Can mindless creatures be fooled?

[The Great Skenardo]

There are a number of beings such as constructs and undead that have no intelligence score, but are instead bound to obey the instructions of their creator, or occasionally the bearer of a specific focus item (command rod or crystal or w/e).

My question is this; is the construct/undead's ability to recognize commands from its creator or to recognize someone subject to deception?
As a example, suppose that a particular wizard has left a couple of stone golems to guard a passageway, with instructions left to attack anyone who comes by other than the wizard and perhaps a trusted assistant.
Could a resourceful character use any means to successfully impersonate one or the other? Golems and undead are no subject to magical mind-affecting effects, but would a sufficiently-good mundane disguise (as the skill) serve? I can find no guidance for this in the RAW.

[Flickerdart]

Mindless creatures have no ability to reason. Their owner probably passes through the undead by using his control of them to make them not attack whenever he passes, because I'm not so sure they're capable of recognizing people.

[The Great Skenardo]

Does that then mean the command
"Attack anyone who enters this room besides me and my friend Constantine here."
is beyond the scope of commands that can be left for a golem to obey?

[Flickerdart]

If the creator wanted to add people to the golems "do not attack" parameters, he would probably have to say something like "do not attack anyone wearing red" or "do not attack anyone who says the password" because "red" or a password is a lot easier to understand than "my friend Constantine".

[BRC]

If the creator wanted to add people to the golems "do not attack" parameters, he would probably have to say something like "do not attack anyone wearing red" or "do not attack anyone who says the password" because "red" or a password is a lot easier to understand than "my friend Constantine".

That gets a little complicated.

If you have a big fortress full of minions, with a few Golems or mindless undead, do you need to say "Attack anyone in the fortress except these guys", and have every guard walk past, "or anybody they are escorting".

I like to think that Mindless creatures are capable of some limited reasoning. Or else they couldn't do something as simple as moving forward, then attacking unless specifically told "If people come in here, pick a target at random, then move forward until you reach it, then start swinging your arms at it, trying to hit the parts without armor on them".

I like to think of them as capable of some rather basic reasoning. They can identify people as Friendly or Hostile (Though they can be tricked by disguises), and without explicit orders besides "Attack" can know enough to handle themselves in a battle (They'll go around obstacles to reach enemies, for example).
Basically, Mindless means they cannot make decisions for themselves, but they can carry out instructions. If you say "Dig a hole Here" and hand a zombie a shovel, it can use the shovel to start digging. If you take away it's shovel, it will try to dig with it's hands. It won't stop until you tell it to, because it cannot Decide to stop.
As for disguises, unless given specific instructions otherwise, they'll probably be easily fooled. If it has eyes, it can recognize somebody on sight. It's pretty dumb, so it's easy to trick. If you say "Don't attack Christopher", it will look at Christopher, and anybody that looks like Christopher it will not attack. If you say "Search the tunnels and find them", it will go into the tunnels and look for "Them".

[The Great Skenardo]

It may be relevant to note that the animating force of a golem is a spirit from the Elemental Plane of Earth, which is bound to obey the creator of the golem.

[Phelix-Mu]

If the creator wanted to add people to the golems "do not attack" parameters, he would probably have to say something like "do not attack anyone wearing red" or "do not attack anyone who says the password" because "red" or a password is a lot easier to understand than "my friend Constantine".

Agreed, the construct has basically no functional memory. It can recognize its caster on sight, understands commands given by caster, but otherwise has to rely on sensory input.

To the example, "This is my friend Constantine," isn't valid, because it's not part of a command, and is something that must be remembered. I would allow "kill anyone that enters this room, unless they are wearing a badge," provided the badge was very distinctive, something Spot DC 5 or something. I would not allow use of a password with a mindless golem, as this requires the ability to remember a password, and unless the creature description specifically says that tactic can be used, then I'd say no.

[WinWin]

Illusions with the pattern and phantasm keywords are mind effecting. They will not effect mindless creatures.

Illusions with the figment, shadow or glamer keywords can effect even mindless creatures. Technically, mindless creatures can 'disbelieve' these illusions by physically interacting with them, due to the saving throw clause present in many of these spells. They can not study spells of this type for proof they they are not real, so even ridiculous or implausable illusions of this type will fool a mindless creature, depending on the exact conditions of the spell.

