If your Chaotic Good, could you summon Devils/Demons to get dirty work done without effecting your Alignment? Or after doing it enough would your alignment begin to shift?
|
If your Chaotic Good, could you summon Devils/Demons to get dirty work done without effecting your Alignment? Or after doing it enough would your alignment begin to shift?
If you're a cleric, you can't as both would make the summoning Spell [Evil] as it's summoning a creature of the Evil subtype and Cleric's can't cast spells opposed to their alignment. If you're a Wizard, check with you're DM, but be wary of fiends making promises. They might not promise what you think they have.
|
Alignment effect is more of a Y.M.M.V. thing, depending on your DM's views. However, there are rules preventing a cleric that channels positive energy from summoning "evil" creatures, or clerics that channel negative energy from summoning "good" creatures. Wizards are not so limited, to my knowledge.
|
|
The spell description for Summon Monster indicates that the spell inherits the alignment of the creature summoned. And many creatures with are granted templates are limited to choosing templates that match your alignment.
When you use a summoning spell to summon a creature with an alignment or elemental subtype, it is a spell of that type. Creatures on Table: Summon Monster marked with an "*" are summoned with the celestial template, if you are good, and the fiendish template, if you are evil. If you are neutral, you may choose which template to apply to the creature. Creatures marked with an "*" always have an alignment that matches yours, regardless of their usual alignment. Summoning these creatures makes the summoning spell's type match your alignment.
So, I stand corrected on my original comment about channel energy be the limiting factor, it looks like it's based entirely on your alignment, though I think I would default to channel type for neutral clerics. But, by the RAW, it looks like Wizards are just as limited as Clerics.
By the RAW, casting a spell with the evil descriptor is an evil act, and summon monster is an evil spell when used to summon evil creatures.
Now depending on which diety you worship, they may or may not have a problem with their clerics summoning evil creatures.
For example, a CG "trickster" diety may find it amusing for one of their clerics to use evil creatures for good ends, and forgive them for it.
If your Chaotic Good, could you summon Devils/Demons to get dirty work done without effecting your Alignment? Or after doing it enough would your alignment begin to shift?
The part of the OP's question that bothers me the most is the reference to "dirty work".
Yes, it is RAW that the summon spells take on the descriptor that matches the alignment of the cratures you summon. Yes, certain classes (e.g. cleric) cannot cast spells opposed to their deity's acceptable alignment. So for example, a good cleric of a good deity cannot summon a demon, since the demon being evil makes the Summon Monser spell take on the "Evil" descriptor and therefore be prohibited by the cleric's good deity.
That's all RAW.
For everyone else, a LG wizard could happily summon a CE demon without any RAW problems.
So, then it boils down to how each DM handles alignments. Some DMs in this situation will laugh maniacally as they pronounce judgment on the poor wizard, shifting his alignment to Evil for casting an Evil spell. Some will warn the wizard that he can get away with it a few times but each casting drags his alignment closer to Evil. Etc. I won't go into my theories on alignment since no other DM really cares - we each do our own thing anyway.
But, back to the part of the OP's post that bothered me. What exactly do you mean by summoning demons to do "dirty work"?
Or to put it another way, I am quite certain that the "dirty work" will stain your good soul far more than the spell itself. For example, you could summon a bear (no alignment) to kill an innocent child. This would clearly be an evil act (I'm sure someone will jump in here with "what if the child is baby Hitler and you're saving the world?" hypotheses, but let's assume for the sake of my example that this really is an innocent child with no particularly significant future).
If you do summon a bear to kill a (truly) innocent child, you've commited an evil act. Likewise, if you cast Magic Missile to kill that child, it's still evil. In other words, it's not the spell's "Evil" descriptor that is the problem here.
So if I'm your DM, I don't care about whether you choose to summon a demon, summon a bear, or cast Magic Missile, but if you're doing "dirty work" then we're going to call into question the consequences of that "dirty work" upon your alignment.
Dirty Work was reference as using them in situations that would get them killed. Kind of like sacrificing them to the BBEG in the front line defense. As CG character, I think i rather the Devil/demon dying than an angel/Azata.
This is for a wizard, I just wanted to know if RAW would force my alignment to shift eventually. My DM is fairly laxed on most issues as long as I have a solid argument.
Dirty Work was reference as using them in situations that would get them killed. Kind of like sacrificing them to the BBEG in the front line defense. As CG character, I think i rather the Devil/demon dying than an angel/Azata.
