Enchantment, Compulsion, "Ongoing control"

[Wyvernhand]

See, I always thought of on-going control as any spell that allows the caster to direct the spell after the spell is cast. Spells and effects like Dominate are ongoing control, because through the duration of the spell, the caster can make the target dance, fight, pee, or run. If the spell has a command at the onset that can't be changed (such as suggestion), or its own preset pattern of control that the caster has no power over (such as Confusion or Hold Person), then it is not on-going control.

Truthfully, I don't think there is an exact right or wrong answer with this. Its pretty much open to DM interpretation.

 

[Vegepygmy]

See, I always thought of on-going control as any spell that allows the caster to direct the spell after the spell is cast. Spells and effects like Dominate are ongoing control, because through the duration of the spell, the caster can make the target dance, fight, pee, or run. If the spell has a command at the onset that can't be changed (such as suggestion), or its own preset pattern of control that the caster has no power over (such as Confusion or Hold Person), then it is not on-going control.

Truthfully, I don't think there is an exact right or wrong answer with this. Its pretty much open to DM interpretation.

No, you have it exactly right.

 

[Jimlock]

Eh, you've come to your own conclusions.

1) Most undead aren't mindless. Really, the only Core undead that *are* mindless are Zombies and Skeletons. There's a rather lot of undead that aren't mindless. And you can exercise mental control over mindless skeletons and zombies via Rebuking anyway, even if they don't technically have a mind.
2) That still doesn't stop the effect from potentially applying to Commanded critters of other sorts.

Which does make things interesting, though, in that an Unhallowed area (which applies a Magic Circle Against Good effect....) can prevent an Evil cleric from making actual use of the undead he used the bonus to help rebuke....

I think you are confusing mind/brain with intelligence. All undead are mindless in a cense that their brain does not work, even if they have one (a kind of rotten one actually ). They might have lungs, a liver, a stomach, a brain... but none of them work/function, they just are. This is why ALL undead are immune to ALL mind-affecting effects and to Critical hits (even if you pierce an undead's brain instead of his leg... it doesn't make a difference).

Their intelligence is supernatural... and if I can put it into words... somehow stems from the same un-living force that makes them undead.

Turning, rebuking and commanding are irrelevant to mental-control (otherwise they would have been mind-affecting effects... and none of them is).

Mental control, is all about affecting the mind.

Command
Enchantment (Compulsion) [Language-Dependent, Mind-Affecting]

Command Undead
Necromancy

Command Plants
Transmutation

 

[Jack Simth]

I think you are confusing mind/brain with intelligence. All undead are mindless in a cense that their brain does not work, even if they have one (a kind of rotten one actually ). They might have lungs, a liver, a stomach, a brain... but none of them work/function, they just are. This is why ALL undead are immune to ALL mind-affecting effects and to Critical hits (even if you pierce an undead's brain instead of his leg... it doesn't make a difference).

No, I'm not. You used the term mindless in the forum for a game in which it is a game-defined term with respect to the game, to mean something other than how it's defined in the game without specifying so. A vampire is immune to having it's mind tampered with via mind-affecting stuff, sure. But it's not mindless as the game defines that.

 

[Jimlock]

You used the term mindless in the forum for a game in which it is a game-defined term with respect to the game, to mean something other than how it's defined in the game without specifying so.

Not fair. I did specify. I ll' quote myself:

All undead are mindless in a sense that their brain does not work, even if they have one...
Their intelligence is supernatural... and if I can put it into words... somehow stems from the same un-living force that makes them undead.

This is how I justify the fact that all undead are immune to all mind-affecting effects.



My point was that when a cleric commands/turns/rebukes an undead, he does not exercise "mental control" over the undead because Command Undead/Rebuke Undead/Turn Undead are NOT mind-affecting effects and because undead are immune to mind-affecting effects... in response to:

There are other ways to mentally control a creature. A creature that's been Commanded (such as with an Evil Cleric and Undead...

and in response to:

And you can exercise mental control over mindless skeletons and zombies via Rebuking anyway, even if they don't technically have a mind.

