[Bug?] Chaotic Commands blocks 109 and 175

[DavidW]

Here's an old one: Chaotic Commands blocks paralyzation (109) and hold (175). This has been true ever since TotSC, but there is not a shadow of evidence for it in the description: 

"Chaotic Commands renders a creature immune to magical commands.  Suggestion, Charm, Domination, Command, Sleep, Maze, and Confusion are all spells that fit into this category.  This spell also protects the target from psionic blast.  This spell affects only one creature and lasts for the duration or until dispelled."

The text is adapted from the 2nd edition AD&D Tome of Magic, which is "Chaotic commands renders a creature immune to magical commands. Taunt, forget, suggestion, domination, geas, demand, succor, command, enthrall, quest, exaction, and other spells that place a direct verbal command upon a single individual automatically fail". The spell has obviously been adapted, which is why spells like Maze and Confusion are listed even though they're not obviously 'magical commands'. But Hold Person is conspicuously not listed, and the paralyzing touch of ghouls and carrion crawlers doesn't even remotely seem like a 'magical command'.

Against that, of course, it's worked that way for ages, and we might annoy people. (FWIW, on balance grounds I think it's better not working that way: there are other resources - free action, remove paralysis - that address 109/175, and I prefer CC not to be a panacea.)

(I suppose one could exclude 109 but include 175. However, the unmodded game has a completely consistent hierarchy: everything that is protected from 175 is also protected from 109. And 109-immunity without 175-immunity isn't really available to players; in-game descriptions reliably say only 'hold immunity' when they also mean 'paralyzation immunity'. So I'd be reluctant to go down that way.)

[DavidW]

Actually, on reflection maybe I'm wrong about 175 but not 109. There are other places in the game - the Greenstone Amulet, notably - where Hold is identified as a 'mind attack', and so in the general category of things that maybe CC should work on. But paralysis doesn't seem to fall under either.

The problem is that there are other places where 'hold' is clearly used to mean 'paralysis' in power descriptions: the Undead Hunter, most obviously.

[suy]

Both Chaotic Commands and Free Action seem a mess that I would not dare to open in "bugfix mode", unless one wants to just rethink the spells at least little bit. Free Action, for example, is always questioned that it blocks Haste or any other beneficial effect. I remember having searched quite a bit (within my limited resources) and could not find where is justified in the books that it blocks something beneficial. The description in P&P said:

Quote

(...) move and attack normally for the duration of the spell, even under the influence of magic that impedes movement (such as web or slow spells) or while under water. It even negates or prevents the effects of paralysis and hold spells.

Additionally, one weird inconsistency of Free Action is that it cures stun, while it doesn't prevent it... And according to a comment I've just read, it doesn't cancel Haste/IH, but it blocks it from being applied. I think that was the case with the Flail of Ages as well.

About Chaotic Commands... I don't know. It is true that what it does, according to its description, it's not very consistent. The issue is, that given that most spells have a verbal component, it is hard to understand why some spells "place a direct verbal command upon a single individual" and others do not. The list on P&P description seems to be open to spells that have this verbal command, but again, how a new spell from an expansion can be known if it fits or not?

[subtledoctor]

1 hour ago, DavidW said:

other spells that place a direct verbal command upon a single individual automatically fail

Wow, does this mean it is supposed to protect against Power Word spells?

1 hour ago, DavidW said:

There are other places in the game - the Greenstone Amulet, notably - where Hold is identified as a 'mind attack'

Yeah, I was going to bring it up in the other thread but stopped because it is kind of needless esoterica. But there is a theory of Hold in which is it neither a biological paralysis nor a physical immobilization, but instead a mental effect that prevents someone's mind from moving their body. On this theory of magical Hold, a spell that protects from mental attacks should protect against Hold. (But, not paralysis!)

In my mind, these militates in favor of letting CC keep its hold/paralysis immunity:

• players are, potentially, used to it (though personally I didn't know that and never depended on it, because the spell description doesn't suggest it)
• devs might have positioned it as "Free Action+" given that it is at a higher spell level

These militate in favor of removing the immunity:

• again, I want to be able to internalize what spells address what conditions, and for that, clean categories are important (like "Free Action -> movement stuff" and "Chaotic Command -> mind stuff")
• the spell description does not suggest any such immunity

I'm in favor of removing it, from the perspective of how I want my game to be set up. But it may count more as a tweak than a fix.