This is for a wizard, I just wanted to know if RAW would force my alignment to shift eventually. My DM is fairly laxed on most issues as long as I have a solid argument.
Don't forget that summoned creatures don't die - if their HP reaches 0, they just go back home, safe and sound.
Summoning: A summoning spell instantly brings a creature or object to a place you designate. When the spell ends or is dispelled, a summoned creature is instantly sent back to where it came from, but a summoned object is not sent back unless the spell description specifically indicates this. A summoned creature also goes away if it is killed or if its hit points drop to 0 or lower, but it is not really dead. It takes 24 hours for the creature to reform, during which time it can't be summoned again.
So have no fear, you can't gill your angels or azatas.
But, consider this: If you're fighting something evil, and summon an angel or azata, they will gladly fight that evil thing. And they might even have useful powers, like Smite Evil, to make them even stronger. But if you summon a demon to fight something evil, it won't have special attacks and it might not even want to do it. Worse, you tarnish your own alignment by summoning that evil demon to do your dirty work.
As for your final question, that's really up to you and your DM. The RAW says that you are commiting an Evil act, and the section on alignment gives some vague generalities about changing alignments and within those vague generalities it says "there are no hard and fast rules".
Me, I would follow the generalities and suggest that if you are repeatedly committing evil acts, then you should change your alignment to an evil alignment. If you are committing the evil acts (summoning demons) for good reasons (battling evil), then you'll end up with a balance somewhere near Neutral. Though I'm sure there are paladins out there who would argue that the ends don't justify the means, and you might find some paladins camped on your doorstep, calling you an evil demonologist and readying their smites...
Casting a spell with an [Evil] Descriptor is an evil act, but just that, *an* evil act. The magnitude of the act is a matter of GM discretion, and some GMs will hammer you for a single instance, while others will look at it as a general trend (and yet others will ignore it altogether).
As DM_Blake pointed out, however, what you *do* with that spell can easily constitute evil acts in and of themselves. If you summon a demon to commit evil, then you've committed two separate evils, the summoning, and the acts you have summoned the demon for. If you summon an elemental (for example) to commit the same evil, then the summoning itself is not evil, but the command to do evil is an evil act..and it is no more or less evil than if you had the demon do your dirty work.
By the RAW, casting a spell with the evil descriptor is an evil act, and summon monster is an evil spell when used to summon evil creatures.
While a spell might have the [evil] descriptor, where does it say that casting such a spell is an *evil* act?
Likewise casting certain spells being *lawful*, *chaotic*, or *good* acts?
I know it didn't exist in 3.5 core, so I'm curious if it was added into pathfinder.
-James
Yes, summoning a chaotic creature is a chaotic act as you are bringing chaos into the world.
Demons and devils are the embodiment of evil. Even if you keep it on a short leash, you have still brought an evil creature into the world.
From the text on spell descriptors.
"Most of these descriptors have no game effect by themselves, but they govern how the spell interacts with other spells, with special abilities, with unusual creatures, with alignment, and so on."
The PF core rules are vague on the exactly how evil spell interact with alignment. The Book of Vile Darkness is where it was stated flat out that casting evil descriptor spells is an evil act. That is as close to RAW as I can get.
From the text on spell descriptors.
"Most of these descriptors have no game effect by themselves, but they govern how the spell interacts with other spells, with special abilities, with unusual creatures, with alignment, and so on."
Yes in my mind that refers to clerics and their alignment restrictions on casting spells with alignment descriptors.
As for a WOTC splat book: meh.
It's an old and well known argument. If Paizo had wanted to weigh in on it I'm sure they would have added something directly about it rather than having an non-SRD other party book be the only reference.
Think of it this way: would you allow a PC with alignment problems to 'fix' them by casting [good] descriptor summon spells to kill his enemies?
As to summoning evil to fight evil it depends, with alignment based DR you can get more millage from like aligns fighting one another as they won't be able to bypass the DR.
-James
Yeah, that is why I referenced it. It seems Paizo is keeping things in this area vague, so it is really up the the DM.
The PF core rules are vague on the exactly how evil spell interact with alignment. The Book of Vile Darkness is where it was stated flat out that casting evil descriptor spells is an evil act. That is as close to RAW as I can get.
The BoVD has its own issues, which have been gone into at length elsewhere so we probably shouldn't retread them.
