Magic and the willing

[Username17]

You are not willing while unconscious. You are only considered willing for the purposes of the specific subset of spells mentioned.

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.

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

[SphereOfFeetMan]

No. At no point does it ever make the distinction that any of that consideration is only for one purpose or another.

False.

1. Some spells restrict you to willing targets only.
2. 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).
3. 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.

Look at the last bolded sentence. Consider it by itself, what does it mean? The word 'spell' does not occur anywhere in that sentence. So what does it mean? It is simple, the meaning of that sentence is incomplete by itself because there is nothing which states what being "willing" does.

So we must look at the previous sentence to find out what being "willing" does. This doesn't help much, because it just states that declaring willingness can be done at any time. So we must go to the first sentence.

The first sentence tells us what this willingness is in reference to. It states "Some spells restrict you to willing targets only." It should be obvious that the second and third sentences can only be in reference to these particular spells which restrict you to willing targets only.

[Manxome]

Sphere, the rules you are using to parse those statements are not the normal rules of English grammar.

If I write "Some rectangles are squares. Any quadrilateral with four interior right angles is considered a rectangle." The first sentence does not change the meaning of "rectangle" for following sentence to refer only to squares. "Rectangle" still means "rectangle," not "some specific subset of rectangles mentioned in some previous sentence."

Similarly, "considered willing" in sentence 3, if we are parsing by the normal rules of grammar, does not mean "considered willing only for purposes alluded to in a nearby sentence", it means "considered willing, with everything that entails."

You could potentially make the case based on the context that the person writing the rules was only thinking about spells that are restricted to willing targets, but then you are seriously arguing about the intent of the rules rather than what's actually written, and your argument implies that the actual written rules are in error. I've seen many games in which arguments of that sort are extremely convincing, because the RAW are obvious BS, but that's what you'd have to argue in order to support your position.

The actual words you are quoting clearly do not say what you are claiming they say.

[SphereOfFeetMan]

Similarly, "considered willing" in sentence 3, if we are parsing by the normal rules of grammar, does not mean "considered willing only for purposes alluded to in a nearby sentence", it means "considered willing, with everything that entails."

Ok. So what does that entail?

The answer is nothing. There is nothing defined in that sentence for what "considered willing, with everything that entails" actually means.

So the only possible recourse is to read the previous sentences. And from that we learn the only possible thing being "willing" can mean is in reference to a subset of spells.

[Manxome]

There is nothing defined in that sentence for what "considered willing, with everything that entails" actually means.

There is also nothing in that sentence that defines the meaning of "unconscious creatures," "conscious," "immobile," "helpless," "bound," "cowering," "grappling," "paralyzed," "pinned," "stunned," or "automatically."

Just as there was nothing in my geometry example that specified all the implications of being considered a rectangle.

If we applied your line of reasoning consistently to all terms in all sentences, it would be impossible to communicate.

Those words and expressions all mean what they mean, which has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with what sentences happen to precede them. Their meanings are defined by common usage in the language and/or by the other rules of the game; whether those rules happen to immediately precede the sentence is irrelevant. Sentence 1 gives one implication of willingness, but that does not preclude the possibility of other implications, and there is not even the slightest hint anywhere in the rules you quoted that the word "willing" in sentence 3 is in any way more restricted than the default, context-free definition of "willing," whatever that happens to be.

So, if we follow those rules as written, unconscious creatures are automatically considered "willing." Period. Because that's exactly what it says.

I don't know how I can make this any clearer. If you are convinced that, grammatically, "willing" in sentence three means "willing only for purposes of spells that are restricted to willing targets," then you are not fluent in English, because that's not how the language works.

[SphereOfFeetMan]

There is also nothing in that sentence that defines the meaning of "unconscious creatures," "conscious," "immobile," "helpless," "bound," "cowering," "grappling," "paralyzed," "pinned," "stunned," or "automatically."

The words "unconscious," "creatures," "helpless," "cowering," "grappling,""paralyzed," "pinned," and "stunned" are all defined game terms. The meanings of the other words you listed can be easily inferred. "Willingness" cannot be (see below).

So, if we follow those rules as written, unconscious creatures are automatically considered "willing." Period. Because that's exactly what it says.

I don't know how I can make this any clearer. If you are convinced that, grammatically, "willing" in sentence three means "willing only for purposes of spells that are restricted to willing targets," then you are not fluent in English, because that's not how the language works.

"Willing" is not a defined game term. Therefore we have to go by common usage in language. By that standard, the unconscious creature is willing for everything. This turns into some kind of stupid Weekend at Bernie's joke.

Ubernoobs post makes the ridiculousness of this evident. The unconscious creature is willing for everything: sex, cutting their hair, putting them in a funny hat, dragging them all over the place, etc.

When I say: "There is nothing defined in that sentence for what "considered willing, with everything that entails" actually means." I mean that what the sentence says is irrelevant to the mechanics of the game in so many ways, there can be no serious or meaningful interpretation within the framework of the game.

