Pathfinder Is Still Bad

[virgil]

Dying characters are either going to always resist cure light wounds or always accept charm monster. The same mechanic governs both situations, and it doesn't leave you with any other option.

I'm seeing a third option in the SRD

(harmless)
The spell is usually beneficial, not harmful, but a targeted creature can attempt a saving throw if it desires.

The way it's worded, attempting a saving throw against a (harmless) spell is an opt-in process that requires conscious choice. Therefore, a dying character will implicitly resist charm and accept essentially all healing spells; though they will resist enlarge as well.

[Username17]

The way it's worded, attempting a saving throw against a (harmless) spell is an opt-in process that requires conscious choice. Therefore, a dying character will implicitly resist charm and accept essentially all healing spells; though they will resist enlarge as well.

No. It says you can opt in to making a save. It does not at any point say that the process for opting out is any different. The rules for not making a save are unchanged. And the rules for not making a save are still that you have to be willing to not make one.

For Harmless spells to grant a save waiver for characters who aren't willing as Ishy demands, there would have to be a rule somewhere that actually said that. Which there still isn't.

-Username17

[tussock]

Bullshit, Frank. In your headcannon, son. Not in the rules.

For Harmless spells to grant a save waiver for characters who aren't willing as Ishy demands, there would have to be a rule somewhere that actually said that. Which there still isn't.

p176, blue header "SAVING THROW" immediate text
"Usually a harmful spell allows a target to make a saving throw to avoid some or all of the effect."

So the default condition of saving throws in 3e is that "harmful" ones usually allow a save.

Sub-header (harmless) in full: "The spell is usually beneficial, not harmful, but a targeted creature can attempt a saving throw if desired."

So harmful spells allow a save, while with not harmful spells you can attempt one anyway, if desired.

So if you don't desire a save, or are neutral, or say unconscious, and the spell is not harmful by being marked as (harmless), there is no save. That's a rule. It's in English, but it's very much there.

But harmful spells? They usually allow a save, unless you voluntarily forego it, which you're obviously not volunteering anything when you're unconscious. That's a rule too.

But spells that only work on willing targets? None of them have saves. And if you're the target of a spell that is restricted to working on willing targets and are unconscious then you "are automatically considered willing". In the paragraph on willing targets, for target or targets spells, under aiming spells. That's another rule.

[Korwin]

Bullshit, Frank. In your headcannon, son. Not in the rules.

For Harmless spells to grant a save waiver for characters who aren't willing as Ishy demands, there would have to be a rule somewhere that actually said that. Which there still isn't.

p176, blue header "SAVING THROW" immediate text
"Usually a harmful spell allows a target to make a saving throw to avoid some or all of the effect."

So the default condition of saving throws in 3e is that "harmful" ones usually allow a save.

You do know there are harmful spells that dont allow saves regardless of willing or not? (Hint: the ones with saves: None in their description.) All this tells you is, that most of the harmfull spells have an saving throw.

Nothing in the part you quoted, tells us if they get an saving throw when the targets are unconcious.

[Username17]

Tussock, that's so retarded that I honestly can't tell if you're making fun of ishy or actually stupid. Whether or not the default condition was that harmful spells allowed saves, that wouldn't affect the specific case of any actual spell in the book that tells you whether there is a save or not.

The only question at issue is whether being unconscious, and thus considered "willing" makes you considered "willing" to not roll your saving throw for spells that have saving throws listed. That's it. The basic assumption of whether spells have saves isn't meaningful in the slightest.

-Username17

[violence in the media]

Aside from the actual rules argument going on here, this whole issue boils down to whether or not you feel that the players and NPCs should intrinsically know which team they're on and who is an ally with good intentions. If you feel that players should be able to accept spells cast by another player sitting at the table, but should always be able to resist spells cast by anything the MC is controlling, then you want some sort of distinction that allows unconscious people to know the difference between, and freely accept, the healing spells cast by your friend's Cleric, while still attempting to resist the Charm cast by the MC's Succubus.

You also probably want something where you freely accept all instances of your buddy casting Plane Shift to cart the party around the planes, right up until the point where he announces he's throwing your character into the Negative Energy Plane or some shit. At that point, the brakes mystically come on and you get to retroactively make saving throws and Sense Motive checks and all kinds of shit you never bothered with before to save your character from annihilation.

[Kaelik]

Tussock, that's so retarded that I honestly can't tell if you're making fun of ishy or actually stupid.

Tussock Is Always WrongTM

When in doubt, go with stupid.