However, it should be brought up that if you're going to have acts pronounced Evil it brings up an obvious question of who's more evil: A wizard who summons a fiendish hawk to deliver a letter (let's say to the top of a tall tower or across a chasm or something that could be delivered within the spell duration) or a wizard who summons a celestial eagle and forces it to peck out a holy nun's eyes? In other words, is using an Evil spell to accomplish a Neutral task more or less Evil than using a Good spell to accomplish an Evil end? We're not talking about whether a paladin would approve of either act, we're just asking which of these would be classed as a bigger sin.
Personally I've never liked the "dark magic as crack" school of theology where any time a wizard does the slightest bit of dark magic they'll quickly spiral out of control like Willow Rosenberg on a black magic bender in the infamous "Rack's Magic Crack Shack" episode of BtVS, especially if you don't enforce the same addiction rules on other classes: fighters are not expected to spiral into sword-swinging blood orgies, rogues don't go mad with kleptomania and obsessive-compulsive hoarding disorders, evil clerics don't immediately start doomsday cults. Yeah, sure, some do, but it's better if it's the individual and not the mechanics.
The PF core rules are vague on the exactly how evil spell interact with alignment. The Book of Vile Darkness is where it was stated flat out that casting evil descriptor spells is an evil act. That is as close to RAW as I can get.The BoVD has its own issues, which have been gone into at length elsewhere so we probably shouldn't retread them.
However, it should be brought up that if you're going to have acts pronounced Evil it brings up an obvious question of who's more evil: A wizard who summons a fiendish hawk to deliver a letter (let's say to the top of a tall tower or across a chasm or something that could be delivered within the spell duration) or a wizard who summons a celestial eagle and forces it to peck out a holy nun's eyes? In other words, is using an Evil spell to accomplish a Neutral task more or less Evil than using a Good spell to accomplish an Evil end? We're not talking about whether a paladin would approve of either act, we're just asking which of these would be classed as a bigger sin.
Personally I've never liked the "dark magic as crack" school of theology where any time a wizard does the slightest bit of dark magic they'll quickly spiral out of control like Willow Rosenberg on a black magic bender in the infamous "Rack's Magic Crack Shack" episode of BtVS, especially if you don't enforce the same addiction rules on other classes: fighters are not expected to spiral into sword-swinging blood orgies, rogues don't go mad with kleptomania and obsessive-compulsive hoarding disorders, evil clerics don't immediately start doomsday cults. Yeah, sure, some do, but it's better if it's the individual and not the mechanics.
Too many people treat alignment like a math problem. How many orphans do I have to save from a burning building to cancel out murdering that commoner who annoyed me? It doesn't work this way. No matter how many good deeds you do, the person you murdered is still dead. Atonement is not about offsetting your evil acts with an equal amount of good ones. It is about changing your attitudes.
A evil tyrant who oppresses people, kills those he suspects are spies on a whim, and conducts bloody purges of any group he thinks might be a threat to his power. He founds several orphanages to try and get the people to like him more. The orphanages help a lot of kids orphaned by his wars and purges, but at the end of the day, he is still an evil tyrant. Why? Because he refuses to repent and change his ways. He has shown no remorse for the killings he ordered. In the end, he is evil not because of what he has done, but rather because he will not turn away from his evil ways. The deaths his actions have caused are merely the fruit of hit attitude and beliefs. Without changing those attitudes and beliefs, no atonement is possible.
My biggest problem with the summoning evil creatures, is that you have a choice to summon any kind of creature, and you choose to summon something dark and evil over something that is good and pure. That alone suggests a less than pure heart. If you are really a good person, then first do no evil.
It makes a lot more sense to inconvenience an evil creature for a day if the summon dies then a good creature.Too many people treat alignment like a math problem. How many orphans do I have to save from a burning building to cancel out murdering that commoner who annoyed me? It doesn't work this way. No matter how many good deeds you do, the person you murdered is still dead. Atonement is not about offsetting your evil acts with an equal amount of good ones. It is about changing your attitudes.
A evil tyrant who oppresses people, kills those he suspects are spies on a whim, and conducts bloody purges of any group he thinks might be a threat to his power. He founds several orphanages to try and get the people to like him more. The orphanages help a lot of kids orphaned by his wars and purges, but at the end of the day, he is still an evil tyrant. Why? Because he refuses to repent and change his ways. He has shown no remorse for the killings he ordered. In the end, he is evil not because of what he has done, but rather because he will not turn away from his evil ways. The deaths his actions have caused are merely the fruit of hit attitude and beliefs. Without changing those attitudes and beliefs, no atonement is possible.
