The simplest definition I've found for willing, is that the creature (or rather, the player/DM controlling it) has to be able to actually exercise a choice. The Charmed condition itself doesn't actually limit a creature's decisionmaking, other than by preventing them from attacking the creature they're charmed by, but individual spells and effects that accompany charmed may or may not take away its ability to make its own decisions. Charm Person, for example, doesn't mind control a creature, it just makes them view you more favorably... the creature/DM isn't forced to just agree with everything you ask of such a charmed creature, they just should perhaps view your requests and recommendations more favorably than they otherwise would. Still willing! But contrast something like... Dominate Monster, where you can command them to take certain courses of actions that they cannot choose to ignore. That's not willing... even if the spell were to provide them a saving throw to attempt to disregard your order, that still isn't willing, at the point where they've failed the saving throw they have no choice but to comply.
But as for whether a creature must be conscious and informed to be willing? Unlike in real life, where that is absolutely an essential component to consent, remember that in 5E what we're really talking about is whether the Player/DM controlling the creature is willing, not the creature in-game itself. If you cast a willing-target spell on an unconscious teammate, that player is still able to tell you yes I accept or no I resist. That's the important part.
This isn't an analysis that 5E necessarily provides itself RAW, but I do think it's the most straightforward way to interpret the plain-english meaning of "willing" in the context of checking player agency rather than going down the rabbit hole of in-game imperfect information. An interpretation that holds that a creature can't be willing unless that creature knows exactly what spell is being cast, requiring it to be conscious and have had a conversation with the caster... it isn't really workable in a lot of combat contexts, and if enforced, would really slow down play in an undesirable way. But if enforced only with respect to players, it's very workable, and promotes good table communication. Even if a player ends up telling another or the DM, "I'm casting a spell on you, you don't know what it is (unless you use your reaction to make an Arcana check to identify).... do you accept it or resist it?", that's still giving the player/creature meaningful agency, even if that creature is asleep in-game.
Booming Blade seems to be using "willing" to mean something different than "movement that isn't being pushed/pulled/falling/carried." Otherwise, it probably would have (or should have) been worded more like ""if the target moves 5 feet or more using its movement, action, or reaction before then, it takes...". If that is the right interpretation of Booming Blade (and prior JC rulings indicate it is, if you care about that), then it is very strong evidence that mind-controlled X is not "willing" X.
Treating "willing" as "player/DM is willing, they aren't forced into only one course of action" is an easily workable definition that produces no undesirable effects. If you want to Charm Person an enemy to make them easier to persuade into allowing themselves to be Polymorphed, fine. If you try to Dominate Person to force them to accept a Polymorph, they are no longer able to be "willing."
If someone says to you "Do this terrible thing or I'll kill all your family," you might choose to do it, but you might say you did it unwillingly, against your will.
But for the purposes of the game you'd probably be considered "willing" in terms of magic that cares about such things. You may have suborned your own will to that of another, but you performed the action of your own volition.
So where does Dominate come in? It seems clear that you obey instructions as best you can. So you have choices about how to follow those instructions, and you use your own volition to perform those actions. If you're told "attack that creature" you don't just hit it once, you continue to attack it with your most appropriate attacks until it dies, or you're given a different command. You're able to defend yourself while Dominated. So it's not like you have no volition at all. One might argue that Dominate can force you to be willing, just like the "do what I say or else" threat does (but without the threat part.. just using magic).
And as a final argument : it would be counter-intuitive that Charm Person makes one more willing, but Dominate makes one unwilling, given the relative power difference between the spells.
If someone says to you "Do this terrible thing or I'll kill all your family," you might choose to do it, but you might say you did it unwillingly, against your will.
coercion and intimidation skirts the boundary of 'willing'. persuasion does not.
But for the purposes of the game you'd probably be considered "willing" in terms of magic that cares about such things. You may have suborned your own will to that of another, but you performed the action of your own volition.