[Manxome]

"Willing" is not a defined game term.

That implies that there can be no game mechanical effect of being "willing," since it is not a defined game term.

The fact that there exist spells that can only affect willing targets proves that "willing" is a technical piece of game terminology. In fact, that's what the argument is about in the first place, unless I am quite lost. So if you're now arguing that it is not a technical game term, I'm forced to conclude your argument is self-contradictory.


You have also argued that "willing" is a technical term that is distinct from voluntarily forfeiting a saving throw. That is a completely independent line of argument that I have not so far commented upon.

But your current line of argumentation is crap. It is obviously a technical term. And even if it wasn't, your methodology for assigning it a definition would still be absurd.

[SphereOfFeetMan]

The fact that there exist spells that can only affect willing targets proves that "willing" is a technical piece of game terminology.

It is a term used in the mechanics of the game. But it isn't defined anywhere.

In fact, that's what the argument is about in the first place, unless I am quite lost. So if you're now arguing that it is not a technical game term, I'm forced to conclude your argument is self-contradictory.

I'll try to be more clear. "Willing" is not defined anywhere. As a result of this, we must go by common language usage. This obviously produces ludicrous and irrelevant meaning within the third sentence. I am arguing that "Willing" can best be defined by the context of the game. Namely, that the term is supposed to be describing the preceding two sentences when they state "Willing targets." If you look in the 'target' line of spell descriptions, you will sometimes see the word "willing." So I am arguing that the third sentence is a continuation of thought of the first two sentences, and can only have a relevant meaning in the game within that context. I am not arguing that it is grammatically correct.

[Manxome]

Implicitly defined terms are still defined. If you've got a rule saying that characters have a maximum HP and you lose HP when you take damage and you gain HP when you rest and you become incapacitated when your HP reaches a certain threshold, then HP is a clearly defined game mechanism whether or not you actually have a sentence somewhere that summarizes all of these mechanics at once or describes what HP represents in the narrative.

Your decision to look only at the preceding two sentences and not at any other part of the rules to figure out what the term means is arbitrary. That's like reading "Some spells can only target dead creatures. Creatures with 0 HP or less are considered dead." and then deciding that creatures with 0 HP or less are considered dead only for purposes of spells that only target dead creatures, and not for the rules printed elsewhere that say that dead characters cannot perceive their surroundsings, take action, or heal from resting.

[SphereOfFeetMan]

Your decision to look only at the preceding two sentences and not at any other part of the rules to figure out what the term means is arbitrary.

I guess it would be. But I cannot find any other rules that address it.

[Crissa]

Target and save are different mechanics. Just because someone isn't resisting you touching them doesn't mean they don't get a save.

Target? yes/no --> Save? yes/no

Different mechanics, screwed up by the wording. You can still decide to make a save even though the spell is harmless. How is this different?

Unconscious =/= Voluntary.

-Crissa

[JonSetanta]

Yuck. I've never been disgusted by an overabundance of multiquotes.... at least, until now.

Bets on how many pages more until Sphere gives up this odd insistence?
I'd say 2 more pages.

[SphereOfFeetMan]

Frank, I will try to explain this again:

-'Willing’ is a state of being, there is no action taking place, it is an adjective that describes a creature.
-’Forego’ is an action, it is not a state of being, it is a verb. The same is true for the word ‘accept.’

So, you are arguing that being in a ‘willing’ unconscious state allows you to take an action. There is no common language rule, or game rule, that supports this claim.

Therefore, creatures are not able to forego their saving throws versus spells while unconscious. In other words, creatures get a saving throw versus spells while unconscious.

End of argument.

I don't know what else to say if you continue with this “Weekend at Bernie’s Defense.”

[Kaelik]

Frank, I will try to explain this again:

-'Willing’ is a state of being, there is no action taking place, it is an adjective that describes a creature.
-’Forego’ is an action, it is not a state of being, it is a verb. The same is true for the word ‘accept.’

So, you are arguing that being in a ‘willing’ unconscious state allows you to take an action. There is no common language rule, or game rule, that supports this claim.

Therefore, creatures are not able to forego their saving throws versus spells while unconscious. In other words, creatures get a saving throw versus spells while unconscious.

End of argument.

I don't know what else to say if you continue with this “Weekend at Bernie’s Defense.”

Well I would personally point to the part that you yourself quoted that says:

"declaring yourself willing is a free action that can be taken at any time."

As yet another example of each of your arguments contradicting all your previous ones.

[SphereOfFeetMan]

Well I would personally point to the part that you yourself quoted that says:

"declaring yourself willing is a free action that can be taken at any time."

As yet another example of each of your arguments contradicting all your previous ones.

First off, I can find no post where I said what you have in quotation marks.

Secondly, there is no contradiction in my post. Yes, you are considered 'willing' while unconscious. The point is, this doesn't allow you to do anything.