Most mindless creatures do not interact with their environment, other than to follow the programming or instructions of their creator, or in the case of uncontrolled mindless undead, attack living creatures in their vicinity. An illusion of a wall or other opaque barrier is typically enough to end an encounter with creatures of this type, assuming an intelligent creature is not actively giving the mindless creature instruction.

[BRC]

Agreed, the construct has basically no functional memory. It can recognize its caster on sight, understands commands given by caster, but otherwise has to rely on sensory input.

To the example, "This is my friend Constantine," isn't valid, because it's not part of a command, and is something that must be remembered. I would allow "kill anyone that enters this room, unless they are wearing a badge," provided the badge was very distinctive, something Spot DC 5 or something. I would not allow use of a password with a mindless golem, as this requires the ability to remember a password, and unless the creature description specifically says that tactic can be used, then I'd say no.
If a Golem can remember a Badge, why can't it remember a Password? Unless the Golem will allow anybody wearing any badge at all to pass through the door.

If I may


A creature with no Intelligence score is mindless, an automaton operating on simple instincts or programmed instructions
Simple Instincts or Programmed Instructions
So, a random, uncontrolled zombie will Instinctually attack any living thing it encounters. A Zombie told to attack anybody who enters the room will sit waiting in the room. I would rule that if you stand outside the room and shoot arrows at it, it will move and attack you unless given specific instructions not to leave the room, because in the absence or orders, self-defense is an instinct (Were it not, Mindless undead would not get Dex bonuses to AC unless specifically told to dodge).

It stays in the Room because it has received no instructions otherwise, and cannot make decisions on it's own. If you say "Attack Anybody who enters this room" that is. If the command is "Stay in this room and attack anybody who enters", then it will just stand there taking arrows to the face until it dies, or you step over the threshold.

Now, saying "This is my friend Constantine" means nothing to the Zombie, except that it now identifies this person as Constantine, like a programmer declaring a variable.
You can then give simple instructions concerning Constantine. "Do what Constantine says" "Don't attack Constantine" "Defend Constantine", ect.

What it can't do is make decisions for itself. If you say "Guard Constantine, but if you believe he is going to betray me, attack him", that is perhaps too complex.

A Skeleton archer can fire arrows, then switch to a sword when the enemy gets close. It will even do so automatically if told to simply "Attack".

Constructs have Wisdom scores, so they are capable of making Judgements. They cannot analyze information or make decisions.
So, "Don't Attack Constantine" requires them to make a simple Judgement. Is this person Constantine, if so, do not attack. They may not be very good at it, making them easy to fool (Low Wis scores), but they are just as capable of determining if somebody is Constantine as somebody else with equal wisdom.
They Cannot analyze information, if told "Allow my guests into the castle", they will do so. If a band of orcs comes up, armed to the teeth, beating drums and singing songs of slaughter, and one of them steps forward and says "Hey, we're Guests", the Golem would let them in. It might get a Sense Motive check, but probably not (Sense motive requires a little more abstract thinking than simply looking at somebody and matching observed details with your memory).

[Slipperychicken]

A Golem's creator/current owner must be within 60ft to give orders, regardless of whether it can perceive the orders from 65ft or farther. This implies some kind of magical connection between the two, much like the one established in Domination, between a necromancer and his undead minions, or between a summoned creature and a summoner.

Although it may be transferred between owners, there is no way to emulate this connection that I know of. Perhaps a good houserule would be to succeed a UMD check against a high DC (20+ current owner's level? Or 35, whichever is higher) to emulate the owner.

[Toliudar]

As a guiding principle for what the instructions of a mindless construct/undead can accomplish, I ask myself if I could write it as a program in BASIC in thirty seconds or less.


...maybe I'm just old.

[Flickerdart]

10 PRINT "Attack"
20 GOTO 10

[The Great Skenardo]

*snip*

Now, saying "This is my friend Constantine" means nothing to the Zombie, except that it now identifies this person as Constantine, like a programmer declaring a variable.
You can then give simple instructions concerning Constantine. "Do what Constantine says" "Don't attack Constantine" "Defend Constantine", ect.