[GâtFromKI]

Enlarge is not [harmless], since it can be used as a debuff as well as as a buff.

I agree with tussock: unconscious = can be targeted by teleport, must save against harmful spells, can't save against [harmless] spell, has an effective Dex of 0. Rules are poorly written, so instead of writing "an unconscious creature can be targeted by willing-only-spells", they wrote "is automatically willing". But it would be really strange if an unconscious creature could save against poison, but not against the spell Poison.

Anyway, a charmed creature won't save against flesh to stone, since he'll think you're casting enlarge or reduce person - or any other "harmful" spell which can also be used as a buff.

[Username17]

I agree with tussock

That's never a good sign. Tussock is almost always wrong, so if you find yourself agreeing with him, you should consider your position very very carefully. The most likely explanation is that you have made an error in judgement.

Rules are poorly written, so instead of writing "an unconscious creature can be targeted by willing-only-spells", they wrote "is automatically willing".

See right here is your error in reasoning. You are admitting that the rules do not say what you are claiming that they mean. Your argument is circular, that the rules mean what you want them to mean, and that the very real evidence against your position is merely bad writing. And how do we know that the rules "really mean" what you want them to mean? Because you feel it in your heart? Because you've managed to get yourself convinced by fucking Tussock of all people? How about instead we go back to the simpler case, where rules mean what they say until you give me a damn good reason to toss that aside?

But it would be really strange if an unconscious creature could save against poison, but not against the spell Poison.

This is not a good reason to ignore the printed text and invent extra rules layers that are consistent with some but not all of the text and claim that the same word in the same section is referring to completely different things without evidence. The fact that the spell poison works differently from drinking poison is not news. It definitely works differently than mundane poison, because it's a spell and carries all that baggage. Just for starters, it's affected by spell resistance.

There are always going to be edge cases no matter how you define allies, enemies, and the spells they are casting on you. Just look at the complete clusterfuck that is the 4e targeting rules (where you are your own enemy or some fucking thing). If the spells that had Harmless tags actually had a reverse burden of saving throw declarations (which is consistent with the way that the Harmless tag is described, but no rule to that effect actually exists) and this was the only thing that caused you to not save against Cure Light Wounds while you were unconscious, then we'd still have stupid edge cases. I mean, just for starters all Necromancers would have to save against healing effects while they were unconscious, because they are healed by harm spells that don't have the Harmless tag.

Saying that stupid shit would happen in weird circumstances if the rules weren't different isn't a strong argument for the rules being different. I don't think it's even possible to define the rules for targeting enemies and allies with spells sufficiently carefully that no stupid shit ever happens. But if you simply accept the rules of 3rd edition as they actually are and don't try to editorialize, you actually get substantially less stupid bullshit than any of the other interpretations being thrown around.

You don't get a save against spells, any spells, while you're unconscious. This produces zero problems or edge cases when your allies cast spells on you, because whatever tags those spells do and do not have, you still probably want that shit to go through. And it produces essentially no problems when your enemies cast spells on you, because you're already helpless and if they wanted they could just cut your fucking throat. Any spell they could cast on you is at worst just as bad as the coup de grace they could also be delivering.

Anyway, a charmed creature won't save against flesh to stone, since he'll think you're casting enlarge or reduce person - or any other "harmful" spell which can also be used as a buff.

This is true. A charmed creature will accept any spell you cast for the same reason that the fighter will accept an enlarge person. The harmless tag or lack thereof is irrelevant to that case.

-Username17

[Koumei]

I think the "Sleeping people get saves against spells" crowd are basically arguing from how they're sure the rules ought to work, which is all very well and good but that's an entirely different argument.

As is "Will the average MC rule this way?" (where a lot of the time I've seen them either make the assumption you do get a save or carefully read then basically say "Fuck you, I think they SHOULD")

You could even ask the creators, and assuming you could get them to care enough about 3Ed to answer you, and then actually run the stuff past them because they can't remember what they wrote last week, let alone many years ago, they could give an argument of what they think they intended. And that could be seen as pretty conclusive, though it still wouldn't affect the actual words on the pages, and that's still an argument of how things ought to be (I'm still not convinced it would be overall better for the game) and not how they are.

[Kaelik]

I think whether DMs in general or aggregate or average rule that you get saves on spells when you are unconscious is literally 10000000% determined by which spell gets cast on an unconscious person first.

If that spell is fucking Cure Light Wounds, they will rule no save is granted. If that spell is Inflict Light Wounds used to heal, or Water Breathing, or Teleport, they will say no save.