My biggest problem with the summoning evil creatures, is that you have a choice to summon any kind of creature, and you choose to summon something dark and evil over something that is good and pure. That alone suggests a less than pure heart. If you are really a good person, then first do no evil.
And if the evil creature feeds off of being summoned, and gains from it?
Most interpretations of summon monster, the monster gets some benefit from the spell, otherwise they would refuse the summon.
Er what exactly are you getting that from.
General Fantasy Lore and basic logic.
From lore you have things like Demonic pacts, etc. If most cases, summoned creatures exchange power or souls for service or favors.
Logic - Unwilling enslavement is generally considered to be evil, thus if summon monster enslaved the creature it summoned, it would be an evil spell no matter what you summoned. Thus, for the spell to neutral, the creature summoned must be willing. Since evil creatures are inherently selfish, it stands to reason that they must be getting some benefit from being summoned, otherwise they would not be willing.
In the case of summon monster, the creature you summon is most likely feeding off the arcane power of the spell.
All this makes me think of another possibility for good clerics summoning evil creatures. What if the spell simply fizzles because the evil creature refuses to come and serve a good person?
Oh so you mean all that stuff that the base rule book does not actually say happens when casting summon monster. Not the most convincing argument if you are not going to actually give something to back it up.
We are so far outside the bounds of RAW, and you are going to call me on that? Really?
Let me put it this way, do got anything from the RAW that says I am wrong?
You should really read more carefully.
And if the evil creature feeds off of being summoned, and gains from it?Most interpretations of summon monster, the monster gets some benefit from the spell, otherwise they would refuse the summon.
Notice the question mark. That generally denotes a question. If I was sure it worked that way, I would not have phrased it as a question.
We are trying to reverse engineer the why of the RAW. If you can do that without any speculation, good for you.
Edit: Where does it say that the summoned creature is willing so anything based upon this is based on nothing without something backing this up.
RAW - A summoned creature is under the control of the person who summoned it.
RAW - Enslaving a sentient creature against its will is an evil act.RAW - Summoning a ghale is not an evil act.
Logic - Summoning a creature is the same as enslaving it, and thus the creature must have come willingly.
Oh so you mean all that stuff that the base rule book does not actually say happens when casting summon monster. Not the most convincing argument if you are not going to actually give something to back it up.We are so far outside the bounds of RAW, and you are going to call me on that? Really?
Let me put it this way, do got anything from the RAW that says I am wrong?
Ok so I did assume that a demon would be inconvenienced by having to take a day to reform. But if you wish I will retract this conjecture and say that instead one may wish to try and inconvenience an evil creature by possibly making it take a day to reform if the summon is killed.
Now then since my slight divergence has been corrected please back up your statements.
Also that is not how things work. As a bit of hyperbole for an example I do not need to prove that fighters don't have instant kill laser eye beams that can only be stopped by a major artifact made from the bottom half of sigil welded to the 2761 layer of the abyss since it does not say they do.
Where are you getting that the demon would be inconvienced from?
There are some optional rules from a 3.5 splat book for having named summons, and those rules state that you cannot resummon that particular creature for 24 hours if it dies, but no where does it talk about reforming, or the creature being inconvienced.
Page 210 says nothing I can see about the summon having to be named.
It says reforming and can't be resummoned. Nothing about inconvienced. Unless you want to argue that not being able to be summoned is an inconvience, but that would imply that the creature gets something from being summoned.
You want RAW, fine...
Using summon monster to summon evil creatures makes the spell evil.
I gave you three perfectly good reasons why, based on common lore, common sense, and logic. You don't like those make up your own, but that doesn't change the RAW that it is an evil spell, period.
|
If your Chaotic Good, could you summon Devils/Demons to get dirty work done without effecting your Alignment? Or after doing it enough would your alignment begin to shift?
Not an option for a good Cleric, but good Sorcerer or Wizard could do so, and it would be the GM's option when or if he changes alignment because of it.
One could justify that calling up fiends is less sinfully prideful than bossing around angels for fighting worldly battles, and in the case of calling spells, one can actually get the outsiders killed for real, which allows a good aligned sorcerer or wizard to call up a fiend and get it killed fighting other evil forces, permanantly reducing the power of evil by killing off one of it's immortal soldiers.
