Battle: Angel Summoner vs BMX Bandit

[SorO_Lost]

Link you still are making zero freaking sense. You butt in here and demand that Gate's usage of "compulsion" has zero rule value and it should be treated as a typical English word. But then you fail to understand the same BS can be said about "command". IE "I command you to post your social security number", and I very much doubt you're going to do that. Without any rule value the requirement to obey doesn't exist. But to you "command" has rule value but the word you don't like has none. It's a double standard of unfairness.

Then you run off and say Compulsion isn't Mind-Affecting when the rules say it is. Either through inheritance from Enchantment for the Subschool or the Special Abilities based entry that within its own text it covers all spells and all abilities. All spells meaning Abjuration of even Gate. You claiming it's not is you arguing with printed rules, a meaningless futile debate.

And then still yet, you agree. Gate's usage is a [Compulsion], so why are you even arguing it isn't? First 2/3s of your post don't even have a reason to be typed up. Instead, you want to say it's not Mind-Affecting because Gate it's self lacks the Tag. Wow, just wow. What next? Prismatic Spray doesn't deal Fire damage because it lacks that descriptor too?

I think the reason I can't understand a damn thing your saying is because you just pick and mix a lot of bullshit to invent some point and it ends up as a single incoherent mess of jibberish. But here is what it boils down to, you agree its [Compulsion] based and RC says for a fact its Mind-Affecting. So that is the end of that, no more to discuss with you there.

On the is it or isn't it binary, eg Deities/Uniques are not under Compulsion, then the rest are _insert_blank_here_, I've already mentioned it is an assumption of no third option multiple times. And in those same mentions, also there is nothing present to suggest there should be a third option. So you have no reason to bring this up, unless you can state with facts there is or isn't a 3rd possibility. And you aren't, you just want the possibility known and think that's proof to argue otherwise. It's known and not it's not.

So, why are you here at all? Either you're arguing against your self, the books, or just making long confusing posts to highlight what was already established several times by the guy you think your arguing against days or even weeks ago? And when answering this question, try to be specific and consistent. Be mindful of the rules and what you're already agreeing to as well, it'd help.

Edit - Cleaned the post a little when I got home.

[linklord231]

When did I ever say that compulsion isn't mind effecting?  Stop putting words in my mouth.  My point was that it doesn't fucking matter.  Commanding is not a mind effecting effect, regardless of whether compulsion is.  Otherwise, Command Undead and similar spells would not work. 
"Command" does have a rule value - but it only applies to undead who have half as many Hit Dice as the cleric who rebuked them.  In the case of Gate, it's using the English definition of command, which I quoted at you as meaning something other than what you say it does. 

Gate's "call creatures" function does not produce a Compulsion effect - in fact, it goes out of its way to say that things aren't compelled.  It pulls creatures through (not a compulsion), grants you control over them (not a compulsion), and allows you to command them (not a compulsion).  Your only basis for claiming that Gate is a Compulsion is based on a logical fallacy, that the inverse of a statement is necessarily true.  You admitted this to be the case, but you're still arguing it.   

[Halinn]

Someone who is neutral with respect to law and chaos has a normal respect for authority and feels neither a compulsion to obey nor a compulsion to rebel.

By SorO's argument with regards to deities/uniques not being under a compulsion meaning that everything else gated in is, I claim that someone lawful or chaotic can be fundamentally changed with a Mind Blank.

[SorO_Lost]

When did I ever say that compulsion isn't mind effecting?  Stop putting words in my mouth.

You're right, Halinn started it and you only joined in with a smart ass comment arguing against me. So you haven't out righted stated such and obviously, that's the only thing you care about right? Like "You' e a d mb ss and I hope   u d e in fir" isn't insulting anyone because I "technically" never said it. Which is all you care about given your mannerism and rule reading apparently.

Anyway.

Your only basis for claiming that Gate is a Compulsion is based on a logical fallacy, that the inverse of a statement is necessarily true.  You admitted this to be the case, but you're still arguing it.   

