Protection from Evil

[Infiniti2000]

Yes, he may act freely while under the PfE. The problem is that the PfE is generally much shorter than the domination.

The person is otherwise free to act but must carry out the last command. He will not do anything self-destructive, but receiving a PfE is not self-destructive and your friends will not suddenly be considered your enemies (unless you were directed to attack them), so you will not purposefully resist their spells. However, if you were directed to attack your comrades, I'd say you treat any spell by them as hostile and do your best to resist or thwart them.

At that point, it really boils down into a judgment call, though, so I could see someone arguing against that idea. The judgment of course being how powerful you think the domination should be and how you rule "ally" vs. "enemy", etc. For example, if you are dominated into attacking your allies and the cleric in the party casts a mass heal, do you gain the benefits if the cleric targets you as well? I say no. If you also say no, then the PfE could be resisted as well.

 

[Thanee]

So during the suppression, the target of both spells may act freely?

Yep, even though I really don't know why this should be (apart from, that it is written in the rules, that is).

Bye
Thanee

 

[Numenorean]

Ok, so Protection From Evil does not protect against Hold Person or Confusion. However it does protect against things like Suggestion, Charm, Domination, Magic Jar, etc. Makes good sense.


Great. Thats what I needed to know. Thanks all


ps. Thanee (I agree ... )

 

[Thanee]

Err, PfE does not help against Suggestion (other than offering a +2 resistance bonus to the save, if the caster is evil).

Bye
Thanee

 

[Hypersmurf]

It's the "such as dominate person" that is the key point in the spell description. That defines what is alike as far as mental control is concerned. For charm person et al to be blocked, you would have to first rule that charm person works like dominate person. That's a big change and certainly not one that's recommended.

No, no, no. 'such as dominate person' defines ongoing control. Mental control is compulsion effects that provide ongoing control (such as dominate person), or charm effects.

Not 'charm effects that provide ongoing control (such as dominate person)'.

-Hyp.

 

[Infiniti2000]

'dominate person' relates to ongoing control, and ongoing control refers back to both enchantment (charm) and enchantment (compulsion). You can choose to insert a virtual comma in there and separate out the first phrase, but that is not the normal interpretation for such usages. And both (Ench. charm/comp.) refer back to mental control. So, I stick by my opinion that dominate person is the template upon which we should intrepret what kind of 'mental control' gets suppressed.

Are there any ench. charm spells that qualify? Yes, I think enthrall does.

 

[Thanee]

That's where the FAQ comes into play.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Hypersmurf]

You can choose to insert a virtual comma in there and separate out the first phrase, but that is not the normal interpretation for such usages.

I can eat berries and citrus fruits with orange skin, such as mandarins.

I'm not restricting the berries to those with orange skin. All berries; orange-skinned citrus.

It can be read both ways. A FAQ is specifically intended to clear up such ambiguity.

-Hyp.

 

[Pielorinho]

Aha! At last, Hypersmurf, I've got you, and nobody can tell me otherwise!

Mandarins are berries.

Botanists classify bananas, blueberries, grapes, green peppers, muskmelons, oranges, tomatoes, and watermelons as berries.

Daniel

 

[ThirdWizard]

Do you think a dominated character would elect to make a saving throw against protection from evil? Does the effect compel the target in any way to try and avoid events that would break the spell?