Therefore an undead cannot shield itself with Protection-against-Good/Neutral/Evil... and Disobedience, against Command/Turn/Rebuke

Moreover no Command-like spell (Command, Command Undead, Command Plants...) can be banned by PFE and Disobedience. Even the simple "Command" which affects living creatures gets through, because even if it is mind affecting (Command - Enchantment (Compulsion) [Language-Dependent, Mind-Affecting]) it is also an Enchantment-compulsion that does NOT grant "ongoing control":

You give the subject a single command, which it obeys to the best of its ability at its earliest opportunity. in response to:

2) That still doesn't stop the effect from potentially applying to Commanded critters of other sorts.

So, again, this leaves Dominate Person/Monster as the single effect that PFE + Disobedience can block.

So why "...to exercise mental control over the subject creature, including..." ???

So what other mental control effects are there?

why this such as Dominate Person ???

What are the rest since Dominate effects are just an example?

Is it simply badly written or are we/am I missing something?

 

[Jack Simth]

Not fair. I did specify. I ll' quote myself:

Context. You did so after I had responded that undead are not mindless when prior you'd just called them mindless.

This is how I justify the fact that all undead are immune to all mind-affecting effects.

That is your take on it, yes. But consider: What in the world does Mind Blank do, then? Or what happens when someone uses Shapechange to become an undead?

My point was that when a cleric commands/turns/rebukes an undead, he does not exercise "mental control" over the undead because Command Undead/Rebuke Undead/Turn Undead are NOT mind-affecting effects and because undead are immune to mind-affecting effects... in response to:

Umm...

By RAW "A commanded undead creature is under the mental control of the evil cleric." (emphasis added)

So it's very explicitly "mental control". It's not mind-affecting, sure. But it is very, very explicitly "mental control". Where are you getting this?

and in response to:



Therefore an undead cannot shield itself with Protection-against-Good/Neutral/Evil... and Disobedience, against Command/Turn/Rebuke

Moreover no Command-like spell (Command, Command Undead, Command Plants...) can be banned by PFE and Disobedience. Even the simple "Command" which affects living creatures gets through, because even if it is mind affecting (Command - Enchantment (Compulsion) [Language-Dependent, Mind-Affecting]) it is also an Enchantment-compulsion that does NOT grant "ongoing control":

You give the subject a single command, which it obeys to the best of its ability at its earliest opportunity.

Check out Greater Command, which permits multiple commands over the duration.

Is it simply badly written or are we/am I missing something?

It appears, from here, that you're missing something.

 

[Jimlock]

Context. You did so after I had responded that undead are not mindless.

Not fair again.

You accused me, of using "mindless" differently without explaining myself, only AFTER I had ALREADY explained myself.

But let's stick to the core of the debate shall we?

Umm...

By RAW "A commanded undead creature is under the mental control of the evil cleric." (emphasis added)

So it's very explicitly "mental control". It's not mind-affecting, sure. But it is very, very explicitly "mental control".

You are missing something important here, but let me explain.
Don't curse, swear or anything of the sort until you've read all of the following :

ALL undead are IMMUNE to MIND-AFFECTING effects.
No matter how one interprets mind/brain/intelligence (be that my interpretation that undead are mindless in a sense that they have no mind/brain and that their intelligence and very existence stems from a supernatural unliving force... or yours... or any other interpretation) the fact remains that they are IMMUNE to MIND-AFFECTING effects, and having YOUR mind controlled is undoubtedly one such effect.
So no one, no matter what, has the ability to control/affect the mind/brain/intelligence of the undead.

Immunity to all mind-affecting effects (charms, compulsions, phantasms, patterns, and morale effects)

So then, what do these phrases actually say?

A commanded undead creature is under the mental control of the evil cleric. The cleric must take a standard action to give mental orders to a commanded undead.

Well these two phrases say the following:

They say that the cleric commands/controls the unlving force of the undead using HIS mind, not that he controls the mind of the undead. The cleric does not speak the commands he gives the undead, he thinks of them (therefore: under the mental control of... + give mental orders) Mental control is used in a totally different context here.

Mental control has two meanings:
a)Either YOUR mind is being controlled by something/someone, or
b)YOU control something/someone with your mind.