And you brought this up and whined about it for damn near a page when it was already mentioned? Really, for as terrible as you think I am you're dragging me to your level.

I also submit that while the inverse not be an absolute fact, the lack of something in an area it would never be, is not nor ever will be strong point either. Compulsion the Subschool cannot be placed on a a none-Enchantment based spell. However, I could care less about the Subschool, seeing how I've been talking about the Special Abilities entry this entire time. Even backing up to page 7 when I mentioned the SRD hyperlinks to it, where do you think it goes?

The SA based entry covers many spells and abilities, yes Abilities as in the Ex/Su and even Na which would never have a a school/subschool header to begin with, and says "a compulsion makes the subject obey the caster^DMG" & "a compulsion makes the subject obey the effect’s parameters or the effect’s creator, or both.^RC". To which, Gate certainly is an effect that does exactly that. Maybe this is where your Command Undead comment originally comes in, but that's Specific trumping general as Undead says you can command the targeted Undead which obviously holds presence over general rules that you normally can't. But we're not talking about if Command Undead fails or not, we're talking about Gate.

So inversion equivalence and a general rule not overridden supports one side. To counter that you have the lack of something in a place it should never be and more lack of something. It's pretty easy to see which has the most support and which has the weakest point to it. You're just batting for the wrong side.

[brujon]

At this point i'd just like to interject for a minute, that the Gate spell is one of the most unbalanced in all of D&D, core and non core, and the interpretation that it really imparts a compulsion effect on the non-unique non-deific creatures it summons, being not only something that can be easily inferred from the text and is not a stretch, would make for a really big nerf on the Gate spell.

Interpreting it that way means:

- You can still use Gate to call beings immune to mind-affecting, but you'll be FORCED to use the second use of the spell, where you need to make a bargain with them first, so you can't really use that as an option in combat.

- Any opponent can dispel the compulsion effect by casting a Protection from X spell, or Mind Blank, or any other spell that disrupts mind-affecting, effectively making the creatures Uncontrolled and thus possibly ending the threat.

For me, personally, i think it's a fair way of interpreting things, and it's not a stretch for what is written in the description of the spell. I'll definitely be using this interpretation in my games, and advocating for it in others.

[SorO_Lost]

- Any opponent can dispel the compulsion effect by casting a Protection from X spell, or Mind Blank, or any other spell that disrupts mind-affecting, effectively making the creatures Uncontrolled and thus possibly ending the threat.

And fyi.

Protection from X does not care if it's tagged Compulsion or Enchantment. Any form of mental domination is blocked and any and all control is lost. Again what Gate's command elemental certainly is. Making the Compulsion argument at best a case for adding additional choices to use, such as Mind-Blank and the like.

[linklord231]

I brought it up again because I thought it was worth repeating.  If you can't see why an argument based on a fallacy is an invalid argument, then there is obviously something strange going on inside your head.

It is terribly difficult to engage with you when you don't state what you find lacking in my arguments.  It's almost like you can't point to specific things about what's wrong with them. 

Edit:  Protection from Evil may or may not work, depending on how you read "mental control," and how you read Gate.  If you read "mental control" as opposed to "verbal control," AND you read Gate as requiring verbal communication, then ProtEvil doesn't work.  If you read it pretty much any other way, ProtEvil works.  Of course, if you read that much in to ProtEvil, it makes it almost as good as Mind Blank, except that it doesn't protect you from divination.

[SorO_Lost]

I brought it up again because I thought it was worth repeating.  If you can't see why an argument based on a fallacy is an invalid argument, then there is obviously something strange going on inside your head.

As noted it has more than the fallacy working for it but you don't get that. But anyway, obviously we're going to disagree.

