Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Elemmakil" data-source="post: 3857574" data-attributes="member: 55502">Good point, Hyp.  In fact, the line "The spell does not enable you to control the charmed person as if it were an automaton, but it perceives your words and actions in the most favorable way" definitely supports your conclusion.The only potential flaw that I see is that it it relies somewhat on a distinction between action and inaction: the paladin would not, of course, break the law himself.  However, by this interpretation, he would let someone else do it.  However, he is obligated (by the law) to turn that person in.  No matter the light in which he perceives their actions, he would not follow an order to break the law (without the charisma check).So can the spell force inaction (don't tell anyone that I killed him), but not action (steal that loaf of bread for me)?  Merely the action of not turning the person in requires much more than the friendly attitude, but turning the person in cannot be accomplished with a friendly attitude.You see what I mean about inaction and action?  Neither is possible, in this case, with exactly a friendly attitude, and I am not sure that inaction gets precedence.  The line I quoted at the beginning of this rambling post more or less convinces me, I think.  However, this forces the target to do something that it normally wouldn't, even through inaction.  The spell states that this always requires a successful charisma check. In short, I failed my save against your confusion spell, hyp, and am now arguing with myself.  I'm not completely confident in either interpretation.</blockquote>

Verification