Topic: Calm Spell List ruling - Need GM Ruling clafication

[Marc]

2. Calm I – Target will take no aggressive/offensive action, and will fight only if attacked.

Running into a grey area here during play. Spell says target will take no aggressive/offensive action.

Specific Example: 4 Trolls atack the players. The players calm 2 of the trolls. All the players engage the other 2 trolls. Afew rounds later the 2 non calmed trolls disengaged from melee and move back at the same time the calm trolls moved forward in front of the other trolls.

The GM idea here was the calmed trolls were in front with the others in the back so the players would attack the calmed trolls and break the calm.

The question: Is moving the calmed trolls towards the players and trying to block/cover the advance to the wounded trolls. Is that considered an aggressive action?

Also, give an example of an aggresive action besides attacking in melee or casting a spell on the players. Try to be clear and to the point.

[Marc R]

I'd feel like pushing into the midst of melee is an aggressive action. If the trolls are intelligent enough and know what's going on, there's no reason why the the un-calmed trolls can't act to hide behind the calm trolls to try to provoke the PCs into breaking them out of their calm. So in the end, almost the same effect could be accomplished. . .

[markc]

A) I do not like to say anything against GM's running their games as it is there world.




1) I would have not had the trolls move forward but I would have let the wounded trolls move past/behind the calmed trolls, if the trolls were intelligent enough in my opinion as a GM.


MDC

[providence13]

2. Calm I – Target will take no aggressive/offensive action, and will fight only if attacked.

Running into a grey area here during play. Spell says target will take no aggressive/offensive action.
..later the 2 non calmed trolls disengaged from melee and move back at the same time the calm trolls moved forward in front of the other trolls.

The GM idea here was the calmed trolls were in front with the others in the back so the players would attack the calmed trolls and break the calm.

The question: Is moving the calmed trolls towards the players and trying to block/cover the advance to the wounded trolls. Is that considered an aggressive action?

I don't play RMC/2.
With that said, I'm pretty sure the basics are real similar to RMSS/FRP. This spell induces magical calm! Dangit.
The target stands there and doesn't have a care in the world -unless someone attacks them.
Why would they move up to the front ranks? They don't care.
Why would they try to protect the wounded trolls. They don't care.
The magically calmed trolls aren't being attacked. Sure, the other trolls can hide behind their calmed buddies. But why would this "break" the calm?
So maybe the PC's attack the calmed trolls. The trolls can now attack only in self-defense; it sounds like Full Parry to me.
But I don't see them Full Parrying unless the PC's attacked.

With all that said, this event establishes a precedent. This is important in our games. If you are a player in this game and the GM came clean as to the exact motivations and rules involved, then you have a golden ticket out of Calm in the future!
Goose/Gander.

[Cory Magel]

Huh. Interesting. Well, you could see a calm human trying to break up a fight in this manner... but I think that's a bit of a reach for Trolls.  At the same time I find it a very minor reach to say that two calm trolls would not be concerned that their cohorts are being hacked to death.

Still, the way I would have handled it was have the non-calm trolls try to use the calm trolls as effective cover and if the characters pursued them I could see the calmed trolls becoming alarmed by the fact that armed and angry looking humans were approaching them.

However, as providence13 said... it is a precedent.  It's time to ask the GM "So, you're going to let us do this from now on huh?" and see how they react to that possibility.  This happened a decent amount in our games once upon a time (i.e. the GM's ruling was suspect, but as long as he let us use the tactic we didn't quibble much.  Also, possibly more importantly, was the reverse.  When the GM disallowed us to do something we would hold him to it when somethings else tried to do it to us).

[kevinmccollum]

The trolls can now attack only in self-defense

This seems to be a common opinion concerning this spell but it doesn't say that. It SAYS 'and will fight only if attacked'. It pretty much says if you attack a calmed creature it can hit you back. Also, that doesn't 'break' the calm, it just suspends its affects until the creature is no longer being attacked.

[providence13]

This is a good discussion.
I'm sure there are minor differences for all the versions of the rules.
I'd love to at least read the other rules to understand how RM has changed throughout the years.
This may not apply to RM2/C, but there are more descriptive/verbose examples in RMSS/FRP.

The OP did ask for examples, even though these aren't RAW for his game, they may help.
Mentalist Base/Mind Control
4. Calm - Target will take no offensive action, and he will
fight only in self-defense.

Closed Channeling/Calm Spirits
2. Calm 1 -Target will take no aggressive/offensive action,
and will fight only if attacked.

Under Special Notes for the List (pg 18 "Of Channeling")
"An “aggressive” action is defined as any action with the
intent to directly harm any individual(s). Actions that
indirectly result in harm to individuals are not “aggressive.”
Pulling the lever on the wall to drop an individual into a pit
is an aggressive action (the action directly resulted in the
harm on an individual). Running away to get help is not an
aggressive action."

Every time I hear about other games, it helps me with my own.

[JimiSue]

I'm in agreement with most of the above posters. As providence said, this looks like full parry, provided that the critters themselves are being attacked. However, I would say that moving to a position such that they are aware they will be attacked, would count as an offensive act. I would also say that they would take no special action were the PCs to disengage from combat, because that would also be an offensive action.

