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
Actually there is no such tradition, only regional variations. People decide to confuse [alignment] descriptor spells with acts of that alignment which mechanically are not tied to one another.
You can elect to play your tables and campaigns this way.
You can also elect to play it as a double standard.
Neither is however mechanically in the rules.
-James
Uh... That's completely untrue.
To pull an official WotC source, Book of Vile Darkness goes into a long list of "what are evil acts" and why. The list goes lying, cheating, theft, betrayal, murder, etc... On page 8, it specifically includes:
CASTING EVIL SPELLS
Evil spells may create undead, inflict undue suffering, harm
another’s soul, or produce any of a slew of similar effects.
Sometimes, a nonevil spellcaster can get away with casting
a few evil spells, as long as he or she does not do so for an
evil purpose. But the path of evil magic leads quickly to corruption
and destruction.
Also, the example I already used, the Malconvoker. Official WotC p-class, its whole point is to allow good characters to summon evil monsters. Its key ability "Unrestricted Conjuration" is that "regular use of conjuration spells with the evil descriptor does not threaten to change your alignment"
You can play however you want, but saying that the 3.0/3.5 rules never said that is uninformed.
Well first while I may have misspoken I was not trying to say that summons necessarily got nothing only that they did not necessarily get something any more then fighters get laser eyes. But I suppose that so long as you agree that neither your conjecture nor the one that I may have mistakenly espoused are of any real worth then as of the moment I have nothing more to add on that matter since that was the point I was trying to get across.
However I would say that trying to keep people informed and avoiding possible confusion as I was trying to do is useful to the discussion.
I was specifically responding to the idea that it is better to summon an evil creature an inconvience them instead of inconviencing a good creature going about the do gooder business.
That idea is build on the assumption that summoned monsters do not get anything, which is not supported by the RAW.
As I said what a summoned monster gets from the deal is left unspecified in the RAW.
By RAW I think.. well, you all already covered the RAW.
But, I think spells generally shouldn't have "alignment descriptors" at all. No spell should be "evil" to cast. What you DO with the spell should be the sole decider on whether or not the spell is evil.
A summoned creature who's language you can speak *does exactly what you tell it to*. This is not some called Balor who can wrigggle and squirm around trying to do evil deeds. Its a summoning spell and if you use Summon Monster Y to summon a Balor and tell it to dig a latrine and be quiet about it, it will be quiet and dig the latrine.
It doesn't get the choice of disobeying you. It does exactly what you say, when you say it, every single time. That's the beauty of using a Summoning spell (when you can speak the language of what you are summoning)
Therefore, imo, the act of summoning him shouldn't itself be evil- but rather what you Do with the spell.
***yes, I do know the Balor isn't on any of the Summon Monster lists, it was just an extreme example..
-S
By RAW I think.. well, you all already covered the RAW.
But, I think spells generally shouldn't have "alignment descriptors" at all. No spell should be "evil" to cast. What you DO with the spell should be the sole decider on whether or not the spell is evil.
A summoned creature who's language you can speak *does exactly what you tell it to*. This is not some called Balor who can wrigggle and squirm around trying to do evil deeds. Its a summoning spell and if you use Summon Monster Y to summon a Balor and tell it to dig a latrine and be quiet about it, it will be quiet and dig the latrine.
It doesn't get the choice of disobeying you. It does exactly what you say, when you say it, every single time. That's the beauty of using a Summoning spell (when you can speak the language of what you are summoning)
Therefore, imo, the act of summoning him shouldn't itself be evil- but rather what you Do with the spell.
***yes, I do know the Balor isn't on any of the Summon Monster lists, it was just an extreme example..
-S
Gate will call a Balor in a similar way.
Gate works the same way for 1 rd/level (follow every order). After 1 rd/lv, they will ask for money to continue.
Gate will call a Balor in a similar way.
Gate works the same way for 1 rd/level (follow every order). After 1 rd/lv, they will ask for money to continue.
No, it really won't. Gate is instantaneous if you use it to call (not summon) a creature. The duration of 1 round/level (if you concentrate) is for keeping a Gate open for interplanal travel.
You can control the called creature if it has equal or fewer HD than your caster level, but if it has more HD than your caster level, it will do exactly as it pleases, from round 1.
Even if you can control it, you have to negotiate a suitable price for its services. Also from round 1.
For my players, I do not actively keep them from using (evil) spells, though they might do it. When they do I will only describe that they feel awkward and somehow unclean, but the spell's effect won't change.
It is obvious to the player he did something that felt not quite right, most likely this will keep them from using those spells with any ammount of frequency. If they persist I take it as a sign they feel increasingly comfortable using (evil) spells and if he persists I might actually change his alignment one step towards evil.
Also imagine you play a paladin, at some point you come into conflict with a wizard and a fight happens, the wizard animates his fallen minions, summons devils and demons the paladin battles his way through the demonic and undead horde and tries to smite the sorcerous fiend with smite evil.. SUCKER I AM NEUTRAL !!
Really.. come on these spells are trademarks of evil spellcasters, players will assume they are evil when they summon demons and animate the dead, and quite likely the paladin will have a fit if they can somehow not smite the demon summoner.
Why should I stop discussion of the RAW just because you ask.
Because...
A. I wasn't talking to you.B. The conversation we were having was not about RAW.
C. Your response was completely irrelevant to the discussion taking place.
You still haven't answered my question. By the RAW, how are summoned creatures inconvienced? For all you know, they are sitting on a beach drinking mamosas while they reform. The RAW never states that they are inconvienced in any way, form, or fashion, just that they cannot be summoned for 24 hours because they are reforming.