[Luke]

14 hours ago, subtledoctor said:

But there is a theory of Hold in which is it neither a biological paralysis nor a physical immobilization, but instead a mental effect that prevents someone's mind from moving their body. On this theory of magical Hold, a spell that protects from mental attacks should protect against Hold. (But, not paralysis!)

Exactly! As a matter of fact, all those Hold Person/Animal/Monster spells are flagged as "Primary Type: ENCHANTER" (except for Hold Undead, which is flagged as "Primary Type: NECROMANCER" and uses op185...)

As already said, this is also @kjeron's thought... And that's probably why on EE games mindless creatures (Lemures, Slimes, Golems, etc...) and creatures that do not have a "real" mind (Undead, Plants, etc...) are innately immune to op175...

16 hours ago, DavidW said:

Actually, on reflection maybe I'm wrong about 175 but not 109. There are other places in the game - the Greenstone Amulet, notably - where Hold is identified as a 'mind attack', and so in the general category of things that maybe CC should work on. But paralysis doesn't seem to fall under either.

If we'll end up considering op175 as a mind attack, then things like CC, BARBARIAN_RAGE, MINSC_BERSERK, BERSERKER_RAGE, etc... should only protect against op175 (the immunity to op109 should be removed...)

16 hours ago, DavidW said:

The problem is that there are other places where 'hold' is clearly used to mean 'paralysis' in power descriptions: the Undead Hunter, most obviously.

If we'll end up considering op175 as a mind attack, then Undead Hunters should only be immune to op109 (since that's what undead use! – the immunity to op175 should be removed...)

Similarly, Inquisitors should only be immune to op175. Kit description states "Immune to hold and charm" (a light version of CC...?)... And since Charm is definitely a mind attack, then I'd consider that Hold as op175 – the immunity to op109 should be removed...

[DavidW]

This is all way outside what I think is in scope for a fixpack. The description for Undead Hunters explicitly uses the word ‘hold’.

[subtledoctor]

Yeah I agree in principle about the conceptual structure of paralysis vs. “hold” vs. immobilization. But that doesn’t mean a FixPack should redesign swaths of the game. At some point players, and maybe devs too, accepted generalizations about all the things that freeze you in place and that prevent you being frozen in place, and the game generally calls them “hold.” I think we very much don’t want players to install this and then find that aspects of the game are significantly changed and don’t behave as expected. 

But @Luke if you are interested, I wouldn’t mind setting up a “better distinguish between paralysis/hold/immobilize” component in one of my mods. 

[Luke]

3 hours ago, DavidW said:

This is all way outside what I think is in scope for a fixpack. The description for Undead Hunters explicitly uses the word ‘hold’.

OK, so what do you suggest...?

I mean, here we go again. Every time you see Immunity to Hold, you'll find both immunity to op175 and to op109... Intended...? I don't think so...
Again, the fact that op162 removes both opcodes might play a role here... PnP Free Action specifically lists both Hold and Paralysis, so I think it's fine for it to protect against both... But what about CC, the various Rages, etc...?

20 hours ago, suy said:

Additionally, one weird inconsistency of Free Action is that it cures stun, while it doesn't prevent it...

Yes, this is weird...

I'd personally remove the Cure Stun opcode simply because Stun has nothing to do with "hindrances to movement"... I mean, if you're stunned, you cannot move, sure... but that's not because something is physically/chemically preventing you from moving: it is because you got a blow to the mind (either physically or magically...)

1 hour ago, subtledoctor said:

But @Luke if you are interested, I wouldn’t mind setting up a “better distinguish between paralysis/hold/immobilize” component in one of my mods. 

Yes, I'm interested... And I don't see why it cannot be part of this fixpack... I mean, I know that there will be some gameplay changes... But the fact that the devs did not properly distinguish between op109 and op175 does qualify as a bug, right...? What do you think @CamDawg...?

Edited March 24, 2022 by Luke

[CamDawg]

I've not really had a lot to add because so far my thinking has been tracking David's.