The way you worded the bolded makes it seem like they wanted to be targeted by the Charm/Dominate spell. If that is not the case, and the directive given was not what the targeted creature would have chosen, then they themselves would be unwilling, but compelled against their will to do it anyway
So where does Dominate come in? It seems clear that you obey instructions as best you can. So you have choices about how to follow those instructions, and you use your own volition to perform those actions. If you're told "attack that creature" you don't just hit it once, you continue to attack it with your most appropriate attacks until it dies, or you're given a different command. You're able to defend yourself while Dominated. So it's not like you have no volition at all.
Did you want to obey? Did you choose to obey? if the answer was yes, then the command given is willing. If you didn't want to or didn't choose, but were forced do by an outside entity (like the caster) then that isn't willing. And to the bolded, the requirement is "to the best of their ability" that doesn't imply room to wiggle around actual actions, and it certainly doesn't allow you to bend the directive to accomplish anything other than what was said. If the caster told you to kill PC 1, then you don't get to exercise choice over whether or not to do it, you only get to choose whether you use your longsword or battleaxe.
One might argue that Dominate can force you to be willing, just like the "do what I say or else" threat does (but without the threat part.. just using magic).
Since I'd argue both of your examples are examples of unwilling action, I disagree.
And as a final argument : it would be counter-intuitive that Charm Person makes one more willing, but Dominate makes one unwilling, given the relative power difference between the spells.
Spells do not linearly scale in power if they do different things. charm person and [Tooltip Not Found] are enchantment spells, but they do different things. One inflicts the charmed condition and changes the targets perception of the caster, the other allows the caster to command the target with no chance they will disobey or take complete control and puppet the target.
A better comparison for dominate spells that do the same thing as Dominate would be the Suggestion which forces you to obey a single (limited and reasonable) command, or Geas which allows you to disobey, but with a massive penalty
The spell doesn't say the target is effectively willing. Willing in plain english is having the power of choosing, exactly the contrary of being dominated into doing something.
Dominate Person does literally nothing if it can't force the target to be willing to do things:
"You can use this telepathic link to issue commands to the creature while you are conscious (no action required), which it does its best to obey."
If you order the target to pick up a pizza and they aren't willing to pick up the pizza, they won't pick up the pizza, because willing means "prompt to act or respond".
If you order the target to be willing to try a slice of pizza, the spell requires they do their best to obey, which requires that they accordingly become willing, because willing is consent-based - becoming willing is as simple as making a choice.
You don't even need Dominate Person - Suggestion likewise has to cover "willing" or the spell might as well not exist.
That spell overrides will, it makes it irrelevant. It doesn’t make you willing.
The spell doesn't say the target is effectively willing. Willing in plain english is having the power of choosing, exactly the contrary of being dominated into doing something.
Dominate Person does literally nothing if it can't force the target to be willing to do things.
Can the target refuse to obey a command? If not it's not what i'd call willing. It works because it's compelled to obey commands, not because it force them to be willing.
For purposes of this discussion that distinction is completely irrelevant.
I disagree. for the purposes of this discussion that distinction is paramount. One way would indeed allow a creature to be subject to a "willing" spell effect, the other would not.
If someone says to you "Do this terrible thing or I'll kill all your family," you might choose to do it, but you might say you did it unwillingly, against your will.
But for the purposes of the game you'd probably be considered "willing" in terms of magic that cares about such things. You may have suborned your own will to that of another, but you performed the action of your own volition.
So where does Dominate come in? It seems clear that you obey instructions as best you can. So you have choices about how to follow those instructions, and you use your own volition to perform those actions. If you're told "attack that creature" you don't just hit it once, you continue to attack it with your most appropriate attacks until it dies, or you're given a different command. You're able to defend yourself while Dominated. So it's not like you have no volition at all. One might argue that Dominate can force you to be willing, just like the "do what I say or else" threat does (but without the threat part.. just using magic).
And as a final argument : it would be counter-intuitive that Charm Person makes one more willing, but Dominate makes one unwilling, given the relative power difference between the spells.
