D&D 3E/3.5 3.5: Aura of resolve ==> immun to bless?

[Sektat]

Paladin of freedom (and others) have the aura of resolve class ability which makes him immun to compulsion effects.

This makes him immun to compulsion spells like hold person or confusion.

Would you agree that this *must* also apply to positive spells like bless, heroism and aid, meaning that those spells are useless for Mr. Paladin?

 

[RUMBLETiGER]

I can think of 2 possible ruling to this:

1. Simple "yes", positive compulsion effects do effect him/her either.

2. The Paladin can willfully suppress this ability, allowing the effects to work.

 

[the Jester]

Yes- if you're immune, you're immune.

I just took a few minutes to look over my 3.5 core books and couldn't find anything to address the issue of whether you can lower your immunity. My instinct is generally no; the guy who is bitter that he cannot get drunk because of his poison immunity springs to mind as the classic example of this.

 

[Sekhmet]

Yes- if you're immune, you're immune.

I just took a few minutes to look over my 3.5 core books and couldn't find anything to address the issue of whether you can lower your immunity. My instinct is generally no; the guy who is bitter that he cannot get drunk because of his poison immunity springs to mind as the classic example of this.

I cannot remember which books (I've been doing a lot of 2e stuff recently), but I can say with 100% certainty that creatures with supernatural/extraordinary qualities can suppress them at will. One of the examples given was golems suppressing their magic immunity to receive the benefit of a spell from it's creator.

 

[Sektat]

Thx for all the answers so far.
What about that idea (from the core rules):
Voluntarily Giving up a Saving Throw

A creature can voluntarily forego a saving throw and willingly accept a spell’s result. Even a character with a special resistance to magic can suppress this quality.

Could we argue that since the aura is a special resistance to magic (and non-magic) compulsion spells/magic, that Mr. Paladin can suppress this quality?

 

[Empirate]

Creatures with Ex or Su abilities can suppress them at will? So a snake can bite somebody and not poison them? A Dire Rat can bite somebody and not infect them with Filth Fever? A Troll can choose for a normal sword to overcome his Regeneration and deal lethal damage? A Spellweaver can have his mind read and not turn the mindreader insane? A Rakshasa can choose to have a non-good or non-piercing weapon overcome his DR? A friggin' bloodhound can turn off his Scent ability?

I'm not convinced. Show me the rules text, otherwise I don't buy it. Not that I want to pull an Arrowhawk here, but the very fact that Golems' Magic Immunity specifically states that it can be lowered might make for an argument that, generally, immunities do not allow such circumvention.

Similarly, I'm not buying the saving throw thing. When you're immune to something, you don't even roll a save. There's nothing voluntary about being immune.

 

[Sekhmet]

While I'm looking through books trying to find it again, I'd like to argue that saving throws are also involuntary (in general). Their very nature states that they're subconscious, natural defenses, and that being able to will yourself not to do them is supernatural in it's own right.
Imagine being able to will your body to -not- fight of an infection.

 

[anest1s]

While I'm looking through books trying to find it again, I'd like to argue that saving throws are also involuntary (in general). Their very nature states that they're subconscious, natural defenses, and that being able to will yourself not to do them is supernatural in it's own right.
Imagine being able to will your body to -not- fight of an infection.

Spell Descriptions :: d20srd.org

Voluntarily Giving up a Saving Throw

A creature can voluntarily forego a saving throw and willingly accept a spell’s result. Even a character with a special resistance to magic can suppress this quality.

 

[Sekhmet]

Spell Descriptions :: d20srd.org

...yes. My argument was that Empirate was arguing against what the rules have stated very clearly. Saving throws can be willingly dismissed, even though their nature is subconsciously reactive and therefor not controllable.

 

[Empirate]

But that is not in the rules as written. Saving Throws can be voluntarily failed/given up - but where does it say this has anything to do with their automatic or nonautomatic nature?

And even if your argument held true for saving throws, I can't find any rules text that says blanket immunities function the same as saving throws in any way.