What it can't do is make decisions for itself. If you say "Guard Constantine, but if you believe he is going to betray me, attack him", that is perhaps too complex.

Constructs have Wisdom scores, so they are capable of making Judgements. They cannot analyze information or make decisions.
So, "Don't Attack Constantine" requires them to make a simple Judgement. Is this person Constantine, if so, do not attack. They may not be very good at it, making them easy to fool (Low Wis scores), but they are just as capable of determining if somebody is Constantine as somebody else with equal wisdom. Judiciously Snipp'd

to your idea of "This is Constantine" being a concept a golem can work with in the framework of its simple commands, can that recognition be fooled, say, with a good disguise check? Or in a more general sense,
"Attack any orc that enters this room" - if this is valid thing to tell a golem to do, it raises questions about how good a golem is at recognizing an orc when it sees one.

EDIT: and more to the point, how granular that ability gets, and whether it can be fit to numbers or dice in some way.

[Slipperychicken]

10 PRINT "Attack"
20 GOTO 10

/Translate to English

[The Great Skenardo]

/Translate to English

KILL THEM ALL, MINION! MWAHAHA [/translation]

[Deophaun]

to your idea of "This is Constantine" being a concept a golem can work with in the framework of its simple commands, can that recognition be fooled, say, with a good disguise check? Or in a more general sense,
"Attack any orc that enters this room" - if this is valid thing to tell a golem to do, it raises questions about how good a golem is at recognizing an orc when it sees one.
As mentioned, golems have wisdom scores. Wisdom modifies spot, listen, and sense motive checks. Use those just as you would as normal. Your average person taking 20 on a disguise check has a 95% chance to fool a golem. The trick is knowing what disguise to make.

[Phelix-Mu]

The problem I have with "This is Constantine" paired with "Attack everyone besides Constantine and myself" is that it probably follows that you could add in "This is George. This is Tim. This is Lucy..." and then add in any number of people. If we are saying that ability to remember one person is not at all based on Intelligence, then we have probably also allowed that any number of exceptions can be programmed into the construct. With no kind of limit on clauses or conditions that can be added to a command, then what is supposed to be "simple commands" can be made quite complex. Grey area galore.

I believe that, depending on creature, it is sometimes stated that, if the creature perceives commands as being in conflict, then it simply does nothing. So sticking to a simple command is probably advisable in any case.

[The Great Skenardo]

As mentioned, golems have wisdom scores. Wisdom modifies spot, listen, and sense motive checks. Use those just as you would as normal. Your average person taking 20 on a disguise check has a 95% chance to fool a golem. The trick is knowing what disguise to make.

as to that, Golems also have Charisma scores (1, usually). I don't know if the presence of a stat block is in of itself a reason to suppose that a being is capable of using all the untrained skills for which it has an ability score.

In any case, it seems like there is at least a consensus that no magical or mundane means allow you to impersonate the creator of undead or constructs. (although you might wrest control of undead away from their controllers through magic).

[BRC]

I would argue that any number of exceptions remains simple, the command requires no judgement , only observation. "is this person on the list, if no then attack."
Complex commands require some variety of judgement beyond "is X true" where X is strictly observable.
"attack anybody who is an enemy" Is complex, because it requires judgements to identify "enemy". You could say "attack any orcs", that would be simple

[Necroticplague]

I would argue that any number of exceptions remains simple, the command requires no judgement , only observation. "is this person on the list, if no then attack."
Complex commands require some variety of judgement beyond "is X true" where X is strictly observable.
"attack anybody who is an enemy" Is complex, because it requires judgements to identify "enemy". You could say "attack any orcs", that would be simple

I agree with you on this premise, although I look at is differently. When given all the required variable, anything that works using boolean logic is a simple command (if, then, while, else, or, xor). However, they can never set their own variables unless that is a different part of their instructions itself reliant on observation.

For example:
"Follow me, and attack all enemies"
Is a useless instruction, because the golem itself doesn't have an innate concept of what "enemies" are.Even if you were being beat to death, it would just stand there. However:

"Follow me, and attack all enemies"
"Enemies: anyone who attempts to physically harm me"
Is a useful command. They normally would not attack anyone, because they don't have the variable for "enemy" filled in yet. However, if someone attacks you, they then identify that person as an enemy, and proceed to attack.