In the case of commanding undead it is obviously the latter (b). The cleric gives mental orders so as to command the undead. And again, let's not forget that undead are IMMUNE to mind affecting effects, and that mind/mental control would have been such an effect the undead would have been immune to.

The cleric commands/controls the unliving force that makes the undead an undead, he does not have the control of a mind.


On the other hand, PFE and Disobedience use "mental control" the other way around. They both say:

blocks any attempt to exercise mental control over the subject creature

This time mental control is used as in (a). The spells, protect YOUR mind from being controlled by somebody else, no matter how the controller controls YOUR mind (be that with verbal orders or mental orders). Not that the phrase is unclear in that respect, but the enchantment examples that follow that phrase make it even clearer:

including enchantment (charm) effects and enchantment (compulsion) effects that grant the caster ongoing control over the subject

because enchantment says the following:

Enchantment spells affect the minds of others, influencing or controlling their behavior.


So again, command undead (be that by the spell or by rebuking) or any other command spell cannot be blocked by PFE and Disobedience.

Check out Greater Command, which permits multiple commands over the duration.

Check out what exactly?
permits multiple commands over the duration?

This spell functions like command, except that up to one creature per level may be affected, and the activities continue beyond 1 round. At the start of each commanded creature’s action after the first, it gets another Will save to attempt to break free from the spell. Each creature must receive the same command.

In respect to "ongoing control" nothing changes from "Command" to Greater "Command"

You give the subject a single command.

This is not ongoing control.

You are confusing "multiple commands" (as in multiple targets, which is what the spell says and which is irrelevant: except that up to one creature per level may be affected) with "multiple commands" (as in more than one command, which is not what the spell says).

Where are you getting this?

I'm not getting this anywhere. I keep it where i first put it since my first posts:

That it still remains awkward how after the including and the such as
the only mental controls they block are the examples after the including (?), and that all Enchantment-Compulsions with "ongoing-control" is the Dominate effect, which is given again as a single example out of the more implied.

I guess it's badly written, but I cannot be sure.
If this was indeed their intention, why didn't they just say: "It blocks all Enchantment-charms and the Dominate spell/effect"?

It appears, from here, that you're missing something.

Perhaps it is so, but that wouldn't be neither Command/Rebuke Undead, nor any other Command spell or effect.

 

[Jack Simth]

You are missing something important here, but let me explain.
Don't curse, swear or anything of the sort until you've read all of the following :

ALL undead are IMMUNE to MIND-AFFECTING effects.
No matter how one interprets mind/brain/intelligence (be that my interpretation that undead are mindless in a sense that they have no mind/brain and that their intelligence and very existence stems from a supernatural unliving force... or yours... or any other interpretation) the fact remains that they are IMMUNE to MIND-AFFECTING effects, and having YOUR mind controlled is undoubtedly one such effect.
So no one, no matter what, has the ability to control/affect the mind/brain/intelligence of the undead.

You're taking one thing (immunity to mind-affecting effects), and extrapolating it to mean another (immunity to all forms of mental control / no mind to affect), when nowhere is this stated in the actual rules, and then you're saying a thing that is explicitly called out as "mental control" is obviously not "mental control" based on that extrapolation.

Or to put it another way: Do you have an actual page reference where the book says Immunity to Mind-affecting effects always implies that they do not have a mind to affect (note: You'll be able to find a few for the other direction - that not having a mind implies immunity to mind-affecting effects - but logically speaking "B implies A" does not require "A implies B" to also be true).

 

[Jimlock]

You're taking one thing (immunity to mind-affecting effects), and extrapolating it to mean another (immunity to all forms of mental control / no mind to affect), when nowhere is this stated in the actual rules,

mental |ˈmentl|
adjective
1 of or relating to the mind : mental faculties | mental phenomena.
• carried out by or taking place in the mind : a quick mental calculation | I started my mental journey.
2 of, relating to, or suffering from disorders or illnesses of the mind : a mental hospital.
• [ predic. ] informal insane; crazy : every time I'm five minutes late, they go mental.
DERIVATIVES
mentally adverb
ORIGIN late Middle English : from late Latin mentalis, from Latin mens, ment- ‘mind.’

I'm not extrapolating anything.