No reason to summon or call good outsiders, and possibly snatch away a celestial or angel who is currently on an important mission for the forces of good, or get one killed (in the case of a calling).
And if your GM rules that even a Sorcerer or Wizard begins turning evil by summoning or calling up fiends, even to fight evil or kill them off, then the PC can just call up celestial critters to cancel out that process.
If he turns evil from casting [evil] spells, even if he uses them to further the cause of good, then, logically, he should be able to turn good by casting [good] spells to eat babies and kick puppies. Yay for two-dimensional meaningless alignment spells!
I prefer a more complex alignment system, but hey, no reason not to take advantage of it if the GM likes it simplified.
If your Chaotic Good, could you summon Devils/Demons to get dirty work done without effecting your Alignment? Or after doing it enough would your alignment begin to shift?Not an option for a good Cleric, but good Sorcerer or Wizard could do so, and it would be the GM's option when or if he changes alignment because of it.
One could justify that calling up fiends is less sinfully prideful than bossing around angels for fighting worldly battles, and in the case of calling spells, one can actually get the outsiders killed for real, which allows a good aligned sorcerer or wizard to call up a fiend and get it killed fighting other evil forces, permanantly reducing the power of evil by killing off one of it's immortal soldiers.
No reason to summon or call good outsiders, and possibly snatch away a celestial or angel who is currently on an important mission for the forces of good, or get one killed (in the case of a calling).
And if your GM rules that even a Sorcerer or Wizard begins turning evil by summoning or calling up fiends, even to fight evil or kill them off, then the PC can just call up celestial critters to cancel out that process.
If he turns evil from casting [evil] spells, even if he uses them to further the cause of good, then, logically, he should be able to turn good by casting [good] spells to eat babies and kick puppies. Yay for two-dimensional meaningless alignment spells!
I prefer a more complex alignment system, but hey, no reason not to take advantage of it if the GM likes it simplified.
Yes, but you're forgetting the whole "Good is supposed to be harder than Evil" saw, or as it's also known "Roleplaying as a Calvinist Morality Fable."
Let's give you an example a little girl, crying, because her kitten is stuck up in a tree. Let us assume for the sake of argument that this is actually a Good little girl and a Neutral kitten but still one beloved by said Good little girl despite its moral shortcomings. A wizard comes by and offers to save the girl's kitten.
Situation A: The wizard is Evil and can therefore only summon fiendish creatures. But despite being Evil, he still likes children and not just as sacrificial victims. No, really. If saints can have vices, then villains can still have virtues, and the wizard can like children and kittens without having any hopes more evil for them than hoping they grow up to become fellow evil mages and their familiars. So the wizard summons a fiendish eagle, has it grab the kitten, delivers it to the child, stops her tears, and gives her a cookie.
Result: Evil! He has summoned an evil creature via an evil spell, gained the confidence of a Good child he can thereby lure to the dark side, and he's also contributing to the childhood obesity epidemic and a lifetime of body image issues.
Situation B: The wizard is Good and can therefore only summon celestial creatures. Being Good, he likes children and not in any inappropriate way. So the wizard summons a celestial eagle, has it grab the kitten, delivers it to the child, stops her tears, and gives her a cookie.
Result: Evil! He has summoned a good creature via a good spell, but is using it to rescue a neutral creature unable to follow the precepts of team good and he is therefore wasting the celestial powers time for frivolous reasons if not for outright personal gain. Moreover, he as gained the trust of a Good child who may follow him down the path of light and become his apprentice, but even a good apprentice does work for a good master and it is thus a selfish and thus Evil act. Moreover, he's still contributing to the childhood obesity epidemic and a lifetime of body image issues, so he's damned for the cookie even if not for the rest.
Situation C: The wizard is Neutral and can therefore only summon a celestial eagle or a fiendish eagle but not a neutral eagle because there aren't any, at least with Summon Monster I. He also likes children but makes a Knowledge Religion check to know that it will be an Evil act regardless of whether he summons a celestial or fiendish creature. He informs the child of the moral implications of either choice, and lets her decide whether she'd like her kitten rescued by a celestial eagle, a fiendish eagle, or leave it up there to get down or die on its own. He also says she must pay him a copper piece, one of which is conveniently on the ground, so that he will technically be a hired mage and thus not morally on the hook. The kid gives the penny to him and says she wants a celestial eagle because she thinks the Calvinist theology the DM is using is BS. So the wizard summons a celestial eagle, has it grab the kitten, delivers it to the child, stops her tears, and gives her a cookie along with his business card so she can hire him later.