I think that this brings up a lot of great points! I think Dominate is a very tricky case, but overall I would agree that because it subverts someone's will, they can't really truly consent to a spell being cast on them. Another point that I'd like to bring up is that Dominate Person is concentration spell, and some pretty effective combos requiring a willing creature are also concentration spells. So, wouldn't as you cast the new concentration spell, Dominate would drop, allowing them to be unwilling? (Assuming it was ruled at your table that Dominate could force creatures to be willing) Also, another thing to keep in mind is that quite a lot of creatures resist or flat out ignore the charmed condition, especially when 5th level spellslots are first available! In my opinion, the spell combos involving creating willing creatures that would be very fun as a player but very frustrating as a DM just off the top of my head would be with Teleport and Feign Death.
"one can be dominated into choosing" is doing a lot of work there. To make it more explicit, if you mean "dominated" as in "coerced" (threatened, etc.).... okay fine, a choice under duress is probably still "willing" in the way that 5E cares about. If you mean "dominated" as in "controlled".... no, a choice that someone else made for you is not a choice you "willingly" made.
The spell doesn't say the target is effectively willing. Willing in plain english is having the power of choosing, exactly the contrary of being dominated into doing something.
Dominate Person does literally nothing if it can't force the target to be willing to do things.
Can the target refuse to obey a command? If not it's not what i'd call willing. It works because it's compelled to obey commands, not because it force them to be willing.
For purposes of this discussion that distinction is completely irrelevant.
I disagree. for the purposes of this discussion that distinction is paramount. One way would indeed allow a creature to be subject to a "willing" spell effect, the other would not.
If one can consciously choose not to resist, then one can be dominated into choosing not to resist. Period.
Oh, I didn't even think about this! Great point! Although I think it would be more cost effective spellslot wise to use Charm Person and to bend the truth about what the spell does/what you will do with the spell, provided your charisma is high enough to likely succeed with the persuasion or deception check. Also, there's no concentration for Charm Person! But for a more guaranteed charm Dominate is probably better if you have the slots and concentration I guess.
The spell doesn't say the target is effectively willing. Willing in plain english is having the power of choosing, exactly the contrary of being dominated into doing something.
Dominate Person does literally nothing if it can't force the target to be willing to do things.
Can the target refuse to obey a command? If not it's not what i'd call willing. It works because it's compelled to obey commands, not because it force them to be willing.
For purposes of this discussion that distinction is completely irrelevant.
I disagree. for the purposes of this discussion that distinction is paramount. One way would indeed allow a creature to be subject to a "willing" spell effect, the other would not.
If one can consciously choose not to resist, then one can be dominated into choosing not to resist. Period.
Wrong. Any choice not made by you is not a willing choice, even if the end result is the same...Period.
I personally think that Dominate Person would would work in this way if they are ordered to not resist a spell, but a point to consider is that consent in the real world doesn't count if someone is under the influence. (Irl being alcohol, drugs, etc.) While magic and rules of magic are completely different than irl, maybe there is a parallel between the two? A little off topic, I know, but something to maybe consider nonetheless.
You literally do not have control over your own will while the spell is in effect.
If you have no control over your own will, that's contrary of willing. Being willing relate to the will or power of choosing and having no control is being powerless with regards to willingness.
If you have conscious control over something you can be controlled into exercising that control. It is mind control, not body control. If the person was in control of their will, they would not be willing.
Right, and if you cannot choose to be unwilling, you are not willing. #powerofchoice
You literally do not have control over your own will while the spell is in effect.
If you have no control over your own will, that's contrary of willing. Being willing relate to the will or power of choosing and having no control is being powerless with regards to willingness.
If you have conscious control over something you can be controlled into exercising that control. It is mind control, not body control. If the person was in control of their will, they would not be willing. However the moment they fail the save, they lose control of their consciousness, of their will. They are made to be willing to accept everything asked of them, short of physical damage (and even then it is only a fresh save, not an automatic break).