[Deophaun]

I don't know if the presence of a stat block is in of itself a reason to suppose that a being is capable of using all the untrained skills for which it has an ability score.
Are we talking RAW, or RACSD? RAW, the only things that matter are a) the untrained skill may be used untrained and b) there is no specific exemption to override the general rule. So yes, golems can spot, listen, and sense motive. They can also ride horses, stabilize the dying, forge documents, and perform a diplomatic mission.

RACSD? You might want to trim that list a bit. But really, they're going to do such a poor job at the more ridiculous tasks that why would you bother with the house rule?

[Pandiano]

"Follow me, and attack all enemies"
"Enemies: anyone who attempts to physically harm me"
Is a useful command. They normally would not attack anyone, because they don't have the variable for "enemy" filled in yet. However, if someone attacks you, they then identify that person as an enemy, and proceed to attack.

Ah well....difficult. Operative word "attempt". Is bumping into someone on the market an attempt to hurt? A friendly clap on the shoulder? A drawn blade at your throat? Anticipating the intentions is very complex, though self aware creatures do it all the time instinctivly.

Same for "attack all orcs". What about the half-ork? The neanderthal over there? That brutish thug with a dark tan? What qualifies as 'ork'? (Although a command for a vivisection to find out could be funny :-))

I think command words are your safest bet. Everything else is too much interpretation.

[BRC]

as to that, Golems also have Charisma scores (1, usually). I don't know if the presence of a stat block is in of itself a reason to suppose that a being is capable of using all the untrained skills for which it has an ability score.

In any case, it seems like there is at least a consensus that no magical or mundane means allow you to impersonate the creator of undead or constructs. (although you might wrest control of undead away from their controllers through magic).

Well,it depends what you mean by "Impersonate".

So there is a magical force that compels Mindless creatures to obey their creators. You usually transfer control by ordering it to obey somebody else.
However, I would argue that the magical compulsion does not transfer.

Bob the Artificer builds a Golem.
Bob gives the golem and order, and wanders away.
Later, Bob's identical twin brother Chris walks up and gives the Golem an order. Physically and Vocally, the Golem cannot tell the difference between the two.
However, the Golem does not obey Chris, because it is magically compelled to follow Bob.
Now, Bob sells the Golem to Dan. He orders the Golem to obey Dan. Dan gives the Golem an order, the golem obeys because he's following Bob's order to obey Dan.
Dan's identical twin Steve shows up and gives the Golem an order. I would argue that the Golem DOES obey Steve since, to the best of it's knowledge, Steve IS Dan. The same force that compelled it to obey Bob in the first place allowed it to differentiate between him and Chris. However, the order it's following when Dan talks to it is "Obey Dan", which it is doing to the best of its knowledge.

[Deophaun]

This is going to depend on the campaign world, but assuming a default setting where this topic crops up frequently among certain circles, it's highly probable such things as the proper wording for golem commands are known. A Golems for Dummies book exists, at least. If a character has gone through the effort of actually constructing a golem, then he should know how it works and how to word requests without getting tripped up by semantics unless such an incident would be entertaining. If such a thing doesn't exist, but the creator has time to "calibrate" the golem, the command, while restrictive, should be reasonably faithful to the creator's intention.

Now, someone who somehow just happened upon an ability to command a golem is a different matter.

[Slipperychicken]

"Follow me, and attack all enemies"
"Enemies: anyone who attempts to physically harm me"
Is a useful command. They normally would not attack anyone, because they don't have the variable for "enemy" filled in yet. However, if someone attacks you, they then identify that person as an enemy, and proceed to attack.

[Artificer returns home from finally defeating Count Baddington, an adventure which took many years and hardships. His long-lost lover waits on the porch. His defense-golems stand in the background]

"Honey, I'm so-"

[Lover slaps him for leaving her for so long, then embraces him, crying]

"HUMANOID ENEMY DETECTED. DEFENSE ALGORITHM ALPHA, ENGAGED"

"NOOO-"

[Golems immediately gun her down. Artificer breaks down, weeps. End scene.]