It it's a kill spell, chances are good they will just let it kill them.

But if it's dominate person, they will suddenly decide that of course spells grant saves to unconscious people, because WTF FUCK PLAYERS.

[Koumei]

This 100% matches my experience. The only time it'd cropped up with anything other than a Cure spell or teleport or whatever, it was a boring shitty Pathfinder game and I Charmed an orc that had been knocked out with a Colour Spray or Sleep spell, and then there was a debate. That basically ended with "fuck you".

[Ice9]

But if it's dominate person, they will suddenly decide that of course spells grant saves to unconscious people, because WTF FUCK PLAYERS.

Getting a save is "FUCK PLAYERS"? Personally, I'd much rather get the save. "You got knocked out for six seconds, now you're some caster's bitch; the fact that you have an awesome Will save means jack shit." sounds like some bullshit.

"But wait, Ice9, if you were unconscious anyway, they could have used CdG, this is no worse!"
1) They couldn't use CdG as a standard action from across the room with like five people between you and them.
2) DMs tend to hesitate about killing everyone off. CdG is not a given.

"You still get a save" is a position that helps players a lot more than it fucks them.

[Kaelik]

But if it's dominate person, they will suddenly decide that of course spells grant saves to unconscious people, because WTF FUCK PLAYERS.

Getting a save is "FUCK PLAYERS"? Personally, I'd much rather get the save. "You got knocked out for six seconds, now you're some caster's bitch; the fact that you have an awesome Will save means jack shit." sounds like some bullshit.

"But wait, Ice9, if you were unconscious anyway, they could have used CdG, this is no worse!"
1) They couldn't use CdG as a standard action from across the room with like five people between you and them.
2) DMs tend to hesitate about killing everyone off. CdG is not a given.

"You still get a save" is a position that helps players a lot more than it fucks them.

Since monsters go unconscious and get charm or dominate spells cast on them 50000000000000000 times more often than PCs.

And PCs go unconscious and have healing spells cast on them 5000000000000000 times more often than monsters.

Having a save is fucking PCs both coming and going.

[Ice9]

No see, in actual play, the (harmless) tag does what it sounds like and means that healing spells don't have a save even if Charm Person does. Because no GM I've played with has been so RAW-obsessed that they would read it as meaningless because of the shitty wording.

[Username17]

No see, in actual play, the (harmless) tag does what it sounds like and means that healing spells don't have a save even if Charm Person does. Because no GM I've played with has been so RAW-obsessed that they would read it as meaningless because of the shitty wording.

And then Necromancers have to save against their healing?

There are approximately zero times when the fact that you don't save against spells while unconscious is a problem for players. If you were unconscious and at the mercy of the enemy, then yes they can hit you with dominate and you don't get to save. But they could also just hit you with dominate more than once and eventually you'd fail a save. Team Monster doesn't typically meaningfully run out of spell slots while you are at their mercy.

Indeed, when all the players go unconscious, there's generally a big red "Game Over" sign flashing or the MC pulls some bullshit out of his ass to get things going again. We only actually care what the rules say about captured foes when the players have captured monsters. Because monsters being unconscious and players being conscious is the expected end of literally every single combat encounter. And tracking spell slots per week is something that I have maybe ever done for NPCs once in the last thirty years.

In the name of player empowerment you are advocating for a change in the rules that will hurt player characters in real circumstances you've seen hundreds of times in the name of defending them from a thing that you have never seen in your entire life. This is like voter ID laws levels of bullshit.

-Username17

[DSMatticus]

Dying characters are either going to always resist cure light wounds or always accept charm monster. The same mechanic governs both situations, and it doesn't leave you with any other option.

I'm seeing a third option in the SRD

(harmless)
The spell is usually beneficial, not harmful, but a targeted creature can attempt a saving throw if it desires.

The way it's worded, attempting a saving throw against a (harmless) spell is an opt-in process that requires conscious choice. Therefore, a dying character will implicitly resist charm and accept essentially all healing spells; though they will resist enlarge as well.

This is going to seem nitpicky, but I am going to have to point out that that is not what that actually says. "If you decide to, you resist the effect" does not imply "if you can't decide, you do not resist the effect." It does not even imply "if you decide not to, you don't resist the effect." You've assumed that nobody would write redundant or obvious information ("why would they be telling us we can attempt a saving throw if we want? Isn't that how the rules already work? They must mean something else!") in order to deduce further meaning from a sentence that is not actually there. But what if it means exactly what it says, and the sentence is just a clarification that harmless spells, despite being beneficial, can still be resisted?

