the end of the duration and not set lose where ever the scenario took place. This goes to the Necromancer/Paladin thread, your Pathfinders, your supposed to set your differences aside to accomplish the mission.

Dark Archive 4/5 Venture-Agent, Colorado—Colorado Springs aka Dust Raven

Sin of Asmodeus wrote:

Its under the dont be a dick rule. If he could exclude he should exclude. If he cant thats ok. It sounds like this guy just wanted to take away from someone else. D.B.A.D. dont be a dick.

This I agree with. And in this case, the other guy could selective channel but didn't. He's a new player (this was his third table), was playing a pregen he may not have fully understood the abilities of, and did receive a warning that even if this wasn't PVP, it obviously upset at least one other player at the table.


In all honesty I was more bothered by how having this guy at the table felt like I was escorting one of the frostfur captives more so than the fact he killed my skeleton, but I did think it worth bringing up that as I understand it his action was against PFS rules.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 Venture-Captain aka TwilightKnight

I think in general this is a gray enough area where there will be some table variation. However, in this case there are two issues that seem to be important. One, if the controlled skeleton was known by all that it was under a PCs command, and the cleric had the ability to exclude it using selective channeling, then yeah, it looks like the player was violating the don't be a jerk rule. OTOH, it sounds like this player may have been both young and new. A combination that screams for education on both the rules/game mechanics of PFS as well as the etiquette of social role-playing games.

It can be challenging to learn how to mix the morality of your character, especially ones with strong values like clerics or paladins against the tenets of cooperation and non-interference that are core to the society.

I would defer to the judgement of the table GM, as long as s/he was keeping the fun and cooperation of the table at heart.

Explore! Report! Cooperate!


I just saw this; not really any grey area.

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2p59s?Pathfinder-Society-Buying-Equipment-Rules #14

Michael Brock wrote:
Chris Mortika wrote:


Back when Josh Frost was in charge of the campaign, he described what he thought should happen, if a paladin, or cleric of Pharasma went adventuring with a necromancer or Undead Lord who was carting around an undead servitor. He thought that the paladin would destroy the undead, and the necromancer could not retaliate because of the PvP rule.
.

And no, I don't think a follower of Pharasma would adventure with someone toting around an undead servant. But, destroying that undead equates to PvP essentially and the player with the Pharsma follower would probably want to choose a different character to use. My oracle that venerates Pharasma certainly wouldn't go on an adventure with the "offending" PC. Also, if you are a strict follower of Pharasma, you probably believe it is a sacrilege to utilize Raise Dead or the like.

It equates to the same thing if my character was a pacifist. I can't go around stealing the weapons of other PCs because I don't think they shold resort to violence, and then give the weapons back at the end of the scenario.


Sitri wrote:
In all honesty I was more bothered by how having this guy at the table felt like I was escorting one of the frostfur captives more so than the fact he killed my skeleton, but I did think it worth bringing up that as I understand it his action was against PFS rules.

Charming.

5/5 5/55/55/5

Given that the spells end at the end of the scenario, i think the pharasmin could justify running the undead into the ground and then letting them give it their final rest at the end of the adventure.

Besides, how long does a charmed ANYTHING survive when its subject to the whims of a pathfinder agent? Serving those guys is just a slightly slower form of execution if you think about it.

Dark Archive 4/5 Venture-Agent, Colorado—Colorado Springs aka Dust Raven

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Besides, how long does a charmed ANYTHING survive when its subject to the whims of a pathfinder agent? Serving those guys is just a slightly slower form of execution if you think about it.

In a scenario a few weeks ago the PCs managed to keep a pair of thugs they charmed through almost the rest of the scenario, covering at least 3 encounters. One of them got injured and they both fell back after a short fight, and the PCs let them go (or stand guard outside, hard to remember, so many people got charmed at that table).

Liberty's Edge

OK first off as the VC for AZ please come to me before the forum's I have mail and FB if needed, 2nd this is not PVP, because the charmed undead is not a PLAYER AND IT IS MINDLESS. Also how do other players know if the cleric in question had SELECTIVE CHANNEL? This is way too much meta gaming. Please end this thread here.

Shadow Lodge

Jason Leonard wrote:
OK first off as the VC for AZ please come to me before the forum's I have mail and FB if needed, 2nd this is not PVP, because the charmed undead is not a PLAYER AND IT IS MINDLESS. Also how do other players know if the cleric in question had SELECTIVE CHANNEL? This is way too much meta gaming. Please end this thread here.

Maybe I missed something, but it seems like the other players knew he had SELECTIVE CHANNEL (lol) because he used it earlier in the scenario. It was also mentioned that it might have been a new player using the Kyra pregen, in which case they may have simply forgot. They should have been reminded. Either way, the choice not to exclude the ally's undead was a decision made by the player.

Attacking another players equipment is PvP, and that undead was clearly in that player's possession. How is any of that meta-gaming?

Liberty's Edge 5/5

I know my opinion is not the popular one, but I have to say this:

The rule about PvP doesn’t say anything about equipment or whatever.

It says you cannot voluntarily try to kill another PC. Period.

Many people interpret that more strictly than I do, including Mike Brock.

But it is a HUGE stretch to say that attacking a charmed badguy is PvP.

Silver Crusade

I'm with Andrew on this one.

I've been at PFS tables with legal PvP, because a player was dominated into attacking his teammates. In one case, the PvP fight lasted a couple of rounds, and was just as exciting as what the rest of the group was doing to handle the actual bad guy while those two PCs were busy fighting each other. I've also personally cast Burning Hands at a teammate, damaging her as collateral damage in order to get a swarm of bugs off her. And more recently, I told a teammate in one adventure that if he had to hit me in the area of effect in order to hit some enemies, I was fine with it.

