
WWWW |
WWWW wrote:Charender wrote: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?
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.

Ernest Mueller |

Ernest Mueller wrote: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.

Charender |

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.

james maissen |
You can play however you want, but saying that the 3.0/3.5 rules never said that is uninformed.
The core rules are indeed silent upon this. They only include channeling energy as an act of alignment.
That some splat books (which I even mentioned in this thread) decide to say this or that doesn't hold much weight. WOTC was/is notorious for lack of oversight there, not to mention none of it was OGL material.
Some people at WOTC may have decided to make these spells acts of alignment, or some of the writers, like others, could simply be confused and thought that they already were such.
Does the fact that an official WotC PrC seemed to be under the impression that the mage armor spell is an abjuration make it so?
Or does it just illustrate that official WotC PrCs aren't the best sources for rules?
How many sample NPCs listed after their official PrC's are even correct? How many even qualify for their PrC that they are illustrating?
-James

Selgard |

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

Starbuck_II |

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.
james maissen |
But, I think spells generally shouldn't have "alignment descriptors" at all. No spell should be "evil" to cast.
This is the misconception and it's based upon name choice.
From people who brought you the word 'level' for how many different terms I guess we should be grateful that its not far worse.
The mechanical use of alignment descriptors is for clerics and the like and what spells they can be granted. That's it.
But it has the word 'evil' there and that seems to confuse people.
If Paizo had wanted pathfinder to have mechanical alignment shifting actions they would have dealt with them. In fact I think that they removed the only mechanical 'alignment act' that was in 3e core and that occurred when they changed channeling energy. I might be wrong on that, but a quick look failed to find it still there.
What I did find was talk in the alignment section that places alignment shifts strictly under DM purview without a given structure or mention of acts at all, but rather looking at the PC as a whole, etc.
-James

Are |

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.

Remco Sommeling |

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.

WWWW |
WWWW wrote: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.
Neither is it assumed that they do and so just as likely they suffer additional detriment thus making additional reward or punishment a wash. So saying that something might not be correct because of something that the rules do not say at all is not convincing in the least since it works against all sides equally.
Also you do not follow your own rule since arguments you have made can just as easily be countered by making something up. So if you claim that the argument that something is not correct because of something that the rules do not say to be correct then to be consistent you would need to apply this to your arguments as well. If you are not going to be consistent I must assume that you do not actually think that "something is not correct because of something that the rules do not say" is not actually legitimate and you are trying to create a double standard.
Under the RAW there is a possible inconvenience listed. Under the RAW there is no additional possible inconvenience or benefit listed. Thus only the possible inconvenience of taking a day can be discussed since if any additional detriment or benefit is discussed the discussion is not RAW. That means I can only discuss the listed possible inconvenience under the RAW and so for you to say that I should consider any additional possible benefit or inconvenience is to say that I should stop discussing the RAW. Why should I stop discussion of the RAW just because you ask.

Charender |

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.

WWWW |
WWWW wrote: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.
A: So in such a forum only people directly addressed should respond. That would seem to stifle discussion. In either case you did respond to me and so you were eventually talking to me.
B: Then why did you bring it up.
C: Addressing the validity of a presented position is very relevant.
Perhaps you missed it but I changed my position in a response to you to "one may wish to try and inconvenience an evil creature by possibly making it take a day to reform if the summon is killed". So this question does not apply to my position and so why should I answer a question no related to what I am talking about.
But I shall, not being able to be summoned means that they should anything require that they be summoned during that time for success it will fail.