Does Protection from Evil block Calm Emotions spell?

[Hua]

3.5 version:
Protection from evil blocks compulsions, but is says "effects that grant ongoing control of the subject, such as dominate person". Calm Emotions does not grant control, just suppresses emotions, making it so they can't fight.

Thanks

[ericgrau]

More generally it's "exercise mental control over the creature". The two examples are charm and dominate, both of which allow you to give orders or something similar. Calm emotions says "You have no control over the affected creatures". So I don't believe it will stop calm emotions.

IMO it would suprress a suggestion, all or most of hypnotism and geas. But not confusion, sleep, daze, even hideous laughter, hold person, rage, feeblemind. i.e., transforms mind => doesn't help. Exercise control => does help.

Geas is interesting. It does seem like an easy way to get out of geas for the duration, though the geas starts up again after the duration expires and penalties happen even during the duration. But if you can have allies take turns keeping watch and spamming 15 magic circles against evil while healing the damage... it seems like a not quite so easy way out until you can pay a high level NPC to remove curse or limited wish it away.

[Thanatosia]

I'd say no... if they wanted it to act as immunity to all forms of mind affecting effects they'd just describe it as such. If you can argue emotions as a form of control, it's pretty hard not to use that interpretation to say that anything that affects the mind is a form of control. The examples of Dominate and charm do a pretty good job of defining what Control means in this context I think - influence is fine, puppetry is not.

[Telonius]

I think it's debatable whether or not it grants ongoing control over the subject, but I'd say it's an exercise of mental control. (The charm spells are listed as specific examples of such control, but it doesn't seem like the spell would be limited to those spells).

[TuggyNE]

I think it's debatable whether or not it grants ongoing control over the subject, but I'd say it's an exercise of mental control. (The charm spells are listed as specific examples of such control, but it doesn't seem like the spell would be limited to those spells).

If calm emotions is mental control, all [mind-affecting] spells are, and this is just Slightly Lesser Mind Blank with a non-functional limiting clause. That's not a useful or reasonable conclusion, I think. Rather, "control" means "you can dictate actions to some degree of granularity", such as charming someone and then using that to get them to do specific things, casting command and picking one of the options, and so forth. Calm emotions isn't even as close to controlling as, say, fear is.

Essentially, the question is whether a) the spell forces a single course of action on the subject(s) or instead prevents some set of actions and b) whether the caster can choose this course of action or must leave it to the subject. Calm emotions fails both tests.

Finally, of course, there's the actual spell text: "You have no control over the affected creatures". There it is, in black and white (or black and parchment, as the case may be).

[Telonius]

If you successfully cast a Dominate Person on someone, and give them the command, "Stop raging, and take no offensive actions," and no other command - it seems to me that would be exercising mental control.

There are definitely Mind-Affecting Compulsion spells that would not be covered by it - Buff spells like Aid, instantaneous effects like Feeblemind, things like that. They don't force the target to take any particular course of action, or refrain from any course of action.

[TuggyNE]

If you successfully cast a Dominate Person on someone, and give them the command, "Stop raging, and take no offensive actions," and no other command - it seems to me that would be exercising mental control.

Not quite. It would be a specific case of using mental control to achieve this effect. This control could instead be used for just about anything else instead, and in such cases the results would be different, but the means (mental control) would still be the same.

Calm emotions entirely lacks that flexibility, and operates using a different paradigm.

A similar distinction between effect and mechanism is seen in the Turn Undead rules, which use positive or negative energy to cause fear conditions in affected undead, despite most fear being mind-affecting. For TU purposes, the same result is achieved through an entirely different means, one which bypasses certain immunities. Same here with calm emotions. You get a result that is (sometimes) the same, but it came about through emotional manipulation, not telepathic or verbal commands.

[Hua]

Ok, Thank you for the opinions.