Result: Evil! He has summoned a good creature via a good spell, but is using it to rescue a neutral creature unable to follow the precepts of team good and he is therefore wasting the celestial powers time for frivolous reasons as well as for outright personal gain, acting as a mercenary for filthy lucre, even a single copper piece, which is still part of the root of all evil. Moreover, he embroiled a Good child in this immoral decision and she has now begun her slow but inexorable slide towards Evil! And he's still contributing to the childhood obesity epidemic and a lifetime of body image issues. Evil! Evil! Evil!
If your Chaotic Good, could you summon Devils/Demons to get dirty work done without effecting your Alignment? Or after doing it enough would your alignment begin to shift?Not an option for a good Cleric, but good Sorcerer or Wizard could do so, and it would be the GM's option when or if he changes alignment because of it.
One could justify that calling up fiends is less sinfully prideful than bossing around angels for fighting worldly battles, and in the case of calling spells, one can actually get the outsiders killed for real, which allows a good aligned sorcerer or wizard to call up a fiend and get it killed fighting other evil forces, permanantly reducing the power of evil by killing off one of it's immortal soldiers.
No reason to summon or call good outsiders, and possibly snatch away a celestial or angel who is currently on an important mission for the forces of good, or get one killed (in the case of a calling).
And if your GM rules that even a Sorcerer or Wizard begins turning evil by summoning or calling up fiends, even to fight evil or kill them off, then the PC can just call up celestial critters to cancel out that process.
If he turns evil from casting [evil] spells, even if he uses them to further the cause of good, then, logically, he should be able to turn good by casting [good] spells to eat babies and kick puppies. Yay for two-dimensional meaningless alignment spells!
I prefer a more complex alignment system, but hey, no reason not to take advantage of it if the GM likes it simplified.
You are working under 2 flawed assumptions.
1. That good and evil acts cancel each other out. By the RAW, alignment is about a characters attitudes on good and evil. It is not a math problem about mixing even amounts of black and white to keep their sould a certain shade of grey. A good person would never eat a baby in the first place, much less eat the baby, then try and do something else to make up for it. Atonement is about turning away from an alignment entirely, not doing just enough good to cancel out the bad.2. You are also working under the assumption that the summoned or called creature doesn't get anything in return for their time. The RAW is very explicit on what the summoner gets out of the spell. What the summoned creature gets out of the deal isn't mentioned at all. If a summoned monster gets some kind of boon from the summoner, it changes the entire equation, because summoning evil creatures would actually be giving aid to the evil creature. Summoning good creatures would not be "bossing them around" but rather trading a favor for a favor.
By your weird interpretation of the alignment system, I can make a magic item that grants infinite good alignment. I craft a magic item that summons an evil creature into a cage, then blasts it with magic missle. Each time I use it I become a slightly better person for no other reason that I pressed the button, a couple hundred presses and I can go murder a baby with no consequences!
I would think that any good character would have serious reservations about dealing with demons, period.
You are working under 2 flawed assumptions.
1. That good and evil acts cancel each other out. By the RAW, alignment is about a characters attitudes on good and evil. It is not a math problem about mixing even amounts of black and white to keep their sould a certain shade of grey. A good person would never eat a baby in the first place, much less eat the baby, then try and do something else to make up for it. Atonement is about turning away from an alignment entirely, not doing just enough good to cancel out the bad.2. You are also working under the assumption that the summoned or called creature doesn't get anything in return for their time. The RAW is very explicit on what the summoner gets out of the spell. What the summoned creature gets out of the deal isn't mentioned at all. If a summoned monster gets some kind of boon from the summoner, it changes the entire equation, because summoning evil creatures would actually be giving aid to the evil creature. Summoning good creatures would not be "bossing them around" but rather trading a favor for a favor.
By your weird interpretation of the alignment system, I can make a magic item that grants infinite good alignment. I craft a magic item that summons an evil creature into a cage, then blasts it with magic missle. Each time I use it I become a slightly better person for no other reason that I pressed the button, a couple hundred presses and I can go murder a baby with no consequences!
I would think that any good character would have serious reservations about dealing with demons, period.
Why are Set's assumptions any more flawed than your own?
