|
Unfortunately the most recent playtest thread derailed into a not great place when talking about a potential change that we are likely having for 2e.
Now, this topic in the other thread brought up strong feelings about sexual assault and consent. For many, this is an issue they don't want to talk about or think about, and that is perfectly fine, but I do think we need to hash out what should be done with this change.
I do ask that we be respectful mature adults about this and talk through our thoughts without namecalling or anything derogatory. With that in mind I will be actively checking on this and flagging anything rude so after you write your post, re-read it and make sure you're sure that is what you want to post.
Spoiler tagging for space:
So as the spell forum pointed out the previous Pathfinder 1e had the ruling "Unconscious creatures are always considered willing" in relation to targets for spells. Now I think we can all agree that the wording on this is not great and should probably at the very least be rephrased. But, from my understanding, it was decided that now unconscious creatures have the choice of whether they are willing or not.
Here is where I start having an issue. Villains, bad guys, and monsters are likely never going to be willing recipients of spells. If we subdue the big bad and have him tied up and unconscious and go to DDoor, the BBEG is going to say no he isn't willing. If I knock out the assassin who was spying on us but he is unconscious and bleeding out and he isn't willing to be healed he dies and we get no information. Heck if I run up on Jim Stevenson the human farmer dying of a goblin bite he likely won't be a willing recipient of some strange magic either, likely meaning he dies.
Now, I do think that players vs players is a big no no. I think a player should always get to choose if they are a willing recipient of a spell cast by another player, but that choice should be made out of character by the player not the PC.
I think that the easiest way to change this so that the wording isn't weird is to make spells not based off willingness of target. Any character should be able to choose to fail a save, unless they have a specific ability forbidding it ex. superstitious, so make other spells just have saves. Make DDoor a reflex save, allies will always choose to "fail the save."
To make this work I think unconscious needs to make dex=0 as well as remove you base save for reflex saves as well. Your cloak of resistance should still work as well as any other weird magic bonuses, but your inability to actual move should mean it is very unlikely for you to take against reflex while unconscious. Fort and Will based saves don't seem particularity affected by unconsciousness to me so that should be fine.
So what do you guys think it should be? I am interested in what you all think is the right answer for this.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I generally think any spell should be able to be cast on any target. But those spells shouldn't get a free pass on someone just because they're unconscious, unless it's a Reflex save / attack roll spell, where it's going to be an autohit. An unconscious target should still be able to instinctually resist an imposition on their will, lifeforce, or whatever.
That is not the same as saying they no-sell spells they don't like. An unconscious target doesn't get to do that any more than a conscious one. It just means they get the same Will or Fortitude save they would get when awake.
Unconscious/immobile still get a reflex save in PF1 and I doubt that will change. So target away the target should get a save instinctively, but should also instinctively allow harmless spells if they wish.
There are a lot of ease of gameplay/don't mess with your player reasons this should be the default.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hey, guys just a heads up I accidentally posted this mid-way through. I have edited in the rest of what I wrote and flagged the double post. Just a heads up in case you see another identical post until it is removed.
I wouldn't be against a penalty for will saves while unconscious, I think we don't have enough number knowledge at this point to say how harsh would be reasonable. I think Unconsciousness should give an additional penalty to helplessness other than making your dex 0 or simply you auto fail reflex saves while unconscious. A DC 13 fireball should still almost always hit me even if I'm a class with a base reflex of +6 if I am asleep. If I am just tied up but awake I can see how some of your ability to dodge could still be used. Fort saves don't seem to have anything to do with your state of awareness and think that they wouldn't need any modification.
|
|
I see the reflex save at penalty as a save to wake up and react at the last second.
I guess I just feel that the chance you "temporarily wake up" and still dodge the effect should be significantly worse then you doing that while just tied up. But I see your point and would be willing to throw aside the notion of not auto-failing.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Spells like Teleport and Dimension Door that primarily affect bodies rather than minds could designate "willing or unconscious" targets so that such spells could still be used for kidnaping.
Alternatively, such spells could give their targets Reflex saves to avoid being teleported, with willing targets voluntarily giving up their saves and unconscious characters getting the usual Reflex save penalty for being helpless.
|
|
Spells like Teleport and Dimension Door that primarily affect bodies rather than minds could designate "willing or unconscious" targets so that such spells could still be used for kidnapping.
Alternatively, such spells could give their targets Reflex saves to avoid being teleported, with willing targets voluntarily giving up their saves and unconscious characters getting the usual Reflex save penalty for being helpless.