I think people take the no PvP rule a little too seriously some times. Serious attempts to harm another player are against the rules. But accidental stuff, catching in an area of effect, etc are part of the game.

But back to the original question, the guy killing the skeleton when he could have simply excluded it with Selective Channeling was clearly violating the Don't Be A Jerk rule, even if he wasn't violating PvP.

The Exchange 5/5

I once encountered a player who built a Max Damage Barbarian/fighter who just seems to be built to miss will saves and kill his friends. He missed a save and took a swing at my PC, as I danced around him trying to hit him with a Prod. Evil wand (to turn him "off"). He also missed the save for the Prod. Evil (he checked with the judge to be sure he "could" resist it). He did insist on rolling the damage for his miss - just to be sure that he would have killed my PC outright - if he had just hit (along with comments about "making half-elves"). He was quick to point out that "it's not PvP if they charm me!" (eye roll!)

Shadow Lodge

I don't like the "No PvP" rule at all. I think things like attacking your fellow party members for no (in game) reason should be covered under the "Don't be a jerk" rule. Sometimes there are valid reasons for attacking a party member, and I don't like that rule being flung in my face.

Quote:


Me: On my turn I'm going to cast fireball here *points to map*.
Big Stupid Fighter: I charge in!
Me: I cast my fireball centered here *points to map*. Fighter, you need to make a reflex save. DC 18.
BSF: You can't do that! That's PvP! I won't let you hurt my fighter.
Me: *sigh* I cast Magic Missile.

But, destroying a character's equipment has been specifically called out as verboten, so the only question is whether the undead ally counts as equipment (or otherwise part of the character). I say it most certainly does.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

An undead that has been charmed from amongst the enemy, is NOT protected under PvP, at least not at my table.

5/5 5/55/55/5

Andrew Christian wrote:
The rule about PvP doesn’t say anything about equipment or whatever.

So if one player wanted to sunder another players +1 bow with his +2 adamantite greatsword?

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mystic Lemur wrote:

I don't like the "No PvP" rule at all. I think things like attacking your fellow party members for no (in game) reason should be covered under the "Don't be a jerk" rule. Sometimes there are valid reasons for attacking a party member, and I don't like that rule being flung in my face.

Quote:


Me: On my turn I'm going to cast fireball here *points to map*.
Big Stupid Fighter: I charge in!
Me: I cast my fireball centered here *points to map*. Fighter, you need to make a reflex save. DC 18.
BSF: You can't do that! That's PvP! I won't let you hurt my fighter.
Me: *sigh* I cast Magic Missile.

This is where a GM should step in on the fighter's turn and remind him of the caster's announced plan. The fighter's player then chooses to either let himself be subject to AoE damage, find something else to do, or delay and then charge the survivors. The "No PvP" is there to prevent jerkishness, not encourage spotlight-hogging or epic tactical failures.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
The rule about PvP doesn’t say anything about equipment or whatever.
So if one player wanted to sunder another players +1 bow with his +2 adamantite greatsword?

I think Don't be a Jerk applies. But it isn't PvP.

5/5 5/55/55/5

Andrew Christian wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
The rule about PvP doesn’t say anything about equipment or whatever.
So if one player wanted to sunder another players +1 bow with his +2 adamantite greatsword?
I think Don't be a Jerk applies. But it isn't PvP.

I don't see how not.

I mean you have an attack roll, the loss of combat effectiveness, and a hefty price to pay to replace it. Hell, since you can't buy make whole from a high level caster it might be easier to come back from the dead than to get your weapon back. It functions exactly like attacking the character.

I don't see anything to substantiate the idea that going against a player requires hit point damage. There are lots of other ways of fighting with the other people at the table through the veneer of your characters.

Grand Lodge 4/5 Venture-Agent, Nevada—Las Vegas aka kinevon

Andrew Christian wrote:

I know my opinion is not the popular one, but I have to say this:

The rule about PvP doesn’t say anything about equipment or whatever.

It says you cannot voluntarily try to kill another PC. Period.

Many people interpret that more strictly than I do, including Mike Brock.

But it is a HUGE stretch to say that attacking a charmed badguy is PvP.

It may not be PvP, but it is a potentially HUGE waste of resources.

Sorry, in a recent game, my 1st level Sorcerer cast Charm Person on an enemy. Without waiting to find out if the enemy was actually Charmed (he was), another player attacked him, not killing him but instantly breaking the Charm effect. So, waste of my 1st level spell, and the enemy is back able to attack.

Ah well, at least the player learned, and was not quite so quick to attack eenmies I cast Charm on later in the scenario...

Dark Archive

I have allowed players to empowered flame strike me while I was paralyzed once (in my defence I forgot that I dont get a save while paralyzed), I lived with single digit HP.

Quite a few of my characters have low will saves, however the rolling a will save against protection from evil is legitimate and required (as your hostile to the party due to a dominate effect you will be required to resist all spells from your "opponents")

Which means if someone is dominated and you cast protection from evil the following things happen

1. Melee touch attack to deliver protection from evil
2. Will save to resist protection from evil
3. Will save at +2 to supress dominate

If you pass the melee attack, they fail the will save vs protection from evil, and they pass the will save at +2 for dominate, they are free from the domination for 1 min/level (10 rounds for a wand) if any one of those things goes against you they remain dominated. Protection from evils protection against ongoing control only applies to spells cast after the protection spell.

Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Attacking a Charmed Creature All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.