Myth: Posting spree in attempt to ward off the demons.
Also, Post IC!!
Rathan/SHhayuri - If you have anything new to say feel free, I'm OK with discussions, but unless/until you change my mind, I'll stick with the original ruling.
Here's what I'm saying.
I don't see any reason why, and my link supports this, that Freedom of Movement wouldn't work on any kind of "paralysis" effect, be it magic or otherwise. There's no reason to believe, from the spell description or any other source, that Freedom of Movement is limited to magic effects. The part where it singles out magical effects is very clearly (IMO)
inclusive, not
exclusive. In short, it exempts you from movement-impeding effects,
including magical effects, but not limited to.
That said
If Sigil failed her DC against the stun effect, then Freedom of Movement would not allow her to act despite being stunned. So if a fort save of 32 isn't enough...and...well, that's a whole other issue if not
...then I'm not arguing this point. If she's stunned, then she's stunned, and that's fair and square.
Now. If you decide to artificially limit Freedom of Movement to only affect magical threats (meaning that things like natural spiderwebs and paralysis poisons are not affected), then I'd like the chance to rephrase my contingent trigger so it's not wasted on things that I had no way to anticipate it wouldn't work against.
And with that, whichever way you rule, I'm prepared to put this behind me.
Though before I sign off, I encourage you to take the retro-test. That is, if you had one of your NPC's with FoM active, and a PC cleverly hit you with a nonmagical movement-impeding effect, would you even pause to wonder if the FoM applied? I admit, my feeling is that you would not. But I may be a bit bitter about the whole thing by now too.