I would argue that If we were to give them reflex saves that the penalty for being unconscious should be tacked on top of helpless. I am certainly susceptible to being affected by reflex saves while asleep and also while tied up. Being tied up and unconscious seems very unlikely that I'd avoid it, like roll a natural 20 likely.
But, yes, you could definitely be kidnapped easier with magic, especially while unconscious and tied up. Which I think is weirdly the problem. I do think that moving it to the spell description helps, but I think it still might come off the wrong way for a lot of people.
|
|
When it comes to magic there are no clear rules, no reallife example to copy from some see it as a matter of the force of will, other interpretations speak of survival instinct. In the end there is no right answer to the question "How should it be?"
In that case a ruling the favors gameplay is the best solution.
Being unconscious is a severe disadvantage, it's not dazzled or confused. As far as mental debuffs go, its kinda more severe than charmed and as such it should have ingame repercussions. The ruling of PF1 reflects that.
Actually, the pf1 ruling is that you are helpless, which while still feel is rough, it certainly should be worse than regular helplessness.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To me it is simple. You are unconscious. You cant resist anything done to you.
I mean, people can put you under, open your head and literally poke your brain and so on, you wouldnt do anything. That is not to refer to the first post where you cant resist THAT if you are under either.
With this said, it doesnt bother me much what people can resist or cant when they are down. 99% of the time the enemy wont be casting a spell you wont be able to resist, the enemy will be beheading the fallen.
So the player wont roll to resist, he will try to remain alive in my games anyway. On a side note, i guess mages wont be using this trick on NPCs, which is something.
|
|
To me it is simple. You are unconscious. You cant resist anything done to you.
I mean, people can put you under, open your head and literally poke your brain and so on, you wouldnt do anything. That is not to refer to the first post where you cant resist THAT if you are under either.
With this said, it doesnt bother me much what people can resist or cant when they are down. 99% of the time the enemy wont be casting a spell you wont be able to resist, the enemy will be beheading the fallen.
So the player wont roll to resist, he will try to remain alive in my games anyway. On a side note, i guess mages wont be using this trick on NPCs, which is something.
I think part of the problem with being extremely harsh on unconsciousness is that while, sure, if I am having brain surgery, I am probably not waking up from that or moving. If I was taking a quick nap, it's a little different. But you should wake up from sleep with damage or a successful save IMO. Failed saves should depend on the spell I guess.
In terms of penalties, I feel that they should be this.
Reflex: Hard Penalties, slightly worse version of helpless.
Will: Light penalties, obviously susceptible to the weird dream spells.
Fort: No difference
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've said it before, and I guess I have to say it again on this thread: the PF1 rule "unconscious equals willing" has nothing to do at all with whether you get a saving throw or not. Unconscious creatures get all the saving throws, only their Dex counts as 0 which might make it difficult for Reflex saves.
Let me quote the rule, from the Core Rulebook magic chapter, section "Aiming a Spell" (emphasis mine):
Target or Targets: Some spells have a target or targets. You cast these spells on creatures or objects, as defined by the spell itself. You must be able to see or touch the target, and you must specifically choose that target. You do not have to select your target until you finish casting the spell.
If the target of a spell is yourself (the Target line of the spell description includes "You"), you do not receive a saving throw, and spell resistance does not apply. The saving throw and spell resistance lines are omitted from such spells.
Some spells restrict you to willing targets only. Declaring yourself as a willing target is something that can be done at any time (even if you're flat-footed or it isn't your turn). Unconscious creatures are automatically considered willing, but a character who is conscious but immobile or helpless (such as one who is bound, cowering, grappling, paralyzed, pinned, or stunned) is not automatically willing.
The rule in question only applies to spells that specifically call out "willing creatures" as their target(s). Dimension door is such a spell, for example. You cannot teleport someone against their will. There is no need for a saving throw, it just does not work. This can be important if your party wants to flee a battle in this way, for example, and you have a raging superstitious barbarian, who can never be a willing target of a spell while raging. If you are unconscious, however, you count as willing and can be teleported.
To reiterate again: the PF1 principle "unconscious equals willing" has nothing at all to do with saving throws. You always get your saving throw, conscious or not.
|
|
What is a reflex?
It's an unconscious response.
Waking up to incoming danger is a reflex.
Helpless is already incredibly penalizing without adding onto it.