Kotath, I'm not sure if we are ever going to come to consensus here. You are arguing that it is possible for a creature to have their will controlled and yet still be able to themselves control it. You are making a paradoxical argument here that I don't quite understand. Saying that I can make you be "willing" to accept a spell is by default removing your ability to be "willing" in the first place. The spell isn't asking if I am willing for you to be subjected to the spell effect, it is asking if you are willing. Me imposing my will onto you does not replace the requirement that you exercise your will; if you are unable to exercise your will, you cannot by default be willing. Functionally, it is no different from you being unconscious. The only way that a dominated creature could be subject to a spell with a "willing" requirement would be if the dominated creature is independently willing, regardless of the commands given to it by the controller, at least as I understand the concepts of "will" and "willing"
But it's not a point that any of us will find in the RAW, because 1) the terms aren't clearly defined, and 2) they have never provided guidance on the intersection in an official format. So we are clear to agree to disagree, and rule differently at our respective tables.
To split that hair, I don’t mind unconscious characters being willing, if the player is willing, since I think playr/DM agency is what is being tracked… but I could be persuaded to call them unwilling too.
To split that hair, I don’t mind unconscious characters being willing, if the player is willing, since I think playr/DM agency is what is being tracked… but I could be persuaded to call them unwilling too.
I've always operated under the assumption that RAW an unconscious creature cannot be willing or unwilling, as they have no will to exert in the condition, but in practice, I rule more or less as you would (if the creature is an NPC, I base it on the relationship status of the NPC to the caster prior to their falling unconscious).
Now if you want to use deception and tell them you're casting something DIFFERENT and less drastic, that might work....depending on where the DM falls with the meaning of 'willing' on feign death, ie can you trick them into willingly accepting the spell by lying about what it will do, or do they have to understand what they're in for?
You won't find many tables actually requiring the target to have full knowledge of the spell in order to be willing - PCs rely on being able to buff each other in combat without a whole conversation about what spell is being slung. In general, people treat "willing" as if the spell asks the target "do you allow this?", and the target has to answer "yes" to qualify as willing. Deep weeds like "do they really understand what yes means, here?" are typically taken to be beyond the scope of magical mind-reading. A much finer question is whether a creature totally unable to know a spell is being cast on it (e.g. by being unconscious or petrified, but there are other ways - e.g. Subtle Spell + blinded for a spell that doesn't require Touch) can be offered the spell prompt (if not, they're automatically unwilling, since they can't answer yes).
Determining if they're willing is straightforward.
Assume they understand the full spell effects. Do they want those effects or not? If no. Not Willing. If yes, willing.
Do they actually know the full spell effects? That is immaterial to how saves work. They don't even need to know a spell is even being cast to get a save.
Saving throws are a mechanics level, out of character level, gamified level decision made my the person controlling that character.
So an unconscious creature can indeed be willing, if the Player(or DM) controlling that character wants that spell effect to trigger on them.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
I think it's interesting that the Vampire specifically mentions that people Charmed by their power are willing to be bitten.
Either that's spelling out a normal consequence of being charmed (as a reminder, as it were, that this is a good tactic for Vampires to use), or it's to be read as a special exception for willingness.
Generally, I've noticed a trend for WOTC to add explanations (such as describing Blindsight) to clarify certain abilities, so I'm leaning toward thinking it's the former.
Either that's spelling out a normal consequence of being charmed (as a reminder, as it were, that this is a good tactic for Vampires to use), or it's to be read as a special exception for willingness.
Generally, I've noticed a trend for WOTC to add explanations (such as describing Blindsight) to clarify certain abilities, so I'm leaning toward thinking it's the former.
Curious.
I think it's interesting that the Vampire specifically mentions that people Charmed by their power are willing to be bitten.
Charm doesn't normally cause you to let people attack you willingly. This needed to be called out as an exception.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
I think it's interesting that the Vampire specifically mentions that people Charmed by their power are willing to be bitten.
