Watchdog spell and "hostile intent"

[RGTraynor]

Originally Posted by StevenH

So it made me wonder if he would have triggered the spell. I don't think he would have, since he didn't have hostile intent (although technically he'd be hostile as soon as the party attacked him, but then it's a moot point.)

If the "necromancer" didn't have any previous interactions with the party to the point that he'd consider them enemies, no, I can't see how he'd have tripped the spell. And even if he had, I would judge that "hostile intent" means a positive intention to do the caster harm. If I just hated the caster's guts, but had no genuine intent to do the caster down, I don't think I'd trigger a Watchdog.

And I do hope the party didn't think that Watchdog serves explicitly to alert the caster to the presence of someone towards whom THEY have hostile intent. If they wanted a spell to detect a particular individual encroaching upon an area, it's time to research a new spell.

[Rolando]

If watchdog is such a powerful spell that can sense attacks from inanimate objects and dangers like natural occurring ones what use is Nightingale then?

Nightingale is the spell to protect from random events and entities entering camp.

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by StevenH

For context, the situation was this:

Yeah, I would consider that a case where the target wouldn't trigger the spell, any more than a rabbit would. The target isn't hostile toward the party, even if he's up to no good with his rituals (assuming he is, in fact, up to no good, and the party didn't just up and murder some innocent). He's prey, not a predator.

[Stormcrow]

Originally Posted by StevenH

Party had camped out in ambush around one of many shrines in a river delta system.

I think Watchdog probably wasn't the right spell for this job. The obvious intent of Watchdog is to protect your camp when you're in a dangerous area and can't keep as close an eye on things yourselves as you'd like. It isn't for ambushing unsuspecting enemies. That's why the text of the spell doesn't quite line up with your expectations.

[ehrbar]

Originally Posted by mburr0003

As well I take "or anything" when coupled with "hostile intent" to reference that which can have intent, but which would not be described as an "anyone" (so say, demons, monsters, wolves, mindless undead, etc).

How, exactly, are you rationalizing the idea that mindless undead can have intent?

Originally Posted by mburr0003

Not that a rockslide that crosses the boundary has hostile intent.

Of course it doesn't have intent-in-itself. But the same is true of the arm of a giant; the arm doesn't think, so it didn't have any intent in itself, so as long as the giant kept his brain (or mind or soul or whatever part of him metaphysically "has intent") out of the area, we can get the conclusion that the spell doesn't alert for a giant punching the caster. And if we don't so conclude, we can debate over an infinite number of gradiations between an object hurled into the area and the giant's arm (what about a self-guiding missile weapon? a dancing weapon? a weapon held by someone beyond the border?).

Or, you know, we can just check if the crossing of the spell's boundary by a thing was the act of an entity with hostile intent, regardless of the nature of the thing that crossed the boundary.

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by ehrbar

Or, you know, we can just check if the crossing of the spell's boundary by a thing was the act of an entity with hostile intent, regardless of the nature of the thing that crossed the boundary.

An argument could be made that it would be inappropriate for the spell to be able to detect the intent of a being* outside its area of effect, but I think you could readily justify this with something like the Law of Contagion - not only does the projectile have a direct link back to the being that propelled it, but if it was propelled with malicious intent, it is likely "imbued" with said intent, and the spell could certainly detect that.

*Magic shouldn't need to include a being's brain - in a setting with magic, consciousness/intent/etc is likely to extend beyond just the brain, particularly as in such a setting the brain most likely isn't the point of origin for intent, it's at best just the machinery the soul uses to interface with the material world. So that would explain Watchdog activating if a massive giant with a brain that is located too high for the spell to interface with decided to purposefully stomp on the camp.

[malloyd]

In practice, I'd play it half backward. Something crosses the border and I decide if it's hostile. If it's a PC I may even ask. If I decide the spell doesn't warn anybody for whatever reason the thing genuinely is not hostile, and it [cannot] harm the caster, no matter what the edge case you think you have. If it could, the spell would've triggered, and it didn't, so....