I was hoping to use PFE to protect from "friendly fire" of a calm emotions spell cast. Even though attacking against someone under calm emotions breaks it for everyone, I could have my guys wait and attack together, after the enemies were pacified for a round. Still will work somewhat but I have to be much more careful with the area of effect.

[Lord of Shadows]

Ok, Thank you for the opinions.

I was hoping to use PFE to protect from "friendly fire" of a calm emotions spell cast. Even though attacking against someone under calm emotions breaks it for everyone, I could have my guys wait and attack together, after the enemies were pacified for a round. Still will work somewhat but I have to be much more careful with the area of effect.

Looking at the rules:

From Protection from Evil we get (underline added):

"Second, the subject immediately receives another saving throw (if one was allowed to begin with) against any spells or effects that possess or exercise mental control over the creature (including enchantment [charm] effects and enchantment [compulsion] effects, such as charm person, command, and dominate person)."

And from Calm Emotions we get (underline added):

Calm Emotions
School enchantment (compulsion) [emotion, mind-affecting]

It looks pretty cut and dried. Calm Emotions is of the Enchantment (compulsion) school, therefore it is affected by Protection from Evil.

[ericgrau]

That's the Pathfinder text, 3.5 says:
"including enchantment (charm) effects and enchantment (compulsion) effects that grant the caster ongoing control over the subject, such as dominate person"

Even the PF version might be read as enchantment (charm) effects and enchantment (compulsion) that possess or exercise mental control over the creature, especially given the examples. But the first post specifies 3.5.

[Duke of Urrel]

Looking at the rules:

From Protection from Evil we get (underline added):

"Second, the subject immediately receives another saving throw (if one was allowed to begin with) against any spells or effects that possess or exercise mental control over the creature (including enchantment [charm] effects and enchantment [compulsion] effects, such as charm person, command, and dominate person)."

[…]

It looks pretty cut and dried. Calm Emotions is of the Enchantment (compulsion) school, therefore it is affected by Protection from Evil.

There's a limiting clause in that passage that you missed. I've written it in boldface below.

Second, the barrier blocks any attempt to possess the warded creature (by a magic jar attack, for example) or to exercise mental control over the creature (including enchantment (charm) effects and enchantment (compulsion) effects that grant the caster ongoing control over the subject, such as dominate person).

The question here is what it means for the caster to be granted "ongoing control over the subject." Some would say that the Calm Emotions spell doesn't accomplish that.

I myself am sitting on a fence here. There are two reasons why the Protection from Evil spell shouldn't block the Calm Emotions spell.

1. The text of the Protection from Evil spell goes into too much detail to be simply a spell that blocks all Enchantment spells of the Charm and Compulsion subschools. If that were the case, all that detail wouldn't be necessary. The text could simply say, "blocks all Charm and Compulsion spells" and leave it at that.
   
2. Protection from Evil is only a first-level spell, and it shouldn't be overpowered.

But there are also two reasons why the Protection from Evil spell should block the Calm Emotions spell.

1. The text of the Protection from Evil spell is vague. What does "ongoing control" mean? Does it merely refer to all charms and compulsions that have a timed duration, or does it refer only to effects that the enchanter must actively maintain with verbal or mental commands? And if I don't know what "ongoing control" means, then how persuasively can I argue that the Protection from Evil spell shouldn't work against the Calm Emotions spell?
   
2. Calm Emotions is only a second-level spell, and it shouldn't be overpowered, certainly not in comparison to a spell like Geas or Quest.

Sorry to be so indecisive, but this is a thorny issue.

[Peregrine]

If you successfully cast a Dominate Person on someone, and give them the command, "Stop raging, and take no offensive actions," and no other command - it seems to me that would be exercising mental control.

So would casting dominate person on a waitress and giving her the command, "Take my money and bring me a sandwich." That is to say, you're exercising mental control to achieve your ends, but that doesn't mean everything that achieves the same ends is likewise mental control.

Please also note this text later in the description of protection from evil:

If the protection from evil effect ends before the effect granting mental control does, the would-be controller would then be able to mentally command the controlled creature.