Or compare these two sentences:
"The spell is usually beneficial, not harmful, but a targeted creature can attempt a saving throw if it desires."
"The spell is usually beneficial, not harmful, and a targeted creature will not attempt a saving throw unless it desires."

I do not think there is nearly enough evidence to get you from the first to the second. That's a hundred times more ridiculous than arguing that rules about saving throws were hidden in the targeting section, which is already a stretch in and of itself.

[ishy]

It's important to note that the decision to voluntarily forgo a saving throw is a conscious decision being made in-character with in-character information. People who are knocked the fuck out cannot make that decision. They cannot even perceive what is happening around them in order to help them make the decision. It is also important to note that the harmless tag has no mechanical interaction with the unconscious condition.

Lets put aside the baseless assertion that being unconscious means you take the action to voluntarily lower your saving throw for this piece here. Tell me what part of my logic you disagree with.
The rules state that against harmful spells you can take the action to voluntarily forgo a saving throw. Obviously you can't make that decision or decide on that action when you're unconscious.
The rules also state that you don't get a saving throw against harmless spells, but you can decide to take one anyway: "(harmless): The spell is usually beneficial, not harmful, but a targeted creature can attempt a saving throw if it desires." Obviously, you can't make that conscious decision when you're unconscious.
So you get a save by default against hostile spells that you can't forgo if you're unconscious and you don't get a save by default against spells with the (harmless) tag, that you can't choose to take when you're conscious.

---

I think the "Sleeping people get saves against spells" crowd are basically arguing from how they're sure the rules ought to work, which is all very well and good but that's an entirely different argument.

As is "Will the average MC rule this way?" (where a lot of the time I've seen them either make the assumption you do get a save or carefully read then basically say "Fuck you, I think they SHOULD")

You could even ask the creators, and assuming you could get them to care enough about 3Ed to answer you, and then actually run the stuff past them because they can't remember what they wrote last week, let alone many years ago, they could give an argument of what they think they intended. And that could be seen as pretty conclusive, though it still wouldn't affect the actual words on the pages, and that's still an argument of how things ought to be (I'm still not convinced it would be overall better for the game) and not how they are.

Actually is the exact opposite, unlike the other assertion that there are somehow secret hidden rules in play, we're actually quoting the rules. The rules state you get a save vs harmful spells. There are no rules that state you don't get one if you're unconscious, that is just something people here have made up for no reason, with no rule support in the books for it at all. Hell, there is even an archetype specifically to make your charm spell harder to resist if you cast it on an unconscious enemy.

Dreamweaver[/url]]At 2nd level, when a dreamweaver casts a mind-affecting spell on a target that is sleeping because of her slumber hex or a spell she cast, she adds +1 to the mind-affecting spell's DC. If the target succeeds at the saving throw against the spell, it does not wake up, nor does it have any recollection of having resisted a spell.

---

Now it states that in the sub-heading for "aiming a spell." But you would have to have extraordinary evidence that this text does not also apply to other instances of the word "willing" within the same superheading, which is "spells."

I'm not pulling the "unconscious creatures are willing" bit out of my ass. It's in the rules. And it's literally in the same section as the one about willing creatures forgoing saves. I'm not asking you to prove a negative to some assertion with no basis. I'm making the entirely uncontroversial statement that two rules in the same section that use the same keyword are actually referencing the same keyword. You are the one who is claiming that the same word ("willing" in this case) is intended to refer to different game mechanically distinct states within the same chapter. That is the extraordinary claim.

Uhmm no. You have to provide evidence it does apply. Keep in mind it is in a different section of the rules, talking about something else, in a different context, on a different page, not even using the same wording and it doesn't refer to each other at all. There is no evidence whatsoever to even suggest they apply to each other. Unless you want to make the argument that unconscious means willing applies to everything for which willing is relevant, in which case the entire game breaks.
And like Grek said: "Just because they're willing doesn't mean it'll happen.". Keep in mind the actual rule text is:"Voluntarily Giving up a Saving Throw: A creature can voluntarily forego a saving throw and willingly accept a spell's result.".

Here is a challenge for you, disproof that falling unconscious does not make you willing and thus switch alignment.

This is a gibberish claim. Being "willing" does not make you switch alignments. Switching alignments happens when you are "desirous" and "freely choose" to do so. Whether you have the "willing" tag or not has no specific effect on alignment changing. It won't even let people switch your alignment with atonement, since again the willing tag is insufficient to provoke an alignment change.