Either that's spelling out a normal consequence of being charmed (as a reminder, as it were, that this is a good tactic for Vampires to use), or it's to be read as a special exception for willingness.
It's a special exception to me
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I'll patch in my response to the thread a few days ago on this same subject.
Booming Blade seems to be using "willing" to mean something different than "movement that isn't being pushed/pulled/falling/carried." Otherwise, it probably would have (or should have) been worded more like ""if the target moves 5 feet or more using its movement, action, or reaction before then, it takes...". If that is the right interpretation of Booming Blade (and prior JC rulings indicate it is, if you care about that), then it is very strong evidence that mind-controlled X is not "willing" X.
Treating "willing" as "player/DM is willing, they aren't forced into only one course of action" is an easily workable definition that produces no undesirable effects. If you want to Charm Person an enemy to make them easier to persuade into allowing themselves to be Polymorphed, fine. If you try to Dominate Person to force them to accept a Polymorph, they are no longer able to be "willing."
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Willing is tricky.
If someone says to you "Do this terrible thing or I'll kill all your family," you might choose to do it, but you might say you did it unwillingly, against your will.
But for the purposes of the game you'd probably be considered "willing" in terms of magic that cares about such things. You may have suborned your own will to that of another, but you performed the action of your own volition.
So where does Dominate come in? It seems clear that you obey instructions as best you can. So you have choices about how to follow those instructions, and you use your own volition to perform those actions. If you're told "attack that creature" you don't just hit it once, you continue to attack it with your most appropriate attacks until it dies, or you're given a different command. You're able to defend yourself while Dominated. So it's not like you have no volition at all.
One might argue that Dominate can force you to be willing, just like the "do what I say or else" threat does (but without the threat part.. just using magic).
And as a final argument : it would be counter-intuitive that Charm Person makes one more willing, but Dominate makes one unwilling, given the relative power difference between the spells.
coercion and intimidation skirts the boundary of 'willing'. persuasion does not.
The way you worded the bolded makes it seem like they wanted to be targeted by the Charm/Dominate spell. If that is not the case, and the directive given was not what the targeted creature would have chosen, then they themselves would be unwilling, but compelled against their will to do it anyway
Did you want to obey? Did you choose to obey? if the answer was yes, then the command given is willing. If you didn't want to or didn't choose, but were forced do by an outside entity (like the caster) then that isn't willing. And to the bolded, the requirement is "to the best of their ability" that doesn't imply room to wiggle around actual actions, and it certainly doesn't allow you to bend the directive to accomplish anything other than what was said. If the caster told you to kill PC 1, then you don't get to exercise choice over whether or not to do it, you only get to choose whether you use your longsword or battleaxe.
Since I'd argue both of your examples are examples of unwilling action, I disagree.
Spells do not linearly scale in power if they do different things. charm person and [Tooltip Not Found] are enchantment spells, but they do different things. One inflicts the charmed condition and changes the targets perception of the caster, the other allows the caster to command the target with no chance they will disobey or take complete control and puppet the target.
A better comparison for dominate spells that do the same thing as Dominate would be the Suggestion which forces you to obey a single (limited and reasonable) command, or Geas which allows you to disobey, but with a massive penalty
I disagree. for the purposes of this discussion that distinction is paramount. One way would indeed allow a creature to be subject to a "willing" spell effect, the other would not.
I think that this brings up a lot of great points! I think Dominate is a very tricky case, but overall I would agree that because it subverts someone's will, they can't really truly consent to a spell being cast on them. Another point that I'd like to bring up is that Dominate Person is concentration spell, and some pretty effective combos requiring a willing creature are also concentration spells. So, wouldn't as you cast the new concentration spell, Dominate would drop, allowing them to be unwilling? (Assuming it was ruled at your table that Dominate could force creatures to be willing) Also, another thing to keep in mind is that quite a lot of creatures resist or flat out ignore the charmed condition, especially when 5th level spellslots are first available! In my opinion, the spell combos involving creating willing creatures that would be very fun as a player but very frustrating as a DM just off the top of my head would be with Teleport and Feign Death.