Therefore, it's fine for the non-calmed trolls to try and use their buddies as shields, but the players could legitimately just charge past the calmed trolls and still attack the wounded ones. Or even use them as cover to hide behind while shooting missiles! As Cory said the calmed trolls might become a bit alarmed at this, but bottom line is, they are not being directly attacked so they would take no action other than prepare to full parry any incoming attack.

It would depend on your interpretation on the rules as to whether they would be look to increase their defensiveness quotient as their offensive one reduces - i.e. if they are in the middle of melee do they just stand there, or do they actively try to run away? I would disagree with the RAW that providence quoted though - I think that running away specifically to get assistance does count as an offensive act since it's going to directly result in bad things happening to the PCs (albeit in a delayed fashion). However, running away for self preservation (and reasonably towards a stronghold) might be OK.

[Kristen Mork]

I find that one needs to limit the scope of prohibited actions under a Calm spell.  If the target becomes apathetic, a Channeling user can "defeat" many encounters with a single spell.

In terms of the RAW, I've worked (physical) casino security.  I was not allowed to take aggressive actions (nor did I want to!), but when aggression was called for, the expectation was to call for the brute squad.  Most of us, I think, are able to compartmentalize between the results of our own (direct) actions and the results of others' actions.  (For example, a shop owner might not swing a baseball bat at an intruder, but he might call the cops.)

One might even ask if self-defense includes protecting one's property.  (It does in many US states.)  Can a target take offensive action if you try to steal items off the shelves?  What if you try to take an item off his person?  It's certainly a murky line: wrestling the target's clothes off of him requires an attack.

[markc]

 Note: If I was a player in the game I would hope the trolls tried to aggressively move past the other trolls and the calmed trolls attacked them.
MDC

[providence13]

I find that one needs to limit the scope of prohibited actions under a Calm spell.  If the target becomes apathetic, a Channeling user can "defeat" many encounters with a single spell.

Yeah, for me Calm is like a 1/2 power Sleep in that regard. I'm ok with that. But IMHO, it could be called Apathy; eh, Calm works.

Anyone remember the Apathetics from Zardoz?

[Marrethiel]

2. Calm I – Target will take no aggressive/offensive action, and will fight only if attacked.
Running into a grey area here during play. Spell says target will take no aggressive/offensive action.
Specific Example: 4 Trolls atack the players. The players calm 2 of the trolls. All the players engage the other 2 trolls. Afew rounds later the 2 non calmed trolls disengaged from melee and move back at the same time the calm trolls moved forward in front of the other trolls.
The GM idea here was the calmed trolls were in front with the others in the back so the players would attack the calmed trolls and break the calm.
The question: Is moving the calmed trolls towards the players and trying to block/cover the advance to the wounded trolls. Is that considered an aggressive action?
Also, give an example of an aggresive action besides attacking in melee or casting a spell on the players. Try to be clear and to the point.

To me this is an example of a player trying to surprise a GM and he/she has reacted poorly with a snap decision. Try talking to the GM prior to game sessions about how spells will work. For example, how did the trolls know that their companions were calmed? I don't think it likely they made their power perception checks. In the scuffle and confusion of melee I could see a player accidently mis-targeting the wrong creature. The rules actually require you to make an orientation roll to avoid being confused in combat; maybe this rule needs to be implemented more often.
The general rule we use if that as long as a player has not targeted an opponent (with an OB) at any time during the current combat Calm can be used. "Will fight only if attacked" applies to the whole combat, not on a per round basis. So while technically the spell duration continues it is effectively annulled unless the players can disengage via a moving manoeuvre.

[VladD]

Trolls are not known for their standing around passively in combat. If your niece, twice removed, that you have been hocking up with for the past 10 years and have fought with many times, is suddenly standing around digging up boogers, right after some tasty looking human shouted at her while a soft golden glow enveloped her...even a moronic hill billy troll is going to realize there is something wrong...

I do agree that as a player it is undesirable to cast spells you haven't been conferring about with your GM. My houserule on that is that if you do that, expect the result to be less than desirable. Even though I want to follow the RAW as much as possible (and usually there is not much interpretation needed to curb the spell), if there is an issue, it should be fixed. Issues arise from liberal interpretation.
I read a spell like calm as follows: will do anything else in their power, except offensive aggressive actions: so buffs, advice, trying to hug the PCs "Me so calm...me hug nice plant lady now", arming traps (not pulling attack delivery levers though), shielding friends, parley, play a game, gymnastics, escape, trap the PC, lying and cheating, etc is all fair game. Calm is a low level spell with good effect, but it shouldn't be like a lvl 20 spell taking out most combatants in a single spell. There is plenty for the GM (and the players) to circumvent the RAW description. Even lighting the fuse on a cannon/ bomb might qualify. Then there's orders given from the non calmed adversaries; if they are not aggressive, can be followed. Apathy is such a nasty effect, it can't be the effect of such a low level spell.
Also I would not give quarter to PCs taking advantage of the spell: I would allow defensive actions for the calmed creature if their babies or eggs were stolen/ harmed, also if a PC attacks a creature and then withdraws, the calmed creature will pursue and "defend" itself against that PC until either is incapacitated.

Anything is allowed to disuade  PCs from using such spells to "fix" the game in their favor.

[Cory Magel]

I mentioned it before, but IMO one of the absolute best ways to stop abuse it to make it clear the tactic will eventually be used against them.  Even if you get someone fully intent on knowingly 'twisting' the rules this will give them pause if they have any brains...