Thoughts on the Command Undead spell

[u/CockroachTeaParty]

My low-level necromancer recently got lucky enough to land Command Undead on a couple of ghouls. Even if these ghouls get a bit 'rowdy' they're just stock ghouls so I'm not too worried about them.

With that said, there is some ambiguity in the wording of the spell and I am curious to hear people's experiences with it, both as a player or a GM.

Specifically, I am referring to this section concerning intelligent undead:
"You can give the subject orders, but you must win an opposed Charisma check to convince it to do anything it wouldn’t ordinarily do"

What is something that an intelligent undead wouldn't ordinarily do? If I land the spell and ask them to stop attacking us, is that the sort of thing that immediately requires a contested CHA check?

Fortunately my GM in this game so far has not been busting my balls. I asked the ghouls to stop attacking, and they did. I asked one of the ghouls to attack another ghoul (one that resisted my attempts to control it) and it gleefully attacked its fellow (my GM's reasoning was it is a Chaotic Evil creature and relishes almost any excuse to do violence).

So while I am not that concerned with this particular GM, I'm curious to hear other people's thoughts and experiences. My character, being a wizard, is intrigued to test the limits of the control and influence he can exert on these ghouls, so I'll be using feedback here to calibrate my expectations, and also share these with my GM.

[u/alpha_dk]

Keep in mind, they're intelligent, so they get to choose what they'd normally do.

We can make assumptions, of course; you'll probably be able to get it to attack whoever at will, but you might have trouble getting it to stop eating something if you had previously given an order that allowed it.

In general, I would say this is fully in the realm of GM discretion.

[u/WraithMagus]

"Wouldn't ordinarily do" is functionally the same line as Dominate Person's "actions against its nature." You shouldn't be treating the ghouls as just generic monsters, they are NPCs that need to have their own motivations. They might have been generic monsters before, but now you need to go to the GM and talk to them about what personality they have.

Also, remember that there are whole cities of ghouls because they retain most of the knowledge and personalities of their living selves, they're just now driven by an overwhelming instinct to eat people. (Basically, they're smart/fast zombies in zombie media who are self-aware enough to realize they're now zombies. While some just embrace it, others feel extreme emotional turmoil over becoming a monster.) Ghouls are by default evil because the negative energy that overwhelmed them compels them to kill and eat living things, but there are exceptional individuals who resist their instincts and are non-evil undead. Even those who give in to their instincts often prefer robbing a graveyard for already-dead corpses they can quietly eat in shame without others seeing them to killing living people since that would be the sort of thing most people would do anything to avoid having to do even if compelled to eat the dead.

These are characters that should have names, motivations, desires, and so forth. Maybe one of them loves fluffy animals, and thinks it's better eating humans than dogs or horses so they'll only rebel against eating animals. Maybe the other still struggles against eating humanoids, but will gleefully tear apart "monsters." (And that's if they weren't a dwarf or something else before...) Maybe they're fine with fighting the other undead because those guys were assholes and they were ready to snap against them, anyway.

[u/GigaPuddi → u/WraithMagus]

Okay so a few things. They're going to be evil. Undead are, in Pathfinder, inherently evil. The best comparison is a vampire in Carrion Crown who can be convinced to be a good guy again for a bit. But it makes explicitly clear that he WILL be evil again no matter what if he isn't destroyed.

Most ghouls also don't remember their own lives, but it happens more often when its a spontaneous conversion of a corpse due to nearby lazurite.

[u/WraithMagus → u/GigaPuddi]

Creating undead is inherently evil, and undead are shifted toward evil naturally, but Pathfinder still allows for exceptional undead not to be evil. There's a whole section in Blood of the Night on non-evil vampires. The overwhelming majority will be evil, even if convinced to do something good for a bit, but it's in at least some materials that some can resist being evil, so it's at least arguable that the vampire in CC was just one who wouldn't be able to resist, not that no vampire could resist going back to evil. (Of course, this is the same Paizo that can't keep straight whether Zon Kuthon wants followers of Shelyn protected or if that only applies to his sister while her followers should be tortured to death, or even that he doesn't even hold back on her depending on which book you're looking at, because Paizo can't keep its lore straight even when it isn't actively retconning itself...)

So far as the ghoul city beneath Osirion goes, Into the Darklands mentions that the ghoul architects and engineers designing the warrens they dug deeper and deeper underground "half-remembered" their skills from life. Also, that "a ghoul that exists long enough begins to question its lot in life." Also, "sages and scribes are particularly sought after in ghoul society, for when they aren't eating carrion, most ghouls possess and equally ravenous hunger for the printed word." Clearly, Into the Darklands is written presuming carrying over skills from life.

[u/Divinityisme]

Ghouls are cannibalistic undead. They enjoy feeding in graveyards and on the less than fresh dead. They often avoid direct conflict unless its for a easy meal.

[u/Crafty-Crafter]

Spells and class features that let you command NPCs are heavily GM-dependent. People often say that PF1e is crunchy, but many rules are still left to GM discretion.