There are actually quite a few types of reflex, but the ones we are typically referring to our subconscious and conscious ones. While a person is asleep very few of their reflexes would function. Also waking up to danger isn't real, so sure you can call it a subconscious reflex, but what is actually happening is you are being stimulated awake by an outside presence. That already has rules, and if you want to have rules where you "awake" from unconsciousness preemptively, great, but that isn't supported by the current pf1 rules.
|
|
I've said it before, and I guess I have to say it again on this thread: the PF1 rule "unconscious equals willing" has nothing to do at all with whether you get a saving throw or not. Unconscious creatures get all the saving throws, only their Dex counts as 0 which might make it difficult for Reflex saves.
Let me quote the rule, from the Core Rulebook magic chapter, section "Aiming a Spell" (emphasis mine):
Target or Targets: Some spells have a target or targets. You cast these spells on creatures or objects, as defined by the spell itself. You must be able to see or touch the target, and you must specifically choose that target. You do not have to select your target until you finish casting the spell.
If the target of a spell is yourself (the Target line of the spell description includes "You"), you do not receive a saving throw, and spell resistance does not apply. The saving throw and spell resistance lines are omitted from such spells.
Some spells restrict you to willing targets only. Declaring yourself as a willing target is something that can be done at any time (even if you're flat-footed or it isn't your turn). Unconscious creatures are automatically considered willing, but a character who is conscious but immobile or helpless (such as one who is bound, cowering, grappling, paralyzed, pinned, or stunned) is not automatically willing.
The rule in question only applies to spells that specifically call out "willing creatures" as their target(s). Dimension door is such a spell, for example. You cannot teleport someone against their will. There is no need for a saving throw, it just does not work. This can be important if your party wants to flee a battle in this way, for example, and you have a raging superstitious barbarian, who can never be a willing target of a spell while raging. If you are unconscious, however, you count as willing and can be teleported.
To reiterate again: the PF1 principle "unconscious equals willing" has nothing at all to do with...
I don't see anyone in this thread stating otherwise? We have actually had at length discussion on whether or not penalties to the saves should be altered or removed in pf2. My point has been that you take penalties to reflex saves because you are unconscious but only because you are considered helpless. My point is you can be unconscious and you can be helpless or you could be one and not the other. Their penalties should be cumulative, not equal.
|
|
Kyrt - We are only referring to spells that normally only work on willing targets, not all spells.What is a reflex?
It's an unconscious response.
Waking up to incoming danger is a reflex.
Helpless is already incredibly penalizing without adding onto it.
That is the primary topic yes.
Someone brought up making unconscious reflex worse than helpless.
Yes, I brought up that one possibility would be to make spells that previously require willing targets to just require a reflex save instead. But, I think that the penalties for being unconscious and for being helpless should be different and thus stack on each other. Because someone who is awake and helpless is certainly more able to avoid an ability than someone who is unconscious.
|
My take on the topic :
Unconscious characters should not automatically be considered willing
Unconscious characters should not get a better chance at succeeding their saves than conscious characters
Maybe the crux of the problem actually lies with the willing target requirement for certain spells. This requirement should be considered extra carefully and avoided if possible
If it cannot be avoided then the player of the character should get to decide whether the character is willing or not whatever the character's condition
My opinion is based on Mark's statement that he is in favor of players deciding for their PCs (and the DM for all NPCs) whether they are considered willing at all times, and that this appears to be a stance he arrived at because of the connotations of the language around unconscious characters and spell interactions. Whether this change has been implemented in the Playtest or not is unclear.
The problem I have is that this change would be being made for what are noble but ultimately misguided reasons.
I understand the desire to protect the feelings of people that have been traumatized by being made helpless or having their consent overridden in real life, but at the end of the day the situation that they are trying to rectify is the result of a character having been made helpless and having their consent overridden within the game.
There is really no change to the language used in the rules that can overcome this fact.
The designers simply need to make a choice.
Do they wish to have the rules support stories in which characters who have been rendered helpless and have had their consent overridden have bad things happen to them, or do they not?
If they do not, that is fine. Unfortunately, in that case, there are far worse things in the game that will simply have to go in order to achieve the desired goal. Charm and Dominate person, et al. for a start.
This is something that I do not wish to see happen.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Do they wish to have the rules support stories in which characters who have been rendered helpless and have had their consent overridden have bad things happen to them, or do they not?
Uh, what? This is utterly irrelevant to the rules change made.
'Being willing' is only relevant, mechanically, to spells like healing or teleportation that are primarily used by allies. Dominate Person, for example, makes no distinction between willing and unwilling targets, and never did.