Edit:  Protection from Evil may or may not work, depending on how you read "mental control," and how you read Gate.  If you read "mental control" as opposed to "verbal control," AND you read Gate as requiring verbal communication, then ProtEvil doesn't work.  If you read it pretty much any other way, ProtEvil works.  Of course, if you read that much in to ProtEvil, it makes it almost as good as Mind Blank, except that it doesn't protect you from divination.

omfg there you go again. Not only does "mental control" have nothing to do with Telepathy, but it has squat diddly dick with type of communications involved (have a wiki link smartass). In fact, the parenthesis'ed examples lists Charm effects which includes stuff like Charm Person which is verbal only. Zombie Jesus, it's like talking to a two year old into going to bed. And yes if you read into it it becomes more powerful not less. So why even go there?

Because you are a sore loser trolling me for the fun of it like an asshat. Nit picking every god damn word claiming it means something else. Do me a favor, click this and throw your self into fucking traffic. Heaven forbid you ever get a chance to breed.

[linklord231]

Good God man, don't you know a joke when you see it?  Obviously ProtEvil works, because the alternative explanation is an absurdity (as you oh-so-cleverly pointed out). 

[Agita]

SorO, telling other people to commit suicide in various ways is crossing the line. Calm the hell down. If the conversation isn't getting anywhere, then it's time to abandon it.

[bruceleeroy]

I agree with Agita. When you're resorting to ad hominem, you're not arguing fairly.

Linklord brings up a good point, that being that the spell lacks the (Compulsion) tag or the [Mind-affecting] tag. To say that Gate is mind affecting is probably a houserule, whether or not it's RAI, it's not RAW.

A clear example is Daze. The spell lists both the mind affecting and the compulsion tag. However, the condition in the glossary does not list it as a mind-affecting effect. Given that there are abilities able to daze undead, it's clear that daze as a condition does not always carry the mind affecting tag.

So, it seems clear that if the spell does not specifically mention it being a mind-affecting effect, then by RAW it is not. Any arguments to the contrary deal with RAI, not RAW.

Whether or not it's a reasonable interpretation is an entirely different discussion.


Also, linklord, an argument containing a fallacy does not necessitate a false conclusion. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy

[zugschef]

Linklord brings up a good point, that being that the spell lacks the (Compulsion) tag or the [Mind-affecting] tag. To say that Gate is mind affecting is probably a houserule, whether or not it's RAI, it's not RAW.

ftfy

[linklord231]

Also, linklord, an argument containing a fallacy does not necessitate a false conclusion. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy

It doesn't necessitate a false conclusion, but it's still an invalid argument.  And if that's the only reason you have to believe something...

[SorO_Lost]

Good God man, don't you know a joke when you see it?

I'm sorry, didn't you toss intent out the window for absolute strict readings? You were trolling in that statement and never once said joke, until you realized that a Mod would undoubtedly be stepping in soon and posted a second time...

SorO, telling other people to commit suicide in various ways is crossing the line. Calm the hell down. If the conversation isn't getting anywhere, then it's time to abandon it.

I'm always calm. But yes, my posts get more and more extreme the as my respect for the guy and his stupid shenanigans goes down. Really, if you've exhausted your self explaining things several times and the guy doesn't get it, then it's a matter of expending as little time as you can on them, possibly using extreme measures to get the point they miss across.

But I can "retire" from this debate easy enough. I feel I've milked it for all it can offer.

[OutlawPhilosopher]

Also, linklord, an argument containing a fallacy does not necessitate a false conclusion. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy

It doesn't necessitate a false conclusion, but it's still an invalid argument.  And if that's the only reason you have to believe something...

Technically false (though irrelevantly, in the context of current argument.) Consider the argument
1. "All x such that x=x are P"
2. "Fred is P"
C. "therefore, Fred is Fred."

This is valid, and, depending on whether Fred is P, sound. However, it is based on a fallacy - affirming the consequent (well, a dequantified version of). It gets to be valid only because (C) is a logical truth.

A sillier example would be
1. "If Fred is a Liar, then Fred is not Fred"
2. "Fred is not Fred"
C. "Therefore, Fred is a Liar"

This is valid because (2) is a contradiction, so there is no model in which (~C) but (1) and (2). It is also based on a fallacy - affirming the consequent again. Obviously this argument can never be sound.