NEVER did I claim that Immunity to Mind-affecting effects always implies that they do not have a mind to affect. This is putting words in my mouth. (see later on this post).

I'm taking immunity to mind affecting-effects for what it is.

When someone controls your mind , he AFFECTS your mind. Therefore if one is immune to mind affecting effects, he cannot have his mind controlled by somebody else.

If you had a bucket of mind-affecting effects, "mental/mind control" (as in having YOUR mind CONTROLLED by others) is in this bucket. Plain and simple.

The rules are clear as far as I'm concerned, and without any intention of sounding or being insulting, they are in the english language itself.
And I say this, because the debate has unfortunately transcended from a rules discussion into a debate on the meaning of words and the meaning of combinations of words.

and then you're saying a thing that is explicitly called out as "mental control" is obviously not "mental control" based on that extrapolation.

As i explained in my previous post, "mental control" has two, pretty opposing meanings, and I explained both of them in my previous post.
Mental control, what you just put in brackets and what you so feverishly present as a gaming-term/rule with a single meaning, is neither of the two. It is not a rule, nor has it a single meaning.

Again--->

Mental control has two meanings:
a)Either YOUR mind is being controlled by something/someone, or
b)YOU control something/someone with your mind.

Honestly, I can't put it simpler than this. One meaning for the PFE+Disobedience case, different meaning for the Cleric-Undead case.

a)PFE+Disobedience block someone from controlling your mind.
b)The cleric mentally (by giving orders mentally - by using HIS mind) commands the undead.

Read my previous post for further explanation.

Moreover, nothing is based on an extrapolation, because as I explained earlier, there is no extrapolation to begin with.

Or to put it another way: Do you have an actual page reference where the book says Immunity to Mind-affecting effects always implies that they do not have a mind to affect (note: You'll be able to find a few for the other direction - that not having a mind implies immunity to mind-affecting effects - but logically speaking "B implies A" does not require "A implies B" to also be true).

What? Jack, honestly, you are running around in circles.

As I said earlier:

ALL undead are IMMUNE to MIND-AFFECTING effects.
No matter how one interprets mind/brain/intelligence (be that my interpretation that undead are mindless in a sense that they have no mind/brain and that their intelligence and very existence stems from a supernatural unliving force... or yours... or any other interpretation) the fact remains that they are IMMUNE to MIND-AFFECTING effects, and having YOUR mind controlled is undoubtedly one such effect.
So no one, no matter what, has the ability to control/affect the mind/brain/intelligence of the undead.

Even if I had claimed that, for me, undead have a fine functioning brain, and that I justify the fact that they are Immune to mind-affecting effects because my bicycle is blue, it wouldn't make difference. Why? because undead are immune to it no matter how i like to picture it/imagine it.

Again:

NEVER did I claim that "Immunity to Mind-affecting effects always implies that they do not have a mind to affect". This is putting words in my mouth.

And to save you the trouble of searching, what i said is this:

No matter how one interprets mind/brain/intelligence (be that my interpretation that undead are mindless in a sense that they have no mind/brain and that their intelligence and very existence stems from a supernatural unliving force... or yours... or any other interpretation) the fact remains that they are IMMUNE to MIND-AFFECTING effects,

after this.

This is how I justify the fact that all undead are immune to all mind-affecting effects.

after this.

I think you are confusing mind/brain with intelligence. All undead are mindless in a sense that their brain does not work, even if they have one (a kind of rotten one actually ). They might have lungs, a liver, a stomach, a brain... but none of them work/function, they just are. This is why ALL undead are immune to ALL mind-affecting effects and to Critical hits (even if you pierce an undead's brain instead of his leg... it doesn't make a difference).

So this is the time where I ask you the same question you asked me...

Where are YOU getting this?
Cause I don't think that your false claims are leading to anything constructive.

 

[Jack Simth]

Where are YOU getting this?
Cause I don't think that your false claims are leading to anything constructive.

Ah, yes, silly me for thinking that when the book says "mental control" in one spot, it means the same as "mental control" in another spot in a similar context, and when it says "Immunity to mind-affecting effects" under the type, that it's referring to things tagged "mind-affecting". Of course. How silly of me.