The words "mentally command" helps us pin down exactly what kind of "control" is affected. Calm emotions isn't it.

[Psyren]

I say no. All compulsions force the subject to do something they may not naturally do on their own (hence the label "compulsion") so if that's your only standard then PFE might as well say "compulsion immunity" without any limiting clauses.

The metric I use is fairly simple:
(1) does the spell let you issue direct commands to the target?
(2) If it does not grant direct control, does the spell make the target more likely to do what you ask it to do?

If the answer to either of those is yes, it's suppressible. So Dominate and Geas, which let you issue commands and have them followed, would be suppressed. Compulsions that don't let you dictate behavior, like Confusion and Calm Emotions, are not. Similarly, Charm Person would be suppressed, but Battle Hymn would not.

[Jowgen]

To throw in my 2 cents: the Sage 3.5 FAQ does specifically address this, and recommends a broad definition of "ongoing control"

which includes any non-instantaneous effect that prevents the target from exercising full control over its own actions. Examples would include the obvious (such as command or dominate person), but also the less obvious, such as daze, sleep, and Tasha’s hideous laughter. Such effects would be suppressed for as long as protection from evil lasts on the target.
There are still plenty of enchantment (compulsion) effects that don’t grant the caster ongoing control over the subject. Heroism, crushing despair, mind fog, power word blind, rage, and touch of idiocy are examples. Protection from evil has no effect on such spells.

It might not be world of God, but it's the closest thing to an answer to the posed question I know off.

(Link http://www.adnd3egame.com/documents/mainfaq.pdf )

[Psyren]

^ Based on that ruling it looks like a no on Calm Emotions.

He lists things like sleep and hideous laughter in the "suppressed" bucket, i.e. spells that force you to do something/act a certain way.
He then lists heroism, crushing despair and rage in the "not suppressed" bucket, i.e. spells that force you to feel a certain way.

Calm Emotions would fall under feeling rather than doing. (This is probably why PF invented the [emotion] descriptor.)

[Jowgen]

^ Based on that ruling it looks like a no on Calm Emotions.

He lists things like sleep and hideous laughter in the "suppressed" bucket, i.e. spells that force you to do something/act a certain way.
He then lists heroism, crushing despair and rage in the "not suppressed" bucket, i.e. spells that force you to feel a certain way.

Going of the FAQ recommended 'broad defintion', I'd have to say no to the above. The common feature of Heroism, crushing despair and the rest of the 'not suppressed' bucket is that they nerf the target's abilities, but don't impede the choice of what to do. Calm emotions specifically prevents the target from taking "violent actions" or "do anything destructive", similarly to how hideous laughter and daze prevent the target from taking actions.

Personally, I'd define Calm Emotions as a "non-instantaneous effect that prevents the target from exercising full control over its actions".

I think fear-type effects are a bigger head-scratcher here. I mean, would you consider a turned undead running away uncontrollably to be exercising full control over its actions? If not, does protection from Evil then effectively nullify turning attempts?

[squiggit]

^ Based on that ruling it looks like a no on Calm Emotions.

He lists things like sleep and hideous laughter in the "suppressed" bucket, i.e. spells that force you to do something/act a certain way.
He then lists heroism, crushing despair and rage in the "not suppressed" bucket, i.e. spells that force you to feel a certain way.

Calm Emotions would fall under feeling rather than doing. (This is probably why PF invented the [emotion] descriptor.)

But.. Calm emotions effect is preventing the target from taking violent actions. That's forcing you to do something.

They key difference between the two groups is that the suppressed group are spells that override your ability to take actions and the not-suppressed group are spells that merely dole out dice modifiers, which clearly puts calm emotions in the first category.

[Deophaun]

but also the less obvious, such as daze

So according tot he FAQ, Protection from Evil removes the penalty from using celerity. That's just wonderful. (Yes, I know it's referring to the spell, but the distance from the spell to the effect is a much shorter trip in the wording than from dominate to sleep.)