They made a rule change to get rid of some unintentionally creepy language that made for some weird and uncomfortable situations OOC even when nothing creepy was going on IC.
This change has nothing to do with mind control and similar creepy and unpleasant in character possibilities, and I find the idea that it does bewildering.
It is entirely possible and consistent to clear up the rules language so as to avoid unintentionally creeping people out or bringing up bad memories while leaving it up to the GM and players whether to include such content (and such uses of spells like Dominate Person) in an intentional and in-character manner.
They made a rule change to get rid of some unintentionally creepy language that made for some weird and uncomfortable situations OOC even when nothing creepy was going on IC.This change has nothing to do with mind control and similar creepy and unpleasant in character possibilities, and I find the idea that it does bewildering.
It is entirely possible and consistent to clear up the rules language so as to avoid unintentionally creeping people out or bringing up bad memories while leaving it up to the GM and players whether to include such content (and such uses of spells like Dominate Person) in an intentional and in-character manner.
You're right, people who are going to have issues because some vaguely creepy language reminds them of how their consent was once overridden in real life are going to be totally fine with having their consent directly and obviously overridden in game. Forget I said anything.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
You're right, people who are going to have issues because some vaguely creepy language reminds them of how their consent was once overridden in real life are going to be totally fine with having their consent directly and obviously overridden in game. Forget I said anything.
Obviously not. But eliminating rules text because it might be traumatic is not equivalent to removing all spells that could theoretically be used in a traumatic way. Nor does it mean changing the setting so such things never happen in-universe.
GMs should be sensitive to the fact that their players may have such issues and talk about what kind of content their game will include (and indeed, Paizo have said that recommending such talks is probably gonna be in the GMing section of the PF2 corebook), but that's just true generally. And if everyone's cool with such content they can absolutely include it in their games, and the world and mechanics can (and do, and most certainly will) support that.
Rules text having such unfortunate implications is avoidable, and indeed a very easy thing to fix, and something people shouldn't have to deal with just to play the game. World content including potentially traumatic stuff is not an issue in quite the same way since it's avoidable and optional, while rules text is neither.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Rules text having such unfortunate implications is avoidable, and indeed a very easy thing to fix, and something people shouldn't have to deal with just to play the game. World content including potentially traumatic stuff is not an issue in quite the same way since it's avoidable and optional, while rules text is neither.The problem, I guess, with that in general is that there has to be some kind of framework.
I have a severe issue with paralysis, of being helpless and unable to move. There is a reason I'm in a wheelchair after all. There are certain things that, in RP, can freak me out.
In this case the paralysis condition. Yet, at the same time, I don't feel it is fair to ask the GM of a game not to use paralysis, hold person, etc.
However, by the precedent I'm being explicitly told that I should ask the GM and, by implication, the GM is being told that they should acquiesce. I am concerned that such things will take away GM agency, and in things like PFS the GM doesn't have much agency to begin with.
I really appreciate and respect how you are trying to think about it from both sides of the situation. not enough people do that.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nobody has even suggested that the book is gonna say anything about why they changed that particular bit of text. I don't think the text having changed (with no explanation except a relatively casual post by one Paizo employee) is gonna really pressure much of anyone to much of anything.
And a GM advice chapter suggesting people talk about what issues they might want (or not want) in a particular game certainly doesn't pressure anyone to do anything other than have such a talk. And having such a talk is generally a pretty solid call (though perhaps impractical in PFS...like a lot of other GM advice).
You're right, people who are going to have issues because some vaguely creepy language reminds them of how their consent was once overridden in real life are going to be totally fine with having their consent directly and obviously overridden in game. Forget I said anything.Obviously not. But eliminating rules text because it might be traumatic is not equivalent to removing all spells that could theoretically be used in a traumatic way. Nor does it mean changing the setting so such things never happen in-universe.
If they want to remove the "all unconscious creatures are considered willing" text and replace all instances of "willing" in spell descriptions with "willing/helpless" or "willing/unconscious" that would be fine, because that would be changing the language, without changing the rules. I think it's a slightly clunky fix, but whatever.
However, that isn't what I'm talking about. I am talking about Mark's desire to change the rules so that all PCs determine their consent at all times, even when dead/unconscious, presumably because lack of consent is deeply upsetting to some people.
The logical extension of this is that the spells I mentioned have to go.
I really appreciate and respect how you are trying to think about it from both sides of the situation. not enough people do that.