Here let me quote it again for you:

The beacon of true faith is destroyed if its bearer turns against the worship of his deity to willingly embrace an opposite alignment.

Critically, the changing alignment uses the exact same wording as voluntarily forgoing a saving throw. The fact that both are just as gibberish is the point.

As for sleepwalk, I don't feel compelled to offer any explanation for that spell at all. It's an obscure and incredibly badly written spell from a sourcebook even the game designers have not read.

I'm assuming the other spell I can easily find (like nightmare, suffocate etc.) that I can link to don't count either.

[Ice9]

There are approximately zero times when the fact that you don't save against spells while unconscious is a problem for players. If you were unconscious and at the mercy of the enemy, then yes they can hit you with dominate and you don't get to save. But they could also just hit you with dominate more than once and eventually you'd fail a save. Team Monster doesn't typically meaningfully run out of spell slots while you are at their mercy.

So if one person (not the whole party) gets KO'd ...

Scenario A: Enemy caster casts Dominate Person. PC gets a save and succeeds. Next round, PC receives healing and gets back up.

Scenario B: Enemy caster casts Dominate Person. No save. Next round, PC receives healing and gets back up. Then the enemy telepathically commands them to GTFO as fast as possible and they do. Other PCs are unlikely to be in position to stop them. If the caster survives, they later rendezvous with their new minion via the telepathic link.

Do those sound the same to you?

[Ice9]

And then Necromancers have to save against their healing?

The only people who get healed by negative energy are:

A) Undead, who wouldn't be KO'd anyway because they don't take nonlethal damage.
B) People with Tomb Tainted Soul, which didn't exist when the rule was written.
C) People with third party classes.

So no, I don't consider the fact that the rule doesn't work well with material that didn't exist when it was written to be a strike against it.

[Username17]

There are approximately zero times when the fact that you don't save against spells while unconscious is a problem for players. If you were unconscious and at the mercy of the enemy, then yes they can hit you with dominate and you don't get to save. But they could also just hit you with dominate more than once and eventually you'd fail a save. Team Monster doesn't typically meaningfully run out of spell slots while you are at their mercy.

So if one person (not the whole party) gets KO'd ...

Scenario A: Enemy caster casts Dominate Person. PC gets a save and succeeds. Next round, PC receives healing and gets back up.

Scenario B: Enemy caster casts Dominate Person. No save. Next round, PC receives healing and gets back up. Then the enemy telepathically commands them to GTFO as fast as possible and they do. Other PCs are unlikely to be in position to stop them. If the caster survives, they later rendezvous with their new minion via the telepathic link.

Do those sound the same to you?

Scenario C: No one casts dominate person on unconscious targets while there are conscious targets. Seriously. Not one person has ever done that in the entire history of the universe. And the only reason someone will ever do that is out of a childish need to prove the preceding sentence wrong.

Also, there are very few characters who would ever be in a position to heal an unconscious party member to consciousness in the middle of a fight and yet not have the spellcraft chops to recognize a dominate person spell being cast. Your scenario is ridiculous coming and going. It has never happened. And if you weren't being so reflexively contrary, I would be able to confidently state that it also will never happen. There is no reason for that scenario to ever take place and because of that it never has.

-Username17

[virgil]

In a prior campaign, one of my monsters used magic jar on the party's monk while they were unconscious in a fight. The cleric healed them to consciousness, and promptly got punched by the possessed monk. I allowed a save for the possession, out of habit more than reasoned understanding of the rules one way or the other, though in retrospect I strongly doubt the players would've been happy with me had I gone "LOL no save!" in that circumstance.

[DSMatticus]

Ishy, everything you say is misleading.

Lets put aside the baseless assertion that being unconscious means you take the action to voluntarily lower your saving throw for this piece here. Tell me what part of my logic you disagree with.

The game has actions that take no time. They're called free actions, and can sometimes be taken when it's not your turn. The game does not call this a free action. It's not an action at all. Determining whether or not you want to make saving throw is just part of the process of making a saving throw. No action is required. By comparison, lowering your spell resistance is an action, and it is explicitly described as such in the very same section.

The rules state that against harmful spells you can take the action to voluntarily forgo a saving throw. Obviously you can't make that decision or decide on that action when you're unconscious.

The word "harmful" does not appear anywhere in the rule we are discussing. The full rule is "A creature can voluntarily forgo a saving throw and willingly accept a spell's result. Even a character with a special resistance to magic can suppress this quality."