One thing that's not really been touched upon yet: AFAICT 109 is used consistently by undead, more specifically the melee attacks of ghouls, ghasts, and the like. Lich Touch and Ghoul Touch also use 109. This fits with with a quote from Gygax that ghoul touch is essentially a channeling of negative energy (Negative Plane Protection explicitly protects against Ghoul Touch and Lich Touch in IWDEE, for example) making its source radically different than the kind of immobility we're seeing with holds (175)--however you want to believe they work mechanically.

edit: I should probably add that I don't think CC should block 109. As for Power Words, this is something David and I discussed within the context of Song of Kaudies when we were working on IWD spells, which provides 50% immunity to sound attacks. Power Words are said by the caster to channel power; the target doesn't need to hear them at all. As such it's not really something you'd consider a command.

Edited March 24, 2022 by CamDawg

[DavidW]

OK, here's a fairly systematic analysis of the player-facing 109/175 immunities in the original BG/BG2. (Wall of text warning.)

In pre-TotSC BG1, only three player-usable spells/abilities grant protection against 109 or 175.

• The Ring of Free Action, and the Free Action spell, protect against both 109 and 175, and I think it's pretty clear that's deliberate: the description text for the ring is: 'immune to everything,  magical and otherwise,  that effects mobility in any way', and the spell calls out Hold Person explicitly as an example of a movement-limiting effect.
• The Potion of Freedom does not protect from 175, but I feel confident saying that's a bug (fixed in EE): the description says that it 'acts like the spell free action' and the replicates the line from the Ring.

ToTSC then introduces two more:

• the Greenstone Amulet protects against both 109 and 175. Its description says that it 'confers the wearer protection against all charm, confusion, fear, domination, ESP, detect alignment, hold, stun, psionics, sleep and feeblemind, much like the 8th level wizard spell Mind Blank' - there is no explanation given as to why these particular effects are protected against (the descriptive text just refers to 'powerful magics that are bestowed upon the amulet'. Note that the Mind Blank spell doesn't exist in BG1 (or BG2), so we can't directly reference it, and the PnP spell does not correspond very well to this description.
• Chaotic Commands also protects against both 109 and 175. Its description says that it 'renders a creature immune to magical commands.  Suggestion, charm, domination, command, sleep, confusion are all spells that fit into this category.'

If I were to assess the situation *as of BG1*, I'd say that:

1. there is no in-game evidence that paralysis is a form of hold, and so it's reasonable to assume that it's a bug to include 109 immunity in the Greenstone Amulet.
2. Nothing in the spell description of Chaotic Commands says anything about paralysis or hold. It is extremely difficult to see why ghoul paralysis counts as a 'magical command', and there is no real in-game evidence to say that Hold does either (the nearest I could do is note that the Greenstone Amulet says that Mind Blank blocks Hold, but that's a stretch - especially in the absence of any PnP reasons). So I would probably conclude that CC shouldn't protect against either 109 or 175: the case is rather clear for 109 but pretty strong even for 175.

In both cases I'm somewhat influenced by the fact that ToTSC is an expansion and expansions happen under intense time pressure (more then than now), so it's easier to imagine bugs creeping in here.

In BG2, all these effects are present basically unchanged. One small difference is that the description for the Greenstone Amulet no longer references Mind Blank (perhaps because BG2 doesn't contain it), and now says that the amulet 'protects the wearer from all forms of mind attacks, including psionics'. That said, I don't think we can conclude much about overall developer intent from a brief mention in a reused magic item.

BG2 also adds several more player-usable 109/175 immunities:

• Keldorn's undroppable plate armor protects against 109/175 and is described as providing Free Action
• The Shield of Harmony protects against 109/175 and is described as granting immunity to 'charm, confusion, domination, and hold person'
• Berserker Rage protects against 109/175 and is described as making the berserker 'immune to charm, hold and fear, maze, imprisonment, stun and sleep'. This list is actually pretty incomplete. (Minsc's Berserk power basically replicates this.)
• Barbarian Rage protects againsts 109/175 and is described as 'giv[ing] immunity to all charm, hold, fear, maze, confusion and level drain spells' (emphasis mine). It also protects against 185 which is very clearly a bug.
• Undead Hunters are described as 'immune to hold' and are protected from 109 and 175. They're also protected from 185, which is very clearly a bug.
• Inquisitors are described as 'immune to hold and charm spells' (emphasis mine) and are protected from 109 to 175.

