Protection from Evil vs confusion

0-hr

Starship Cartographer
Our group was rather surprised to find out (mid-combat) that Protection from Evil does not work vs confusion. Our DM ruled (and the majority agreed) that it did not grant the caster mental control over the subject and so was not supressed.

But since 5 of the 6 of us (all long-time players) were caught off guard by this, I wanted to verify that the way we played it is correct.

On a similar note, could Protection from Evil supress Charm? It seems to me that the list of spells it works against is actually very short...
 

log in or register to remove this ad

This came up in our RttToEE campaign last Sunday. One of the PCs was hit with insanity (permanent confusion effect) and protection from evil was cast on the PC. After a quick look at the description, it was pretty clear that PfE wouldn't have any effect. I don't know that it really *surprised* anyone, though.

However, that particular PC has a history of failing Will saves (!) and being commanded to act against the party, so maybe that's why the PfE was used...
 


The 3.0 FAQ and 3.5 FAQ come to different conclusions. I will post both here, and submit to you that the 3.0 FAQ's answer is the better one.

3.0 FAQ said:
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. Compulsions that merely dictate the subject's action at the time the spell takes effect are not blocked. Such spells include command, hold person, geas/quest, hypnotism, insanity, Otto's irresistible dance, random action, suggestion, and zone of truth.
3.5 FAQ said:
What exactly does the second effect of protection from evil do, anyway?

The Sage feels your pain. While the first and third effects of protection from evil are relatively straightforward, the second is less clear. The key phrase that defines this particular effect of the spell is as follows: “ . . . the barrier blocks any attempt to . . . exercise mental control over the creature (including enchantment (charm) effects and enchantment (compulsion) effects that grant the caster ongoing control over the subject . . .).”

(The spell also blocks attempts to possess the creature, but effects that accomplish this are so few as to barely be worth mentioning.)

The first part of this phrase describes the basic criteria by which the DM should judge protection from evil’s effect: If the incoming effect attempts to exercise mental control over the creature, protection from evil likely suppresses that effect. The parenthetical portion of the phrase provides two specific examples (pointed, obviously, at rules elements of the Player’s Handbook) to help judge what exactly is meant by that:

1. Enchantment (charm) effects. Simple enough--protection from evil automatically suppresses any enchantment (charm) effect, such as charm person or enthrall.
2. Enchantment (compulsion) effects that grant the caster ongoing control over the subject. This is where adjudication gets trickier, because you have to decide what “ongoing control” means. The Sage recommends a broad definition, which includes any non-instantaneous effect that prevents the target from exercising full control over its own actions.

Examples would include the obvious (such as command or dominate person), but also the less obvious, such as daze, sleep, and Tasha’s hideous laughter. Such effects would be suppressed for as long as protection from evil lasts on the target.

There are still plenty of enchantment (compulsion) effects that don’t grant the caster ongoing control over the subject. Heroism, crushing despair, mind fog, power word blind, rage, and touch of idiocy are examples. Protection from evil has no effect on such spells.

But what about mental control effects that aren’t enchantment effects, such as psionics? In such cases, the DM must use the rules and his own best judgment in concert to adjudicate the effect. Psionic powers of the telepathy discipline are the equivalent of enchantment spells, for example, and thus are affected in the same way. Nonspell effects that closely mimic enchantment spells should be treated as if they were spells of the appropriate subschool (charm or compulsion).
 

SRD:
the barrier blocks any attempt ... to exercise mental control over the creature (including enchantment (charm) effects and enchantment (compulsion) effects that grant the caster ongoing control over the subject

Are there any Enchantment(Compulsion) effects taht are not Enchantment(Charm) effects? I guess there must be or the 3.5 FAQ reading doesn't make sense...
 
Last edited:


Ki Ryn said:
Are there any Enchantment(Compulsion) effects taht are not Enchantment(Charm) effects? I guess there must be or the 3.5 FAQ reading doesn't make sense...

There aren't any examples of spells in both charm and compulsion subschools simultaneously, so sure, there are many compulsions which are not charms: Suggestion and Command for example.

Did you mean something else?
 

Vegepygmy said:
The 3.0 FAQ and 3.5 FAQ come to different conclusions. I will post both here, and submit to you that the 3.0 FAQ's answer is the better one.

I agree. It makes more sense.
 

Trending content

Remove ads

Top