[TuggyNE]

But.. Calm emotions effect is preventing the target from taking violent actions. That's forcing you to do something.

It's preventing a limited subset of actions. Not the full set of actions of hideous laughter, nor forcing a particular set of actions like dominate person. I'd still consider that different enough.

[Psyren]

It's preventing a limited subset of actions. Not the full set of actions of hideous laughter, nor forcing a particular set of actions like dominate person. I'd still consider that different enough.

Yeah, that.

Note that I don't agree with the FAQ necessarily, PE would not block sleep in my games. Though perhaps the PF restriction of only suppressing aligned effects might be enough.

[Drunedale]

One thing that no one has pointed out yet, is that if Calm Emotions isn't blocked by PFE then it's opposite, Rage (effectively the Ying and Yang of emotion spells), would also bypass PFE. With the Rage spell it is most definitely exercising mental control over someone by forcing them into a mental state which you have control over, especially since this is a mental state impossible for most adventurers to obtain (Barbarian's would be the exception). This also follows the "ongoing control" clause since both of these spells are dismissible.

Given that it is rather easy to dispel, my group allows it to be a lesser Mind Blank, and it hasn't been overpowered.

[TuggyNE]

One thing that no one has pointed out yet, is that if Calm Emotions isn't blocked by PFE then it's opposite, Rage (effectively the Ying and Yang of emotion spells), would also bypass PFE. With the Rage spell it is most definitely exercising mental control over someone by forcing them into a mental state which you have control over, especially since this is a mental state impossible for most adventurers to obtain (Barbarian's would be the exception). This also follows the "ongoing control" clause since both of these spells are dismissible.

You don't have any sort of ongoing control of them; rather, they are angry, hit harder and are more resistant to spells, and are easier to hit. There is no "you will now do what I tell you, which is attack so-and-so" available, so sure, rage should also get through. (Especially since it's willing targets only.)

Given that it is rather easy to dispel, my group allows it to be a lesser Mind Blank, and it hasn't been overpowered.

It's … literally not even slightly easier to dispel than mind blank is. Is your group using a houserule that spell level matters to dispel checks?

[Jowgen]

As the FAQ rightly points out, the crux is how to define "ongoing control". I personally like the FAQ's definition of "non-instantaneous effect that prevents the target from exercising full control over its own actions" because its easy to adjudicate and seems to fit with the intent of the spell's second effect, which is to protect the user's free will. Under the FAQ's definition, the question whether PfE suppresses a given effect happening at the table can usually be resolved by asking whether the player would still be able to direct their character as per normal.

As such, I think calm emotions is covered very well by the FAQ definition. The choice to take any given attack action, be it a trip, destructive spell or a simple sword swing, is taken away by Calm Emotions, clearly violating that "full control over its own actions" clause.

As for the issue of a simple "Don't do X" compulsion not feeling like ongoing control, I think Drunedale made a very good point in pointing out that Calm Emotions is dismissable; which in effect make Calm Emotions a "Don't do X, until I tell you that you are free to do X again" compulsion, which is pretty ongoing-controlish to me.

Rage, on the other hand, I don't believe qualifies. It is for the largest part a buff, and while it does restrict the use of certain skills (which is far less than disallowing a whole sub-set of actions), it can indeed only be cast on a willing target, meaning it is a choice to get rage. Also, the FAQ lists Rage as a not-suppressed effect.

If one wanted to ignore the FAQ, and try to just sort Compulsion effects into a suppressed and a not-suppressed pile, the the best thing to go off, in my opinion, is the definition of Compulsion Spells, since that deals in a similar dichotomy:

A compulsion spell forces the subject to act in some manner or changes the way her mind works.

Personally, I believe that buffing and de-buffing things like touch of idiocy fall into the "mind works" category (impeding aptitude), while Calm Emotions falls into the "force to act" category (impeding choice).