In addition, Cam's right that player-usable attacks pretty consistently use 'paralyze' to refer to 109, and 'hold' to refer to 175.

If I were to assess developer intent based purely on the in-game descriptions, I'd conclude:

1. Free action clearly is intended to protect against both 109 and 175
2. There is virtually no in-game evidence that protection from Hold implies protection from paralysis, and quite a lot of evidence that it doesn't (notably, the fact that about half the 'protect from hold' comments talk about protecting from hold spells). So I would conclude that hold immunity should mean 175 immunity but not 109 immunity.
3. The single exception is Undead Hunters: it's thematically clear that they are intended to be immune to 109, but their description references 'hold'. Here I think I would just bite the bullet and say that's an error in the description, and that 'Hold' should be changed to 'paralysis' in that description and UH should only be immune to 109, not 175. 
4. Chaotic Commands doesn't say a word about immunity to paralysis or hold, and there is virtually no in-game reason to think it should apply even to hold, let alone paralysis. So I would strip both from it and conclude that it was added in error during the TotSC rush. (One could just about make the case for leaving Hold, via the Greenstone Amulet precedent. I can't see any case at all for why paralysis should be included.)

I'm tempted by that set of changes. (It's fairly close to Luke's suggestions, I think - the thing I would want to avoid there is making some systematic theory as to what hold is and inferring anything from that.) However, I think evidence from the game files cuts against it to some degree. Absolutely nothing in the game available to a player (other than the surely-bugged potion of freedom) provides immunity to 109 or 175 separately: they're always combined. And nowhere in the description text is immunity to paralysis mentioned explicitly: 'hold' is always the term used. So you can at least make the case that it was intentional to combine 109 and 175 immunity for players in order to streamline and simplify the game. That would argue for mostly leaving things alone - though I think the case for removing 109 and 175 from CC would remain strong. (But it would have to be both or neither, on this basis.) Even the use of 'Hold' in the undead hunter description can be read two ways: that kit is fairly clearly adapted from the AD&D ghosthunter kit, but ghosthunters are described as immune to paralysis rather than hold - so someone intentionally changed from the one to the other.

The truth is that at this level of analysis 'developer intent' becomes indeterminate. It is clear that there was no central adhered-to style bible for this (if there was, we wouldn't have the radical inconsistencies between 'hold' and 'hold spells'). BG2 was developed in a very decentralized ad hoc way and different people probably made their own, not-fully-consistent, judgement calls.

Absent a clear dev-intent signal, I am inclined to let sleeping dogs lie as far as these various player-usable abilities are concerned: if it's ambiguous that something in a 20-year-old game is a bug, we should probably leave it alone to avoid infuriating players. I still think there is a case for removing 109 and 175 from CC, but I don't think we should extend to split immunities on other items/spells.

I might code up my previous set of changes for SCS or similar, if we don't put them into FP. (Sounds like SD will do similarly.)

[subtledoctor]

I think something unsaid is the simple fact that, at a technical level, there is no difference between 109 and 175. And therefore from a gameplay perspective, there is no difference between "paralysis" and "hold."  It seems like the developers, at some point (BG2?), just decided to treat them alike. It certainly seems reasonable that players might feel aggrieved, and possibly report a bug, if they protect themselves from "Hold" and then get "paralyzed" by a ghoul but effectively see their character being Held.

If the effects were different in a meaningful way or even just in a superficial visual way, I think a better case could be made for differentiating between them. If "paralysis" involved falling down, for instance. (It's pretty weird that when you are "paralyzed" in these games you continue standing upright. From a modding perspective, I might try to pair instances of 109 with 39 to give it a bit more visual flavor, similar to wing buffets... but then, that runs into the problem of the differing frequency of op39 and op109 immunity.) Alternatively, every single spell and ability description that mentions paralysis and Hold should be super precise and descriptive, so players can really get an intuitive understanding of why e.g. some paladins are immune to one and other paladins are immune to the other. And give them different portrait icons.