Having good and evil deeds cancel each other out is the nature of a good deal of theology and even a bit of literature--Shirley Jackson's "An Ordinary Day, With Peanuts" and Natalie Babbitt's "The Artist" immediately spring to mind. And even saying that that's not part of the D&D/Pathfinder cosmology/theology is flawed. If a druid is all about "preserving the balance" and then he, say, saves the life of a dying unicorn, an extraordinarily Chaotic Good magical creature, he might want to do something to remedy the imbalance caused by the death of the Lawful Evil creature that died whilst trying to save the unicorn. Reincarnation would be a quick fix. So might using Awaken on a willow tree since those are traditionally rather crabby, and while maybe not traditionally "evil" seem to do a splendid imitation of evil whenever stray halflings wander into their territory.
As for what any summoned creature gets for its time, whether it actually dies permanently or just seems to and so on, those are questions for the DM to decide and the characters to only get answered if they make a sufficiently difficult Knowledge Arcana check. You have assumptions. Fine. But suffice it to say that those assumptions will be wrong based on the cosmology of any given imaginary world. And that's even part of the RAW which even says in many different places something to the effect of "In Golarion, V is X; in Ravenloft, V is Y; in Eberron, V is Z." It's not contradictory to have the same mechanics have different explanations in different worlds.
|
Is morality absolute in your world?
Summon celestial is a good spell, thus every time you cast it you're committing a good act.
Summon fiendish is an evil spell, thus every time you cast it you're committing an evil act.
Or is morality subjective?
Then it's all about what the wizard believes he's accomplishing.
If he thinks that summoning an evil creature will, for a day, keep it from furthering its evil schemes, then though the spell is evil, he personally is doing good with it.
If he thinks that summoning a good creature will, for a day, keep it from furthering its good schemes, then though the spell is good, he personally is doing evil with it.
Or is morality a DM Absolute?
In which case, the dm determines if a particular act is good or evil based on his own personal opinion.
If the wizard thinks that summoning an evil creature will, for a day, keep it from furthering its evil schemes, it doesn't matter. The dm will decide if, in this particular instance, it is good or evil. Since the player will never know everything about the game, he will never be sure if a particular action is good or bad, and thus won't bother with morality since he's got no way to make decisions that keep him either good or evil. He'll make the choices he wants, and ignore the right/wrong rulings of the dm. Also, he'll tend to avoid paladins and clerics.
|
|
Yes, but you're forgetting the whole "Good is supposed to be harder than Evil" saw,
It's a neat concept, and certainly true in the real world, but this is D&D, where good gives better rewards, and easier rewards than evil.
To be a Blackguard, you need to work hard, gain the appropriate feats, and impress an evil outsider.
To be a Paladin, you need to be a 0 HD farmer's son who hasn't accomplished a darn thing.
Obviously, in meta-game terms, this is the result of good characters being prefered for player use, and so most of the kingdoms in a setting will be compatible with good aligned players, most of the PCs will be focused around good-aligned characters and good-aligned dieties, and any alignment restricted core classes may be lawful (monks), chaotic (bards and barbarians), neutral (druids) or good (paladins), but not so much with the evil.
But, leaving aside the meta-game reasons, the game ends up being lopsided in favor of good, and making good the *easier* choice. It's also the superior choice, as an afterlife in the upper planes is quite a bit nicer than an afterlife in the lower planes, making the choice to be evil in a setting that explicitly has demons and devils and angels and divine servants running around casting spells, and where there is no doubt in any mind that the afterlife exists, utterly insane.
The two-dimensional nature of alignment here ends up making good the *only* real choice. It's got better classes. It's got better kingdoms. It's got a better retirement plan. What's evil got to offer? Eternal torment, no special rewards or powers and a much harder slog for no appreciable benefit. All things considered, it's just a bit nonsensical that anyone chooses that path.
Now if the game *did* have rules that made evil a 'quick and easy path,' perhaps with a few Dark Side-esque pitfalls along the way, it would be easy to see how short-sighted people could be tempted to be evil in such a setting, but since the quick and easy rewards only reserved for *good* people, it turns that assumption on it's head.
Sure, the Scarlet Brotherhood, Thay and Cheliax are fun to read about, and playing Snidely Whiplash can be a fun 'come as you aren't' expperience, but who would really want to live there, and risk being dragged off and mated to monkeys to make hybrid man/ape slaves / dragged off to be turned into one of Szass Tam's unliving soldiers / dragged off and sacrified to Asmodeus, when they could live in Veluna, Cormyr or Andoran?