[Grollub]

[Artificer returns home from finally defeating Count Baddington, an adventure which took many years and hardships. His long-lost lover waits on the porch. His defense-golems stand in the background]

"Honey, I'm so-"

[Lover slaps him for leaving her for so long, then embraces him, crying]

"HUMANOID ENEMY DETECTED. DEFENSE ALGORITHM ALPHA, ENGAGED"

"NOOO-"

[Golems immediately gun her down. Artificer breaks down, weeps. End scene.]

lmao.. +1 to this !

[Acanous]

[Artificer returns home from finally defeating Count Baddington, an adventure which took many years and hardships. His long-lost lover waits on the porch. His defense-golems stand in the background]

"Honey, I'm so-"

[Lover slaps him for leaving her for so long, then embraces him, crying]

"HUMANOID ENEMY DETECTED. DEFENSE ALGORITHM ALPHA, ENGAGED"

"NOOO-"

[Golems immediately gun her down. Artificer breaks down, weeps. End scene.]

[Camera pans back to Bob]
"Well, waste not, want not..."
[Bob begins construction of a Flesh Golem]

[Phelix-Mu]

However:

"Follow me, and attack all enemies"
"Enemies: anyone who attempts to physically harm me"
Is a useful command. They normally would not attack anyone, because they don't have the variable for "enemy" filled in yet. However, if someone attacks you, they then identify that person as an enemy, and proceed to attack.

But here, you just taught the golem what "enemy" means by giving it a definition. This seems like the beginning of a slippery slope. Now you can define any term for the golem and add it into your command.

Even the idea "teach" seems silly. You can't use Handle Animal to train a mindless ooze because it can't think. While the ability to follow a command is one step up from the mindless ooze or uncontrolled zombie, "simple command" really does need to stay "simple." Adding complexity through "this is Constantine" seems the opposite of simple.

Also, as mentioned, pretty much all language added through such clauses is suspect, and risky. "This is Constantine" could allow the golem to identify Constantine, but maybe not when he later is injured, or when he puts on a hat. How stupid is a golem? Well, it's mathematically impossible to get stupider. The hat might fool it. Bye bye Constantine.

[Slipperychicken]

Also, as mentioned, pretty much all language added through such clauses is suspect, and risky. "This is Constantine" could allow the golem to identify Constantine, but maybe not when he later is injured, or when he puts on a hat. How stupid is a golem? Well, it's mathematically impossible to get stupider. The hat might fool it. Bye bye Constantine.

Perception (like recognizing disguised people, and discerning reality from illusion) is clearly governed by Wisdom, not Intelligence. I say the Golem receives a Wisdom-based roll (provided it has a Wisdom score) to represent its "AI" trying to recognize Constantine.

So maybe it gets a Spot check against DC 10 to recognize Constantine, with +2 DC for each feature different from when the description was assigned (clothes count as one feature, disfiguring injuries add another, different equipment might add another). It would use Spot against a disguised character as normal to tell whether it's Constantine or not. This would make recognition a very difficult and unreliable task for our poor Golem.

[NotScaryBats]

From MM1:
"Golems are tenacious in combat and prodigiously strong as well.
Being mindless, they do nothing without orders from their creators.
They follow instructions explicitly and are incapable of
any strategy or tactics. They are emotionless in combat and
cannot be provoked.
A golem’s creator can command it if the golem is within 60 feet
and can see and hear its creator. If uncommanded, a golem usually
follows its last instruction to the best of its ability, though if attacked
it returns the attack. The creator can give the golem a simple command
to govern its actions in his or her absence, such as “Remain in
an area and attack all creatures that enter” (or only a specific type of
creature), “Ring a gong and attack,” or the like. The golem’s creator
can order the golem to obey the commands of another person (who
might in turn place the golem under someone else’s control, and so
on), but the golem’s creator can always resume control over his creation
by commanding the golem to obey him alone."

So RAW, a golem can recognize people, since it can be "ordered to obey the commands of another person."