The rules also state that you don't get a saving throw against harmless spells, but you can decide to take one anyway: "(harmless): The spell is usually beneficial, not harmful, but a targeted creature can attempt a saving throw if it desires." Obviously, you can't make that conscious decision when you're unconscious.

That is absolutely not how English or logic works. The rules state that if you decide to you may attempt a saving throw, and you have inferred from this that if you did not decide to you may not. This is called denying the antecedent. It's an inference you've projected into the rules because a strictly literal reading is redundant with existing rules - but sometimes the rules genuinely do present redundant information either because oops or for the purposes of clarification.

---

---

---

The fact is that there are six possible situations. Let's grab our first bit of evidence ("A creature can voluntarily forgo a saving throw and willingly accept a spell's result. Even a character with a special resistance to magic can suppress this quality.") and fill out a table with it.

		Spell is not harmless	Spell is harmless
	Wants to resist	Attempt a save.	Attempt a save.
	Wants not to resist	Do not attempt a save.	Do not attempt a save.
	Unconscious	Attempt a save???	Attempt a save???

Let's update our table with the next bit of evidence: "The [harmless] spell is usually beneficial, not harmful, but a targeted creature can attempt a saving throw if it desires."

		Spell is not harmless	Spell is harmless
	Wants to resist	Attempt a save.	Attempt a save.
	Wants not to resist	Do not attempt a save.	Do not attempt a save.
	Unconscious	Attempt a save???	Attempt a save???

Yes, the table is the exact fucking same. All that rule says is that if you are at (wants to resist, spell is harmless) you attempt a save. We already knew that. I get that it says "but," and that is apparently super confusing, but the "but" is clearly referring back to the spell being beneficial in order to clarify that beneficial spells can still be resisted, and not referring back to an unstated assumption that harmless spells have a different default behavior. Compare these two sentences:

"The spell is usually beneficial, but a targeted creature can attempt a saving throw if it desires."
"Characters do not normally attempt saving throws against harmless spells, but a targeted creature may do so if it desires."

See how the second clearly sets a different general rule for harmless spells, and the "but" is used to carve out a specific exception to that rule? See how the first... doesn't do that? Anyway, so now we're at the point where unconscious characters attempt all saving throws always and dying people hate it when you cast cure light wounds on them. And then there's this line from the "aiming a spell, target or targets" section: "Unconscious creatures are automatically considered willing, but a character who is conscious but immobile or helpless (such as one who is bound, cowering, grappling, paralyzed, pinned, or stunned) is not automatically willing." If you believe that that statement applies only to choosing targets as part of aiming a spell (as that is the section it appears in), then the table is unchanged. If you believe that that's a broad declaration about how spells interact with unconscious characters, then the table looks like this:

		Spell is not harmless	Spell is harmless
	Wants to resist	Attempt a save.	Attempt a save.
	Wants not to resist	Do not attempt a save.	Do not attempt a save.
	Unconscious	Do not attempt a save.	Do not attempt a save.

I am not at all persuaded by the argument that "but even if a spell is harmless you can still have your save, whatever floats your boat man" was ever meant to be - and it certainly isn't by any strict logical reading - an inversion of the normal rules governing unconscious characters (whatever those may be).

[maglag]

And then there's this line from the "aiming a spell, target or targets" section: "Unconscious creatures are automatically considered willing, but a character who is conscious but immobile or helpless (such as one who is bound, cowering, grappling, paralyzed, pinned, or stunned) is not automatically willing."

You're ommiting a key part of the rules.

"Some spells restrict you to willing targets only. Declaring yourself as a willing target is something that can be done at any time (even if you’re flat-footed or it isn’t your turn). Unconscious creatures are automatically considered willing, but a character who is conscious but immobile or helpless (such as one who is bound, cowering, grappling, paralyzed, pinned, or stunned) is not automatically willing. "

The whole "unconscious creatures count as willing" is a subset of the spells that specifically can only target "willing creatures", like teleport. It's only to be applied to that kind of spells, and no others. Otherwise it would be written in some place before.

Besides as already pointed out, we have spells like Nightmare that specifically target unconscious creatures, being harmful and allowing a save.

[Kaelik]

True story, that random Pathfinder change that makes people who cast Nightmare get Fort saves... It means that while in a trance you don't get saves against say, Dominate Person. But you do get saves against... Wind effects. You can be in the middle of Tornado created by Control Winds, and make your save, and your tranced body will refuse to move.