Rules text having such unfortunate implications is avoidable, and indeed a very easy thing to fix, and something people shouldn't have to deal with just to play the game. World content including potentially traumatic stuff is not an issue in quite the same way since it's avoidable and optional, while rules text is neither.The problem, I guess, with that in general is that there has to be some kind of framework.
I have a severe issue with paralysis, of being helpless and unable to move. There is a reason I'm in a wheelchair after all. There are certain things that, in RP, can freak me out.
In this case the paralysis condition. Yet, at the same time, I don't feel it is fair to ask the GM of a game not to use paralysis, hold person, etc.
However, by the precedent I'm being explicitly told that I should ask the GM and, by implication, the GM is being told that they should acquiesce. I am concerned that such things will take away GM agency, and in things like PFS the GM doesn't have much agency to begin with.
Well it's a delicate issue - On the one hand my knee jerk response is - "Deal with it."
Namely, that's what I do. I sign in to play, I know it can happen, I have the option not to play. I choose to play, thus I accept the risk.
I even said, I find the wording, a strange issue as - When taken in context - it's fine. It's the out of context connotation that seems to cause the issue.
This whole topic is just really weird and, to be honest, it's making me rethink playing Pathfinder at all.
I was just going to avoid this thread myself but curiosity got the best of me.
Isn't it kind of weird that we can imagine dismembering things and incinerating etc, but most people can't really truly envision the nastiness behind all that but something that most people think of as innocuous or tame can hit us surprisingly hard. I guess it all comes down to the frame of reference its like we hear 20 million people died in the holocaust but we can hear a detailed story about one person and it hit us far harder.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Look I don't run games to offend anyone, but I also don't want to feel like I'm walking on glass for running a game. So, things in the modern day being what they are, it may actually be best for me to pack it up and hand it off to the next generation.
That seems an extreme reaction. In a normal game, with friends you've known and gamed with extensively, you probably don't even need to worry about most of this. If gaming with new people a quick question like 'Is there anything you'd just prefer not to see in this game?' will usually clear things right up.
And in PFS...the GM is basically no more responsibility for any content than anyone else for the most part.
Really, if you enjoy games, don't stop playing or running due to stuff like this. Minimizing people's trauma and offense is a worthy goal, but it's not one that's ever full achievable and definitely not one you need to walk on eggshells to achieve in the vast majority of cases.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I personally as a Gm would like to know this stuff Cause my goal is to make my game fun for everyone who plays.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If they want to remove the "all unconscious creatures are considered willing" text and replace all instances of "willing" in spell descriptions with "willing/helpless" or "willing/unconscious" that would be fine, because that would be changing the language, without changing the rules. I think it's a slightly clunky fix, but whatever.
However, that isn't what I'm talking about. I am talking about Mark's desire to change the rules so that all PCs determine their consent at all times, even when dead/unconscious, presumably because lack of consent is deeply upsetting to some people.
The logical extension of this is that the spells I mentioned have to go.
Uh...no it isn't. That's not a logical result of that reasoning at all. Being mind controlled, like being stabbed, is not something you need to consent to for it to happen. It's awful if either of those things happen without your consent, but saying you don't consent to them doesn't mean they don't exist or don't happen.
The issue isn't people not being in control of their characters, it's the character consenting (or to be more accurate being said to consent) to such a thing
Eh I figure it out well enough and just apologize when I don't. always has worked fine for me. People make mistakes everyone knows that. Some people handle it better then others.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well no... It's, for me, an issue of there not being any clear rules for the modern day.
I feel like the modern day has the same rules people have always had: Be a decent person, try and be respectful of others.
People are talking about some aspects of that more now (and other aspects of it less) and some people are overly sensitive, but the core issue hasn't changed. At least, I don't think so.
I've never had to worry about a rules text causing issues when read in context. I've never had to sit my players down and have a detailed conversation about their phobias. We've just sat down and played and everyone had fun.
I've very rarely had to worry about this either, actually. To some degree it depends on how well you know the people you're playing with (so you can casually avoid things that would be issues for them...or know that they don't care), and to some degree it depends on what kind of games you're running.
A horror game featuring sexual assault should probably come with warnings. A conventional dungeon crawl where you slay a dragon, not so much.
Not only do I not want to do those things, as those make it no longer a game, but I already have so much work to do to run a game.
We never worried about this stuff in my day.
Simple fact. Gaming is no longer gaming it seems. I dunno what it is anymore.
Again, you often don't have to do this at all. And even if you do feel you need to, a 5 minute conversation is probably enough in most games and for most people. Just ask someone if they've got anything they'd rather not have come up.