Good kicks evils butt, mechanically, societally and existentially.
If 'the easy path' is the wrong path, then good = wrong.
Sorry, you can't take the position that x evil descriptor spells will shift you evil and also the position that x good descriptor spells won't make you good.
It's pretty much the fundemental of the discussion, that the rules only apply when they are convenient. Evil spells can turn you evil, regardless of what the rules do or do not say about this, and even if the text is absolutely the same, chaotic spells might or might not turn you chaotic and lawful spells probably won't turn you lawful and good spells will absolutely not turn you good.
Just because.
So you can turn evil by casting protection from good, but you can't turn good by casting protection from evil.
You can turn evil by calling in a fiend and killing it, permanantly destroying a creature of pure elemental evil, and that's *evil.*
You can summon an angel, which is a [Good] spell, but that doesn't count, apparently, because even if angels are as equally made of pure essentially good as fiends are made of raw evil, they don't count and the [Good] descriptor doesn't actually mean anything, unlike the [Evil] descriptor, which is assumed to have special turning-people-evil-properties.
That's probably an oversight on the part of the game designers, to include [Good], [Law] and [Chaos] descriptors when they don't actually do anything, and certainly don't mean anything like the [Evil] descriptor.
My general rule is that Evil can't be corrupted to Good, but the reverse is very very possible.
Why don't you like that idea?
2. You are also working under the assumption that the summoned or called creature doesn't get anything in return for their time. The RAW is very explicit on what the summoner gets out of the spell. What the summoned creature gets out of the deal isn't mentioned at all. If a summoned monster gets some kind of boon from the summoner, it changes the entire equation, because summoning evil creatures would actually be giving aid to the evil creature. Summoning good creatures would not be "bossing them around" but rather trading a favor for a favor.so your conjecture is again that someone might be wrong due to something that the base rule book does not actually say happens. I again do not find that a convincing argument since it works equally for and against all sides so long as a specific table is not being discussed.
Though to be clear I am not supporting his position except in that my review of yours finds this part of it of little value.
And the conjecture that summoned monsters get nothing out of being summoned has exactly the same basis in the RAW, none.
Now do you have something useful to add to the discussion?
Why are Set's assumptions any more flawed than your own?
I never did, I merely pointed out some of the problems inherent with that particular way of treating alignment.
not to get too far off topic
In the older D&D systems(and most computer RPGs), XP was awarded for killing things, not for overcoming a challenge. This led to all sorts of goofy things like "Hey let go kill the horses in the stable, they are worth 13 XP each!" Treating acts of good and evil as finite values that shift your alignment one way or another leads to a lot of the same sillyness. Some players and DM like that, I personally do not.
Stating that X is an evil act is one thing. Adjudicating how good and evil acts interact to determine a character's alignment, is well outside the RAW.
2. You are also working under the assumption that the summoned or called creature doesn't get anything in return for their time. The RAW is very explicit on what the summoner gets out of the spell. What the summoned creature gets out of the deal isn't mentioned at all. If a summoned monster gets some kind of boon from the summoner, it changes the entire equation, because summoning evil creatures would actually be giving aid to the evil creature. Summoning good creatures would not be "bossing them around" but rather trading a favor for a favor.
Each Devil in the Bestiary has a brief write-up about how the devils approach being summoned and what they try to do with their time under someone else's control (especially the Pit Fiend's write-up is intriguing). Of course, those sections seem to imply that they should be about "calling" rather than about "summoning".
Because I don't believe that Evil and Good are mere mirrors of each other. Sliding to Evil is easy... redeeming to Good takes a lot more work, is extremely difficult, and is beset with pressure on each side. If being Good was as "easy" as allowing Evil... there'd be a lot less evil about.Why don't you like that idea?
My general rule is that Evil can't be corrupted to Good, but the reverse is very very possible.
But Evil is more immediately rewarding usually than Good (which rewards later more).
Most people dont think ahead (barring Blackguardas who have to)
In general the D&D 3e/3.5e tradition has been that no, you can't, or at least if you do you're committing an evil act, and your DM will take that as seriously as they do you committing other evil acts, casting Animate Dead, whatever.
Hence the Malconvoker prestige class in Complete Scoundrel, one of my favorites. I played a malconvoker all the way through Rise of the Runelords. Good times.
Of course if your DM doesn't care, you're golden.