The other problem is that differentiating between them would amount to a "nerf," and players hate nerfs even if they are more correct and make gameplay more variable and tactically interesting.

The Berserker/Barbarian "Rage" effects are so weird, arbitrary, and divorced from PnP sources that I don't think analyzing them is very useful. It certainly seems reasonable that such an ability could protect you from a biological or negative energy-borne paralysis, as they both involve some form of increase in physical power.

I'm coming around to the idea that "Hold" (175) is a fundamentally mental effect. It is in the Enchantment/Charm school aafter all, rather than Alteration. Further, this would explain why Hold Undead uses 185.

(Another unimportant aside: I dislike how the game text says "Held creatures... can use abilities not requiring motion or speech" but the game does not actually allow that to happen.)

1. So IF 109 and 175 are differentiated (if e.g. we give Inquisitors immunity to one and Undead Hunters immunity to the other, and maybe some in-game text descriptions are tuned up a bit), then I think it would be reasonable to allow Chaotic Commands, the Greenstone Amulet, and the Shield of Harmony block 175. I personally don't love it, but it would make sense conceptually and would leave those items working as some players might be expecting them to work. (I'd still be okay with removing 175 immunity in this case, because sources of immunity to 175 are still very easily available to players in the Free Action spell/ring/potion.)

2. But IF the sources of 109 and 175 immunity available to players are not distinguished, then I think Chaotic Commands, the Greenstone Amulet, and the Shield of Harmony should likewise not distinguish between them. In this case I would favor removing both 109 and 175 immunity from these spells and items, as they are clearly designed to block mental effects and not physical/immobilizing attacks. And sources of immunity to 109/175 are still very easily available to players in the Free Action spell/ring/potion.

I don't think either idea is bad. I like #1 because it is probably closer to developer intent (based on your BG1 analysis), and has the benefit making Undead Hunters a bit more special. But in either case, any resulting confusion can be easily cleared up with clear communication in the Readme and some tweaks to in-game text.

[DavidW]

5 minutes ago, subtledoctor said:

think something unsaid is the simple fact that, at a technical level, there is no difference between 109 and 175. And therefore from a gameplay perspective, there is no difference between "paralysis" and "hold." 

It's not quite true that there's no difference. Hold displays the 'held' string, Paralysis doesn't. That's true both at the technical level (175 automatically displays that string and the Held icon, 109 doesn't) and at the implementation level (the game never, so far as I can see, displays 'Held' when you get paralyzed, although it does use the 'held' icon - and, to add confusion, it also displays 'Held' when you get Webbed). But it's a fairly subtle difference.

 

8 minutes ago, subtledoctor said:

But IF the sources of 109 and 175 immunity available to players are not distinguished, then I think Chaotic Commands, the Greenstone Amulet, and the Shield of Harmony should likewise not distinguish between them. In this case I would favor removing both 109 and 175 immunity from these spells and items, as they are clearly designed to block mental effects and not physical/immobilizing attacks.

I think removing 175 from the Greenstone Amulet and the Shield of Harmony is hard to justify in a fixpack, just because these items explictly reference the Hold spell in their descriptions - which seems to make it clear that developer intent was at least that they should protect from that spell. I raised CC originally because its description has never said anything about Hold immunity (and even quite experienced players aren't always aware of it).

[subtledoctor]

1 minute ago, DavidW said:

It's not quite true that there's no difference...  But it's a fairly subtle difference.

True. And I think embracing that difference and simply making less subtle is a perfectly viable approach here.

2 minutes ago, DavidW said:

I think removing 175 from the Greenstone Amulet and the Shield of Harmony is hard to justify in a fixpack

Fair enough.

[Luke]

21 hours ago, CamDawg said:

This fits with with a quote from Gygax that ghoul touch is essentially a channeling of negative energy...

Interesting.

That post would also explain why "bdbonbat.itm" (Bonebats) has an op318 effect targeting RACE=ELF (i.e., elves, having great positive energy, cannot be paralyzed)...? If that's indeed the case, then we should extend it to all ghoul/ghast/lich attacks (for consistency)... along with updating the Elf description (Character Creation...)