Thank you for coming to my TedTalk.
"one can be dominated into choosing" is doing a lot of work there. To make it more explicit, if you mean "dominated" as in "coerced" (threatened, etc.).... okay fine, a choice under duress is probably still "willing" in the way that 5E cares about. If you mean "dominated" as in "controlled".... no, a choice that someone else made for you is not a choice you "willingly" made.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Oh, I didn't even think about this! Great point! Although I think it would be more cost effective spellslot wise to use Charm Person and to bend the truth about what the spell does/what you will do with the spell, provided your charisma is high enough to likely succeed with the persuasion or deception check. Also, there's no concentration for Charm Person! But for a more guaranteed charm Dominate is probably better if you have the slots and concentration I guess.
Wrong. Any choice not made by you is not a willing choice, even if the end result is the same...Period.
When you say this, I do not think you are making the point that you think you are making. :)
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I personally think that Dominate Person would would work in this way if they are ordered to not resist a spell, but a point to consider is that consent in the real world doesn't count if someone is under the influence. (Irl being alcohol, drugs, etc.) While magic and rules of magic are completely different than irl, maybe there is a parallel between the two? A little off topic, I know, but something to maybe consider nonetheless.
If you have no control over your own will, that's contrary of willing. Being willing relate to the will or power of choosing and having no control is being powerless with regards to willingness.
Right, and if you cannot choose to be unwilling, you are not willing. #powerofchoice
Kotath, I'm not sure if we are ever going to come to consensus here. You are arguing that it is possible for a creature to have their will controlled and yet still be able to themselves control it. You are making a paradoxical argument here that I don't quite understand. Saying that I can make you be "willing" to accept a spell is by default removing your ability to be "willing" in the first place. The spell isn't asking if I am willing for you to be subjected to the spell effect, it is asking if you are willing. Me imposing my will onto you does not replace the requirement that you exercise your will; if you are unable to exercise your will, you cannot by default be willing. Functionally, it is no different from you being unconscious. The only way that a dominated creature could be subject to a spell with a "willing" requirement would be if the dominated creature is independently willing, regardless of the commands given to it by the controller, at least as I understand the concepts of "will" and "willing"
But it's not a point that any of us will find in the RAW, because 1) the terms aren't clearly defined, and 2) they have never provided guidance on the intersection in an official format. So we are clear to agree to disagree, and rule differently at our respective tables.
To split that hair, I don’t mind unconscious characters being willing, if the player is willing, since I think playr/DM agency is what is being tracked… but I could be persuaded to call them unwilling too.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I've always operated under the assumption that RAW an unconscious creature cannot be willing or unwilling, as they have no will to exert in the condition, but in practice, I rule more or less as you would (if the creature is an NPC, I base it on the relationship status of the NPC to the caster prior to their falling unconscious).
Unconscious creatures are not willing, they can't consent to anything being unaware of their surrounding.
Determining if they're willing is straightforward.
Assume they understand the full spell effects. Do they want those effects or not? If no. Not Willing. If yes, willing.
Do they actually know the full spell effects? That is immaterial to how saves work. They don't even need to know a spell is even being cast to get a save.
Saving throws are a mechanics level, out of character level, gamified level decision made my the person controlling that character.
So an unconscious creature can indeed be willing, if the Player(or DM) controlling that character wants that spell effect to trigger on them.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
I think it's interesting that the Vampire specifically mentions that people Charmed by their power are willing to be bitten.
Either that's spelling out a normal consequence of being charmed (as a reminder, as it were, that this is a good tactic for Vampires to use), or it's to be read as a special exception for willingness.
Generally, I've noticed a trend for WOTC to add explanations (such as describing Blindsight) to clarify certain abilities, so I'm leaning toward thinking it's the former.
Curious.
Charm doesn't normally cause you to let people attack you willingly. This needed to be called out as an exception.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
It's a special exception to me