Uh...no it isn't. That's not a logical result of that reasoning at all. Being mind controlled, like being stabbed, is not something you need to consent to for it to happen. It's awful if either of those things happen without your consent, but saying you don't consent to them doesn't mean they don't exist or don't happen.
Having things done to you while you are unconscious, like being stabbed, is not something you need to consent to for it to happen. It's awful if either of those things happen without your consent, but saying you don't consent to them doesn't mean they don't exist or don't happen.
I'd have thought these two statements were effectively identical, however, it appears to be the case in this instance that we need to change the rules so that you do have consent while you're unconscious, because otherwise it would be too traumatic.
How does it not follow that the same applies while mind controlled?
What we have here is a wording that, I'll admit, may sound strange when taken out of context. Something that most people, probably, will just have a laugh about if they notice it, but I can understand that others could not feel comfortable with.
But really, it's quite obvious that we are talking about a technical issue about targeting a spell, and often a harmless one!
We can discuss about the rule, but changing it explicitly for this reason is an incredible exaggeration in my opinion. Adjusting the wording makes sense instead.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Having things done to you while you are unconscious, like being stabbed, is not something you need to consent to for it to happen. It's awful if either of those things happen without your consent, but saying you don't consent to them doesn't mean they don't exist or don't happen.
Indeed! And for spells that don't require your consent (ie: most spells) that's exactly how it'll still work. Indeed, even for most spells that do normally require consent, all this change will mean is that you get a save, not that the spell auto-fails or anything.
I'd have thought these two statements were effectively identical, however, it appears to be the case in this instance that we need to change the rules so that you do have consent while you're unconscious, because otherwise it would be too traumatic.
Those sentences are indeed equivalent. And no rule is preventing bad things from happening to you while unconscious. The only thing that's changing is how unconscious people interact with some primarily helpful spells, them getting a save against a few others, and the removal of some potentially weird/awkward/troubling language.
Nothing is actually forbidding any act on an unconscious character. They just don't automatically consent to it on a mechanical level (which will sometimes mean they get a save).
How does it not follow that the same applies while mind controlled?
I dunno how many times I have to say this:
The issue is not your character falling outside your control, it's the use of the word and term consent in an improper context. Talking about unconscious people automatically consenting is actually pretty weird as a rules artifact as well as icky. You can save against a fireball while unconscious...why not a healing spell?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Uh...no it isn't. That's not a logical result of that reasoning at all. Being mind controlled, like being stabbed, is not something you need to consent to for it to happen. It's awful if either of those things happen without your consent, but saying you don't consent to them doesn't mean they don't exist or don't happen.
Having things done to you while you are unconscious, like being stabbed, is not something you need to consent to for it to happen. It's awful if either of those things happen without your consent, but saying you don't consent to them doesn't mean they don't exist or don't happen.
I'd have thought these two statements were effectively identical, however, it appears to be the case in this instance that we need to change the rules so that you do have consent while you're unconscious, because otherwise it would be too traumatic.
How does it not follow that the same applies while mind controlled?
As I understand it, the worry is not that bad things can happen to people who are unconscious. That's obviously true.
Rather, the worry about the current wording is the suggestion that unconscious subjects are always willing, or consenting. And the reason that's disturbing is because it suggests that, prima facie, things done to those subjects aren't morally wrong. After all, the subject was willing/consenting to have those things done to them!
It's that implicature -- an implicature about what's morally permissible -- that's disturbing. Not the suggestion or acknowledgement that bad things can happen to people who are unconscious.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Rather, the worry about the current wording is the suggestion that unconscious subjects are always willing, or consenting. And the reason that's disturbing is because it suggests that, prima facie, things done to those subjects aren't morally wrong. After all, the subject was willing/consenting to have those things done to them!
It's that implicature -- an implicature about what's morally permissible -- that's disturbing. Not the suggestion or acknowledgement that bad things can happen to people who are unconscious.
Yep. This.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm with the poster earlier [sorry, not gonna look up who it was.]
Rip 'willing' out of all spells and replace with saving throws. Clearly emphasize [I'm pretty sure it's somewhere in the rules but cannot recall where] that anyone can deliberately fail a saving throw.
Purely restorative effects automatically overcome the saving throws of the unconscious [their bodies don't resist that which they cannot sense any danger from.] Any other magic used on the unconscious forces an unconscious save [at the appropriate penalty if Reflex or Will]
This really is the simplest solution. That way, if the specific word "willing" is the thing that causes problems in people's minds, you keep the game the same while simply changing the approach.