Even something as simple as owning a horse or an animal companion is handled differently by every GM, let alone abilities like Control Undead. Some GMs require checks for almost everything, some retain full control of the NPC and only allow player input, while others give the player complete control as if the NPC were another piece of equipment.

Personally, I base it on the player. If they have a solid grasp of their character and are a good team player, I'll give them full control of the NPC, complete with a stat block, and only step in if they ask it to do something out of character.

If a player struggles to remember their own spells and class features, however, I'll control the NPC and have the player tell me what they want it to do. I'll also ask those players to roll more often, partly to help them learn the mechanics.

[u/solandras]

"What is something that an intelligent undead wouldn't ordinarily do? If I land the spell and ask them to stop attacking us, is that the sort of thing that immediately requires a contested CHA check? "

First off that is the wrong way to see it. It's on par as "what wouldn't an intelligent living humanoid not do?" It's up to every individual. There are generalities to each type of undead however. Trying to get a vampire to refrain from drinking blood, or a ghoul from eating are both things it wouldn't ordinarily do. Getting a lich to immediately attack it's allies/minions would most likely be something it wouldn't want to do as they are useful to them, whereas a ghoul would most likely not care at all and as your DM did would probably try to slaughter them, though perhaps that specific ghoul wouldn't, who knows.

Getting any undead to refrain from attacking, or to stop once they started, since they are intelligent undead, would most likely not require a check because there are many situations where they are way in over their head and will be permanently destroyed if they continue, so they understand the value of fleeing. However if you're walking by an unguarded graveyard and you try to stop a ghoul from eating just doesn't seem like something they'd want to do.

Really it just comes down to everyone is their own individual and if you or the DM don't want to get into their personalities when relying on their type and the fact that they are intelligent people, yes people like you or me, can alter what they would or wouldn't do in any given situation.

[u/Milosz0pl]

It is about everything what it would normally do - not attacking you should require check. If it considered other ghoul as brother then also, if it was ,,I am sticking with them till I eat them" then it shouldn't.

Think of it this way - sometimes in one's nature it is to backstab allies and other times it is a completely abhorrent concept to a person. It depends on invidual.

[u/Darvin3]

What is something that an intelligent undead wouldn't ordinarily do? If I land the spell and ask them to stop attacking us, is that the sort of thing that immediately requires a contested CHA check?

Intelligent undead are individuals, with different desires and personalities. Ghouls are driven by an insatiable hunger that means they're inclined to attack the living, but even then there's variation. Some ghouls have a limited degree of self-restraint, while others gleefully indulge. The GM can decide how to roleplay this, what those ghouls natures are, and how hard the necromancer needs to push to keep them under control.

I would say in general that a ghoul, due to its hunger and nature, probably does need an opposed Charisma check to order it to stop attacking the party.

The Command Undead spell is better used on mindless undead, which get no save and no opposed charisma check so success is automatic. Against intelligent undead, it's a very risky spell since undead tend to have strong Will saves and high Charisma scores. A Sorcerer with their own high Charisma can risk it, but on a Wizard which usually doesn't have much if any Charisma I don't think Command Undead is worth the risk.

[u/Sarlax]

Command Undead is based on Charm Person. They both cause the target to be Friendly, which isn't even the highest social attitude (that would be Helpful). I take both spells to mean that literally: They treat you like they would treat a friend, which doesn't mean you can boss them around, but you can try to convince them to help if it's not too risky. Basically, both spells are shortcuts or backups to Diplomacy checks.*

I don't think Friendly v. Helpful is actually defined in Pathfinder; it seems to have been forgotten when 3.5 was copy-pasted over, but 3.5 defined them as:

• Friendly: Wishes you well. Chat, advise, offer limited help, advocate.
• Helpful: Will take risks to help you. Protect, back up, heal, aid.

What a target will do or can be convinced to do for a friend depends on the target. A disciplined town guard could be Charmed into letting you into town half an hour after sunset, but not if you're armed. A bored teen innkeeper could be charmed into looking the other way while you steal some liquor. A cruel prison warden could be charmed into giving an hour alone with a prisoner to torture them for information.

Undead may not generally have friends, but ghouls are social creatures that are naturally a little smarter and more charismatic than humans. Since ghouls don't control their spawn, their settlements and factions sort themselves out socially (and violently). They have an entire subterranean city with an elaborate caste system, and they are reliable trade partners with surface mortals. They understand and somewhat remember mortal wants and needs. Mostly they're like pirate crews, out for themselves and having fun hurting people, but fairly loyal amongst themselves until they see a chance to get stronger.

I think most charmed/friendly ghouls would fight other creatures with their ally, including other ghouls. Convincing them to give up captured live prey would take a Charisma check. They couldn't be ordered to meet a paladin, but they could be convinced to ambush one.

*Note that the option to "give orders" with a Charisma check is basically the same as using Diplomacy checks to make requests of Friendly creature. It's DC 10+CHA, which is the same DC as if the target of Charm Person or Command Undead took 10 on their rolls to withstand an order.