Also of note is that a golem's int isn't 0, it is -
The golem is not "cannot get any stupider" that would be 0 it is "int cannot be quantified"

[Flickerdart]

Also of note is that a golem's int isn't 0, it is -
The golem is not "cannot get any stupider" that would be 0 it is "int cannot be quantified"
That's not what a nonability means. A nonability means the creature doesn't have that capacity. Like incorporeal creatures don't have STR scores because they can't actually physically move things, or undead don't have CON scores because there's no metabolism going on. Mindless creatures don't have an INT score because they are mindless.

[The Great Skenardo]

From MM1:
"Golems are tenacious in combat and prodigiously strong as well.
Being mindless, they do nothing without orders from their creators.
They follow instructions explicitly and are incapable of
any strategy or tactics. They are emotionless in combat and
cannot be provoked.
A golem’s creator can command it if the golem is within 60 feet
and can see and hear its creator. If uncommanded, a golem usually
follows its last instruction to the best of its ability, though if attacked
it returns the attack. The creator can give the golem a simple command
to govern its actions in his or her absence, such as “Remain in
an area and attack all creatures that enter” (or only a specific type of
creature), “Ring a gong and attack,” or the like. The golem’s creator
can order the golem to obey the commands of another person (who
might in turn place the golem under someone else’s control, and so
on), but the golem’s creator can always resume control over his creation
by commanding the golem to obey him alone."

So RAW, a golem can recognize people, since it can be "ordered to obey the commands of another person."


This is a very helpful passage, because it also suggests that a golem can tell the difference between different kinds of creatures. Presumably, they do this by sight rather than the same innate link that lets a golem know its master. Since you can easily sneak by a golem while invisible, one presumes that the vigilance of a golem instructed to let elves pass could be defeated by a disguise check opposed by its spot.

[NotScaryBats]

That's not what a nonability means. A nonability means the creature doesn't have that capacity. Like incorporeal creatures don't have STR scores because they can't actually physically move things, or undead don't have CON scores because there's no metabolism going on. Mindless creatures don't have an INT score because they are mindless.

Mindless =/= stupid. They aren't dumb, but have no intelligence. Just like you wouldn't say the ghost is 'weak' because it has - str.

[TuggyNE]

Mindless =/= stupid. They aren't dumb, but have no intelligence. Just like you wouldn't say the ghost is 'weak' because it has - str.

That's true, as far as it goes. However, a ghost is unable to move things (without TK), and a golem/monstrous centipede/zombie is unable to learn (on its own) or reason.

Edit: yes, I'm aware this is nearly circular. Ah well.

[Deophaun]

My computer is mindless. It can only perform simple operations (nothing beyond turning something on or off). It is infinitely better at math than I am. Give it a biometric scanner, and it can probably be better at identifying people than I am as well.

Still mindless.

[Flickerdart]

My computer is mindless. It can only perform simple operations (nothing beyond turning something on or off). It is infinitely better at math than I am. Give it a biometric scanner, and it can probably be better at identifying people than I am as well.

Still mindless.
Golems do not have biometric scanners or the driver software for them.

[Phelix-Mu]

This is a very helpful passage, because it also suggests that a golem can tell the difference between different kinds of creatures. Presumably, they do this by sight rather than the same innate link that lets a golem know its master. Since you can easily sneak by a golem while invisible, one presumes that the vigilance of a golem instructed to let elves pass could be defeated by a disguise check opposed by its spot.

Right, it "suggests" the golem can recognize different people, but what it actually says is that the golem can be passed to a secondary controller. That is a very specific instance of recognizing a person. Just like we probably shouldn't extend "attack anyone entering the room" to "attack anyone entering the room except [list of sixty previously identified individuals]," just so it is a mistake to say that the golem can recognize individuals generally because the phrase "the golem’s creator can order the golem to obey the commands of another person" says that this is a specific kind of command that can be given.

Just like, although the ghost might be able to move things through other abilities, it's generally good to assume that lifting stuff is going to be a problem for a ghost, just so "thinking" should be something that we assume a golem has a very hard time doing. It can compare things to it's current command, but I think this command should allow as minimal an outside reference to language and definition of abstract terms (like a name is not a literal, perceivable quality of a creature) as is possible.