14 hours ago, DavidW said:

Free action clearly is intended to protect against both 109 and 175

I agree.

As @suy said, we just need to decide what to do with the Cure Stun opcode... IMHO, it should be removed because it has nothing to with Free Action (hindrances to movement...)

14 hours ago, DavidW said:

So I would conclude that hold immunity should mean 175 immunity but not 109 immunity.

I agree.

14 hours ago, DavidW said:

The single exception is Undead Hunters: it's thematically clear that they are intended to be immune to 109, but their description references 'hold'. Here I think I would just bite the bullet and say that's an error in the description, and that 'Hold' should be changed to 'paralysis' in that description and UH should only be immune to 109, not 175. 

Again, I agree. Paladins items such as "bdhelmca.itm" should of course receive the same treatment (also note that in this particular case, unlike Undead Hunters, the description uses the word "paralysis"...)

As far as the Inquisitor is concerned, it should be the other way round, i.e.: immune to op175 and vulnerable to op109...

14 hours ago, DavidW said:

Chaotic Commands doesn't say a word about immunity to paralysis or hold, and there is virtually no in-game reason to think it should apply even to hold, let alone paralysis. So I would strip both from it and conclude that it was added in error during the TotSC rush. (One could just about make the case for leaving Hold, via the Greenstone Amulet precedent. I can't see any case at all for why paralysis should be included.)

Yes, makes sense.

However, IWDEE description specifically lists Hold (along with Stun – this also seems to be out of place)... Seriously, it is a mess ...

What about letting it to protect against all mind-affecting effects (Charm, Sleep, Power Word: Sleep, Panic, Confusion, Feeblemindedness, Hold, Stun, Power Word: Stun)?

[DavidW]

26 minutes ago, Luke said:

That post would also explain why "bdbonbat.itm" (Bonebats) has an op318 effect targeting RACE=ELF (i.e., elves, having great positive energy, cannot be paralyzed)...? If that's indeed the case, then we should extend it to all ghoul/ghast/lich attacks (for consistency)... along with updating the Elf description (Character Creation...)

I don't see any in-game evidence at all that the developers intended elves to be immune to these forms of paralysis.

(As a matter of PnP lore, elves are immune to ghoul, but not ghast or lich, paralysis. But there is no evidence that I can see that the developers (BD or Bioware) intended to incorporate that feature of PnP in the game.)

27 minutes ago, Luke said:

15 hours ago, DavidW said:

So I would conclude that hold immunity should mean 175 immunity but not 109 immunity.

I agree.

But this is a bit out-of-context: that's what I would conclude based just on the in-game descriptive text, but I'm not sure it's fully consistent with other things... as I go on to say.

 

28 minutes ago, Luke said:

15 hours ago, DavidW said:

The single exception is Undead Hunters: it's thematically clear that they are intended to be immune to 109, but their description references 'hold'. Here I think I would just bite the bullet and say that's an error in the description, and that 'Hold' should be changed to 'paralysis' in that description and UH should only be immune to 109, not 175. 

Again, I agree. Paladins items such as "bdhelmca.itm" should of course receive the same treatment (also note that in this particular case, unlike Undead Hunters, the description uses the word "paralysis"...)

Again this is a bit out-of-context. I'm not (necessarily) advocating this: I would have advocated it if I was basing it purely on the descriptive text.

 

30 minutes ago, Luke said:

IWDEE description specifically lists Hold (along with Stun – this also seems to be out of place)

Right, but see Cam's comment about the descriptive text being updated to match the files when the EEs were made - the original IWD description does not mention either. ("Chaotic Commands renders a creature immune to magical commands.  Suggestion, Charm, Domination, Command, Sleep, and Confusion are all spells that fit into this category.")

33 minutes ago, Luke said:

What about letting it to protect against all mind-affecting effects (Charm, Sleep, Power Word: Sleep, Panic, Confusion, Feeblemindedness, Hold, Stun, Power Word: Stun)?

I'm worried that this is trying to infer what it would be sensible for CC to protect against, rather than what the developers intended it to protect against.