The only possible exception would be if caster starts the fight, though even then [most] non-hostile things would prefer to run away rather than fight.

Edit: To clarify my position a bit, regardless of what you think the wording of the spell says, the clear intent is for it to warn the caster when something is about to try to hurt them. If you are looking for an edge case that would allow the spell not to trigger and the caster still to end up hurt, you are essentially cheating - looking for a way to make a player ability not do what he reasonably expected it to when he paid for it. It doesn't matter what the technical details of the wording are, especially in this not at all edge case application of "does it detect things that will hurt me?". That kind of hostile GMing is IMO always a bad sign. I wouldn't want to play in a game like that, and expect most other players wouldn't find it much fun either.

[edk926]

Originally Posted by Rolando

If watchdog is such a powerful spell that can sense attacks from inanimate objects and dangers like natural occurring ones what use is Nightingale then?

Nightingale is the spell to protect from random events and entities entering camp.

Well first, the sounds might be just enough to deter someone from sneaking up on you. Also presumably the sounds would be loud enough to wake the whole party and not just the caster.

[Rolando]

Originally Posted by edk926

Well first, the sounds might be just enough to deter someone from sneaking up on you. Also presumably the sounds would be loud enough to wake the whole party and not just the caster.

Exactly, it is the spell to keep the camp alert.

Watchdog is more limited and can miss something dangerous getting inside its perimeter. Dangerous but with no intention to harm anything inside.

About the arrow...it can go both ways, I wouldn't allow it to trigger watchdog, because the spell needs to know the intent and the archer is outside the area. But I can see an argument about things triggering the spell if hurled with hostile intent, but just an argument and not a solid one unless the setting allows for items to be regularly imbued by the users emotions in a regular basis.

At the end, like many thing involving magic, it is a GM call, and players should respect that and don't waste time arguing about what they believe and play with what the GM defines as the reality of the fictional world...if the GM uses one interpretation one day and another other day that may be bad GMing, specially if the GM uses the "improved" version against the players and treat the players spells as more limited, that is just GM-douchebagery.

P.D.: If players are disappointed by the spell I would allow for them to change it (the known spell), even to change the immediate pass and allow for the casting of another spell, like Nightingale, because the players didn't knew about the spell limits, but their characters probably did.

[mburr0003]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

Besides, it wouldn't matter. Watchdog is an area Spell with an ongoing Duration and if someone becomes hostile in that area the Spell is triggered then and that is still before the GM announces that the hostile has successfully attacked the PC.

Ahhhh....

That's not actually how the spell reads. It detects what crosses it's boundary, not what's already inside it's boundary.

Originally Posted by ehrbar

How, exactly, are you rationalizing the idea that mindless undead can have intent?

Depends on the metaphysics of the campaign. They can be filled with the intent of their controller. Or they might have an animating malus which is not intelligent. Or... really, there are potentially limitless ways an unintelligent thing can have intent.

I mean, you'd have a mindless ooze that was hunting the party trigger it right?

Of course it doesn't have intent-in-itself.

And yet the spell is written as it is.

But the same is true of the arm of a giant; the arm doesn't think...

That is a serious hairsplitting strawman.

The giant has intent, if any of it crosses the boundary... the giant has crossed the boundary.

Or, you know, we can just check if the crossing of the spell's boundary by a thing was the act of an entity with hostile intent, regardless of the nature of the thing that crossed the boundary.

Not sure why you're so cranked up about a ruling in a campaign you weren't even in, but...

My house, I ruled differently. I went with a limited, logical reading, since I wasn't in the habit of generally making spells more potent than they were written. AS well, as has been pointed out, there are other spells that do other things.

Originally Posted by Varyon

An argument could be made that it would be inappropriate for the spell to be able to detect the intent of a being* outside its area of effect, but I think you could readily justify this with something like the Law of Contagion...

Sure, if that's how the laws of magic work in the campaign. Perfectly reasonable, but I'd rewrite the spell to say that if that was the case for my games.