No. At no point does it ever make the distinction that any of that consideration is only for one purpose or another. It's just a state, and it tells you when you consider a creature to have it. The entire construct where you insert language differentiating which parts of a spell description count the willing state from different things is just that - language inserted by you. It doesn't exist in the actual rules.Sphere wrote:You are not willing while unconscious. You are only considered willing for the purposes of the specific subset of spells mentioned.
For a flippant example, let's consider disrupt undead and command undead. The first spell has a special rule that triggers if it hits an undead creature, while the second has a targeting line that requires an undead target. Now it is my contention that an undead creature is always an undead creature and that both spells would consider it such. And yet you keep accusing me of claiming that spells like command undead can't exist just because undead creatures stay undead for purposes other than targeting limitations.
I see where you're coming from, but it's wrong. You literally can't parse D&D rules that way, because the basic assumption is that traits carry over unless it says that they don't, and not the other way around.
-Username17