I've searched other topics on Prot Evil and read the FAQ, but didn't find an answer to my question so here's a new topic. Hopefully someone can clear this up.
My question is about the second part of the spell:
"Second, the subject immediately receives another saving throw (if one was allowed to begin with) against any spells or effects that possess or exercise mental control over the creature (including enchantment [charm] effects and enchantment [compulsion] effects, such as charm person, command, and dominate person). This saving throw is made with a +2 morale bonus, using the same DC as the original effect. If successful, such effects are suppressed for the duration of this spell. The effects resume when the duration of this spell expires. While under the effects of this spell, the target is immune to any new attempts to possess or exercise mental control over the target. This spell does not expel a controlling life force (such as a ghost or spellcaster using magic jar), but it does prevent them from controlling the target. This second effect only functions against spells and effects created by evil creatures or objects, subject to GM discretion."
So this spell protects against a Command spell where an evil caster forces you to do a single action against your will. So would it protect you from spells like Irresistible Dance, Hideous laughter and Hold Person.
1. They are all Mind-Affecting Compulsions that involve will saves.
2. Each is also similar to a Command Spell in that they dictate a single type of action you're forced to do against your will.
As a GM and a player I would say that Protection from Evil absolutely protects someone from those effects.
What I'd like to know is:
1. How would you rule on Irresistible Dance, Hideous laughter, and Hold Person?
2. Or do you think Prot Evil should only protect against spells that give puppet like control like Dominate?
Thank You in advance for responding.
I've always run it as 2. It only helps against spells that allow the caster to dictate the subjects actions. Most of language-dependent enchantments fall under that category. I.e. if the spell requires the subject to understand an order given to it, the spell is allowing the caster to exercise the level of mental control that Protection from Evil defends against.
Thank's for your response Gjorbjond. That's an interesting take on it.
If the spell was written as only effecting "language-dependent enchantments" that would be very clear. I'm disappointed that Protection from Evil isn't written a bit better.
"Any spell" that "exercises mental control".
Forcing me to laugh, or dance, etc.. is mental control.
Protection from evil would work on all of them
Thanks Thelith. I've seen plenty of GMs and players use it that way. The FAQ kind of changes the spell when it changes it from being a "spell or effect" controlling you to a "caster" controlling you. Those are very different things.
For example:
1. The way the spell is says "against any spells or effects that possess or exercise mental control over the creature" would mean that even Confusion would be protected against since it controls what actions you can take.
2. However the FAQ changes that to "against a caster that possess or exercise mental control over the creature" so Confusion would not be protected against as the "caster" isn't the one controlling you.
Both of your responses are fantastic. This spell definitely can be interpreted in many ways. I'd still be interested in knowing how others feel it works. Maybe we can inspire each other into new ways of looking at it.
*Thelith wrote: "Any spell" that "exercises mental control".
Forcing me to laugh, or dance, etc.. is mental control.
Protection from evil would work on all of them
If it were that broadly interpreted, that would include every Enchantment (charm) or Enchantment (compulsion). All of the example spells allow the caster to choose actions that the target can take.
Think of it like this: Protection from Evil doesn't prevent the spell from working. It merely makes it where the protected person doesn't have to obey commands.
Most of the language-dependent spells happen to be ones where the caster is issuing a command to the target and the command has to be understood before it can be followed. That's why I mentioned that most of them would count. Not all of the spells it protects against are language-dependent though. Dominate, for example, issues commands through a telepathic link that doesn't require a shared language.
I'm pretty sure "Mental Control" has been ruled as been able to instruct the target.
So Charm, Dominate etcetre is blocked.
Hold person, Laughter and Dance is a set condition. You fail the save and this happens.
The Caster isn't controlling you, the spell is, and even only in a very limited way.
Hold Person paralyses.
Laughter makes you laugh, but outside of that it no more controls you than I control you if I crack a joke that you find so funny you burst out in uncontrollable laughter for some time.
Dance makes you dance. The caster doesn't get to choose what type of dance. They can't make you Line dance or Waltz. That's your choice (well maybe waltz would be a bit sedate for the spell).
It's still plenty powerful for a 2nd level spell.
Charm person isn't a controlling spell either, it just makes them think you're friendly, but it's still blocked by protection from evil.
Hold person is literally the caster telling you that you can't move and paralyzes you, the caster is controlling you to not move.
Irresistible dance is the caster telling you to dance, which is the caster controlling you, they may not tell you what type of dance, but they're making you dance regardless.
Hideous Laughter is the only one that's not protected from, since all it is is you finding something so funny you can't stop laughing, similar to how sleep and confusion are muddling you're brains responses.
The only developer commentary I'm aware of is here.
The issue is he says it shouldn't work on charm person, which the spell specifically called out as protecting against.
For Hold Person, if you stopped moving because the caster tells you that you can't move, then you'd be immune to the spell if you couldn't understand the caster or were deaf. Same with Irresistible Dance and Hideous Laughter.
Relevant FAQ
Regardless, the caster is still controlling you, which the FAQ clearly says that the spell stops from happening.
I would rule it as 2. It's a first level spell - as such it's not supposed to be able to shut down lots of different spells.
Oh hey, there is a FAQ. Thanks, Gjorbjond. That would take precedence over JJ's 2009 commentary.
Thanks, Gjorbjond for that link. I think it upsets me a bit though. The Creative Director post there says that Prot Evil doesn't stop Charm Person which is directly listed in the spell.
If a Creative Director want's this spell to work differently then written they should change the wording on the spell itself. Really, how hard would it be to change some wording on the paizo site.
It seems that Protection from Evil will stay a problem for GM's and players. A spell should not force someone to hunt for FAQ and Question Threads to figure out how it works.
Dear Creative Director,
Please rewrite Protection from Evil so it stops being ambiguous. And, if it doesn't protect against Charm Person please remove it from the spell's description.
This content is core DnD mechanics imported using the Open Gaming License. There has been some effort (twice in PFS) to clairify exactly what the spell does along with associated magic items (lookin at you Mr. Ioun Stone).
So the main issue is in the intrepretation. Many make it overpowered for what a first level spell should do and there's a fair about of GM taste in there. So it can go several ways.
As a GM I'd read the FAQ and think about that as core RAW.
willuwontu wrote: The issue is he says it shouldn't work on charm person, which the spell specifically called out as protecting against. Specific beats general.
Protection from Evil protects you from Control by Evil creatures AND Charm Person.
Why Charm Person? Because it says so.
(and it's no bad thing because I've known both Players and GMs who treat Charm Person as basically a slightly softer version of Dominate).
Recent threads in Rules Questions
|