Sadly, I'm more or less down to opinion here. Perhaps "mindless" is better defined somewhere? The real culprit is "simple." The same clause that simple appears in, though, also mentions "last command." So clearly compounding/combining commands with aforementioned boolean stuff is suspect, cause I would think the "last command" would only refer to the last part...nah, still inconclusive.

*shakes fist at writers*

[Jeff the Green]

[Artificer returns home from finally defeating Count Baddington, an adventure which took many years and hardships. His long-lost lover waits on the porch. His defense-golems stand in the background]

"Honey, I'm so-"

[Lover slaps him for leaving her for so long, then embraces him, crying]

"HUMANOID ENEMY DETECTED. DEFENSE ALGORITHM ALPHA, ENGAGED"

"NOOO-"

[Golems immediately gun her down. Artificer breaks down, weeps. End scene.]

I need to steal this and use it somehow. Not sure exactly how yet...

[Slipperychicken]

I need to steal this and use it somehow. Not sure exactly how yet...

I'm glad you like it :smallsmile:

You could certainly do things like this to PCs with Contingencies, and any standing orders to mindless minions. Or even spirits, outsiders, or dieties who are obligated to "destroy all who harm me", "eliminate all who oppose me", or have similar orders.

The idea of power having horrible and unforeseen consequences is very popular in fiction. Same goes for the idea of power coming only at terrible costs to the user. There are a lot of ways to convey this, although admittedly fewer in a tabletop RPG.

[Necroticplague]

But here, you just taught the golem what "enemy" means by giving it a definition. This seems like the beginning of a slippery slope. Now you can define any term for the golem and add it into your command.

Even the idea "teach" seems silly. You can't use Handle Animal to train a mindless ooze because it can't think. While the ability to follow a command is one step up from the mindless ooze or uncontrolled zombie, "simple command" really does need to stay "simple." Adding complexity through "this is Constantine" seems the opposite of simple.

Also, as mentioned, pretty much all language added through such clauses is suspect, and risky. "This is Constantine" could allow the golem to identify Constantine, but maybe not when he later is injured, or when he puts on a hat. How stupid is a golem? Well, it's mathematically impossible to get stupider. The hat might fool it. Bye bye Constantine.

Well, we don't have golems in real life, so I'm trying to use the closest analogs, and asking what they can do. I'm currently using the computer as an analogy. Without being given commands, it just sits their, though it will continue running anything if you give it a command and walk away. It is also perfetly valid to allow it to assign variable it can perceive (though my computers senses are much more limited than a golem). Like, for example, writing a program that asks you for your name and then prints out "Hello ___" where ___ is whatever you said your name was is relatively easy, and this is a similar case.

[NotScaryBats]

I think mindless creatures can be fooled, since they don't have an intrinsic magical connection to their commands. Someone can impersonate Constantine, and if they do it in a way that makes sense to the golem, it should act accordingly. Remember that the original creator can always "You fool! That isn't Constantine! Kill him!" Because s/he can ALWAYS resume control.

The more convoluted you make the golem's instructions, the more room for error there is. "Kill all orcs, but allow no harm to come to women and children orcs" is a command you can give the golem. Should you? Probably not, because if the orcs figure out what your commands are, they can defuse the situation (like, by making a wall of female orcs that stand in front of the golem until the village is evacuated).

I think the most important thing is that golems are not infallible, and may misunderstand orders or carry them out poorly -- this is a huge trope like in the artificer's wife example.

[Flickerdart]

Like, for example, writing a program that asks you for your name and then prints out "Hello ___" where ___ is whatever you said your name was is relatively easy, and this is a similar case.
No it isn't. There's a big difference between the program parroting back string data and recognizing a unique individual through only optical input.

[NotScaryBats]

A golem is a magical creature created to specifically do things for you. If it can't tell the difference between two objects, what is the point of anyone making a golem ever

[TuggyNE]

No it isn't. There's a big difference between the program parroting back string data and recognizing a unique individual through only optical input.

It occurs to me that a good solution would be adjusting golems slightly so they can recognize their creator's arcane mark, and then give out appropriate marks as needed (for short-term access, put the mark on the person's skin; for longer-term access, give them an ID card).

Of course this leaves divine casters out in the cold, but who cares about those jerks? :smalltongue: