Would not a wizard who, for example, summoned an evil fiend with fire resistance to save someone from a fire be committing an evil act (summoning a fiend) to produce a good effect (saving a life) to produce an overall neutral reaction, therefor keeping his alignment very much at Neutral?
Heh. If I was the devil in question I'd say "yes sir" and go save him. Of course I'd make a deal for his soul along the way, but hey, you saved a life. The way I see it, you summoned a fiend (when many other non-fiendish creatures would have done the job) and you're responsible for what he manages to do along the way. He / she / it is immortal, cunning, intelligent and has a lot of experience perverting the "good deed". And, of course it may get up to a little mayhem along the way. And it's all on you. Of course, you could have summoned a water elemental and just put the fire out...
Likewise, a character who summoned a fiend to fight a fiend (fighting fire with fire) would in effect be doing the same as the Paladin who kills an evil creature, and thus this would be at least a Neutral act; correct?
You may have just solved a HR issue for them. Now they know who deserves that promotion. Thank you for strengthening H3ll's Legions (or the Hordes of the Abyss, or whatever), or giving LE a chance to kick CE's butt or vice versa. If the Paladin kick's their rear's evil is not the winner. You however, have guaranteed evil a win. Congratulations.
Ergo a Lawful Neutral wizard would ultimately remain lawful neutral. Just as a necromancer would do so by using undead.
Correct?
The road to H3ll, as they say, is paved with good intentions. Just a couple of thoughts. Ymmv.
I think Tome of Magic was one of the better ones, 2/3 of the book was usable.
BoED has furries?You thought the Shadowcaster was usable?
Guardinals = furries.
It may not have been the strongest class, but yes, I believe the shadowcaster was useable (and looked really fun to). Admittedly, I would usually pair it up with the shadow master (I think that's what it was called, the class that got a shadow elemental servant). I never went all 20 levels in one class in 3.5, was never worth it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But I'm a bit curious. Why would a Neutral wizard become evil for using summoned fiends to do good? I mean, the entire basis of the understanding of the balance between good and evil in Pathfinder hinges on the idea that doing evil to evil things is somehow justifiable, and thus not an evil action. Otherwise a Paladin would fall for slaying a bandit because killing is evil, but because he's killing for good then it somehow makes it okay.My question would be: Why is that neutral wizard summoning fiends in the first place? Why not aeons or elementals or psychopomps? And for that matter, why is a neutral wizard trying to do good in the first place? He's not really neutral if:
1) He's working with fiends and letting them spread their influence (even if that means nothing more than being visible).
2) He's trying to do good deeds.
The argument is fundamentally flawed, as far as I can tell.
Is it really so flawed?
Neutral: A neutral character does what seems to be a good idea. She doesn't feel strongly one way or the other when it comes to good vs. evil or law vs. chaos (and thus neutral is sometimes called “true neutral”). Most neutral characters exhibit a lack of conviction or bias rather than a commitment to neutrality. Such a character probably thinks of good as better than evil—after all, she would rather have good neighbors and rulers than evil ones. Still, she's not personally committed to upholding good in any abstract or universal way.
Some neutral characters, on the other hand, commit themselves philosophically to neutrality. They see good, evil, law, and chaos as prejudices and dangerous extremes. They advocate the middle way of neutrality as the best, most balanced road in the long run.
Neutral means you act naturally in any situation, without prejudice or compulsion.
A neutral character may want to do the right thing. They probably want to save the child from a burning building, or they might want to prevent a tyrant from overthrowing the world and enslaving the people of his land. He just might not use the cleanest methods to do it. He has no problem using evil methods if it gets the job done. That is to most the iconic definition of an antihero - a very real archtype - in stories.
In short a spellcaster who uses demons or undead because they are both powerful, controllable, and efficient to do what must be done for the betterment of all is not only a very reasonable archtype of character, but also one that is very logical as well. It does not take much to see the benefits of, for example, using undead as the bulk of an army (thus protecting the lives of your people) or putting them to work doing manual labor (a zombie ox can plow fields 24/7 and is stronger than a normal ox). In many cases it is in fact more effective and better for everyone concerned if you did so.
Likewise, summoning does not seem like working with at all. He would be working with fiends if he used Planar Ally and got some fiend to help him that way. Using summoning or binding spells to force fiends to do his bidding for the cause of good is very different. Even the story of King Solomon draws on this notion, and is said that the holy god gave Solomon a magic seal to bind demons, who were then used as labor. See Seal of Solomon and Solomon and the Seal for some brief mentions of these stories.
As for the "why" in using fiends to fight fiends, that part is actually amazingly simple and yet consists of a multitude of reasons.
In short, you are using an evil power for the cause of good. This is ultimately no different than killing in the name of good. In many cases, I think it would be hard to argue that pulling a phantom demon from another plane, which you have complete control of, and forcing them to do good things is somehow more evil than ending someone's life because you believe they deserve it.
You may have just solved a HR issue for them. Now they know who deserves that promotion. Thank you for strengthening H3ll's Legions (or the Hordes of the Abyss, or whatever), or giving LE a chance to kick CE's butt or vice versa. If the Paladin kick's their rear's evil is not the winner. You however, have guaranteed evil a win. Congratulations.
Seriously, is that the best you can come up with?
Also, water elementals don't just douse fires. Last I checked fire harms water elementals, so if you decided to send a water elemental into a great conflagration to rescue any survivors trapped inside, you may just be wasting both the lives of those you intend to rescue, as well as the duration of your summon.
BoED has furries?
Oh yes. This book loves furries and animals so much you would think that animals all had the [good] descriptor.
Talisid, the Celestial Lion; Manath, the Horned Duke; Vhara, dutchess of the fields; Kharash, the Stalker; Bharrai, the Great Bear; Khune, Champion of Morwell; Warden Archon; Bariaur; Equinal; Musteval; Ursinal; Hollyphant; Rhek; plus the artwork for the Champion of Gwynharwyf; Initiate of Pistis Sophia; Sentinel of Bharrai; Stalker of Kharash prestige classes.
And those are just the furries. The Beloved of Valarian PrC is all about woman that forsake the love of mortal men to serve a unicorn god. The class subtlety hints at bestiality with said god.
I wouldn't be surprised if I had missed a few too.
BoED has furries?Oh yes. This book loves furries and animals so much you would think that animals all had the [good] descriptor.
Talisid, the Celestial Lion; Manath, the Horned Duke; Vhara, dutchess of the fields; Kharash, the Stalker; Bharrai, the Great Bear; Khune, Champion of Morwell; Warden Archon; Bariaur; Equinal; Musteval; Ursinal; Hollyphant; Rhek; plus the artwork for the Champion of Gwynharwyf; Initiate of Pistis Sophia; Sentinel of Bharrai; Stalker of Kharash prestige classes.
And those are just the furries. The Beloved of Valarian PrC is all about woman that forsake the love of mortal men to serve a unicorn god. The class subtlety hints at bestiality with said god.
I wouldn't be surprised if I had missed a few too.
Yeah, and let's not forget the assassin that wasn't. Slayer of Domiel, I think it was called?
EDIT: Whose spell list (seriously it was just a good aligned assassin) included one of the very spells that the Book of Vile Darkness said should have the [Evil] descriptor, and then did in 3.5 ('cause the BoVD said so!). Yep, even the writers couldn't make up their mind what was good and evil.
Seriously, is that the best you can come up with?
Also, water elementals don't just douse fires. Last I checked fire harms water elementals, so if you decided to send a water elemental into a great conflagration to rescue any survivors trapped inside, you may just be wasting both the lives of those you intend to rescue, as well as the duration of your summon.
No. It took about 2 seconds to think of that and a minute or two to type it. The Drench special ability of a water elemental automatically puts out non magical fire. Size is dependent on the size of the elemental iirc, but then you didn't specify. If it's a magical fire they have a chance to dispell it btw.
Don't get me wrong, I loved the Shadowcaster, I just didn't see it as a very good class. Better than the Truenamer, but...
The truenamer was a serious disappointment, In that entire section, only the Acolyte of the Ego was really usable, and one of it's abilities was worthless unless you went truenamer first (thankfully not required). The shadow caster had it strong points, not a 3.5 wizard, but it was unique and strong enough to play in many campaigns. It also gave incentive to go through most of it's levels.
No. It took about 2 seconds to think of that and a minute or two to type it. The Drench special ability of a water elemental automatically puts out non magical fire. Size is dependent on the size of the elemental, but then you didn't specify. If it's a magical fire they have a chance to dispell it btw.
Seriously, is that the best you can come up with?
Also, water elementals don't just douse fires. Last I checked fire harms water elementals, so if you decided to send a water elemental into a great conflagration to rescue any survivors trapped inside, you may just be wasting both the lives of those you intend to rescue, as well as the duration of your summon.
Drench doesn't prevent the damage the fire deals to it. Just means that he can extinguish fire it enters, up to large size (if it were to touch a 5ft radius fire). Likewise at the same level I could summon a medium water elemental to try and make it inside the burning building to save somebody, I could also summon Lassie (read: Hell Hound) to take this large sack (or bag of holding) and pull it over the victim(s) and then bring them out of the fire safely and as quickly as possible. Having 6 Intelligence, and under my command, the creature must go inside and rescue them to the absolute best of his ability, as instructed.
Hell hounds are completely immune to the fire as well, so if I had a decanter of endless water, I could have gave it to the hound to go inside and begin dousing the flames from the inside of the building as well, without getting harmed.
But y'know, as long as you just wanna argue that somehow forcing bad people to do good things is making the bad guys win, go for it. It's kind of laughable.
Gotta love a class that can do all kinds of stuff based off of askill check and your only defense is to have more HD.
Gotta love a class that can do all kinds of stuff based off of askill check and your only defense is to have more HD.
Most monster have High HD for their CR. The DC went up faster than your skill bonuses, even with magic items. It's the only class that got fewer spells per day as it leveled.
No. It took about 2 seconds to think of that and a minute or two to type it. The Drench special ability of a water elemental automatically puts out non magical fire. Size is dependent on the size of the elemental, but then you didn't specify. If it's a magical fire they have a chance to dispell it btw.
Seriously, is that the best you can come up with?
Also, water elementals don't just douse fires. Last I checked fire harms water elementals, so if you decided to send a water elemental into a great conflagration to rescue any survivors trapped inside, you may just be wasting both the lives of those you intend to rescue, as well as the duration of your summon.
Drench doesn't prevent the damage the fire deals to it. Just means that he can extinguish fire it enters, up to large size (if it were to touch a 5ft radius fire). Likewise at the same level I could summon a medium water elemental to try and make it inside the burning building to save somebody, I could also summon Lassie (read: Hell Hound) to take this large sack (or bag of holding) and pull it over the victim(s) and then bring them out of the fire safely and as quickly as possible. Having 6 Intelligence, and under my command, the creature must go inside and rescue them to the absolute best of his ability, as instructed.
Hell hounds are completely immune to the fire as well, so if I had a decanter of endless water, I could have gave it to the hound to go inside and begin dousing the flames from the inside of the building as well, without getting harmed.
But y'know, as long as you just wanna argue that somehow forcing bad people to do good things is making the bad guys win, go for it. It's kind of laughable.
Based on your plan why hell hound when a Mephit would not only be neutral but have a better chance of manuvering and getting the bag to the people and saving them. And you dont have to make sure you dont leave any loopholes in the command.
Based on your plan why hell hound when a Mephit would not only be neutral but have a better chance of manuvering and getting the bag to the people and saving them. And you dont have to make sure you dont leave any loopholes in the command.No. It took about 2 seconds to think of that and a minute or two to type it. The Drench special ability of a water elemental automatically puts out non magical fire. Size is dependent on the size of the elemental, but then you didn't specify. If it's a magical fire they have a chance to dispell it btw.
Seriously, is that the best you can come up with?
Also, water elementals don't just douse fires. Last I checked fire harms water elementals, so if you decided to send a water elemental into a great conflagration to rescue any survivors trapped inside, you may just be wasting both the lives of those you intend to rescue, as well as the duration of your summon.
Drench doesn't prevent the damage the fire deals to it. Just means that he can extinguish fire it enters, up to large size (if it were to touch a 5ft radius fire). Likewise at the same level I could summon a medium water elemental to try and make it inside the burning building to save somebody, I could also summon Lassie (read: Hell Hound) to take this large sack (or bag of holding) and pull it over the victim(s) and then bring them out of the fire safely and as quickly as possible. Having 6 Intelligence, and under my command, the creature must go inside and rescue them to the absolute best of his ability, as instructed.
Hell hounds are completely immune to the fire as well, so if I had a decanter of endless water, I could have gave it to the hound to go inside and begin dousing the flames from the inside of the building as well, without getting harmed.
But y'know, as long as you just wanna argue that somehow forcing bad people to do good things is making the bad guys win, go for it. It's kind of laughable.
Hellhound being quadruped and medium have a better carrying capacity? Hellhounds are also LE, they will honor all agreements. Trying to find loopholes can be said to be more chaotic.
|
But I'm a bit curious. Why would a Neutral wizard become evil for using summoned fiends to do good? I mean, the entire basis of the understanding of the balance between good and evil in Pathfinder hinges on the idea that doing evil to evil things is somehow justifiable, and thus not an evil action. Otherwise a Paladin would fall for slaying a bandit because killing is evil, but because he's killing for good then it somehow makes it okay.My question would be: Why is that neutral wizard summoning fiends in the first place? Why not aeons or elementals or psychopomps? And for that matter, why is a neutral wizard trying to do good in the first place? He's not really neutral if:
1) He's working with fiends and letting them spread their influence (even if that means nothing more than being visible).
2) He's trying to do good deeds.
The argument is fundamentally flawed, as far as I can tell.
In reverse order, so starting with #2:
He is not trying to do good deeds, he is trying to to achieve a good end. He's trying to do evil deeds (since summoning the fiend is evil) in the hope that good ends will result.
The best description of that kind of behavior is pragmaticism. It's a utilitarian model of looking at the world, where you assume that if everyone is happy then the world is good, and thus if whatever you do increases happiness more than it decreases it, it is good.
The difference of course is that if you do a good deed and something unexpected and bad happens as a result, then you're not at fault - you did a good deed, and that's what actually matters. Whereas if you do something evil and things don't work out as you plan and happiness isn't increased, then you still did something evil.
To the first point:
Does people seeing fiends being used for helpful purposes cause the influence of fiends to spread? That would seem to be something knowable about Golarion, and I guess you'd be the guy to answer that question.
I can certainly see an argument for it:
If fiends trick some people into damning themselves, then some people ("chumps") lack the presence of mind to deal with fiends.
If chumps see fiends being harnessed to good ends and if people imitate successful behavior, then some chumps will attempt to summon fiends to achieve good ends.
So by summoning fiends to do good deeds, the character is putting chumps at risk by providing a bad example.
Clearly when operating in public, the neutral demon summoner will need to tell any onlookers "I'm a trained professional. Do not try this at home."
Drench doesn't prevent the damage the fire deals to it. Just means that he can extinguish fire it enters, up to large size (if it were to touch a 5ft radius fire). Likewise at the same level I could summon a medium water elemental to try and make it inside the burning building to save somebody, I could also summon Lassie (read: Hell Hound) to take this large sack (or bag of holding) and pull it over the victim(s) and then bring them out of the fire safely and as quickly as possible. Having 6 Intelligence, and under my command, the creature must go inside and rescue them to the absolute best of his ability, as instructed.Hell hounds are completely immune to the fire as well, so if I had a decanter of endless water, I could have gave it to the hound to go inside and begin dousing the flames from the inside of the building as well, without getting harmed.
But y'know, as long as you just wanna argue that somehow forcing bad people to do good things is making the bad guys win, go for it. It's kind of laughable.
You're not talking bad people. You're talking the big "E" as in evil. Not misunderstood, not just on the other side. Evil. There are other creatures with DR fire that would do. And they're not going to try to screw you over while doing it. When you bring an evil being into the world you're giving it the opportunity to do evil. It's going to do what comes naturally for it. It'll do what you want and what it can get away with. You're summoning some damn thing, literally, and you expect it to be a boy scout? A good creature is going to do a good deed. No problem. You summon something neutral, it'll probably do what you want. Evil? It'll do what you force it to. Mostly. And maybe a bit extra.
But I'm a bit curious. Why would a Neutral wizard become evil for using summoned fiends to do good? I mean, the entire basis of the understanding of the balance between good and evil in Pathfinder hinges on the idea that doing evil to evil things is somehow justifiable, and thus not an evil action. Otherwise a Paladin would fall for slaying a bandit because killing is evil, but because he's killing for good then it somehow makes it okay.My question would be: Why is that neutral wizard summoning fiends in the first place? Why not aeons or elementals or psychopomps? And for that matter, why is a neutral wizard trying to do good in the first place? He's not really neutral if:
1) He's working with fiends and letting them spread their influence (even if that means nothing more than being visible).
2) He's trying to do good deeds.
The argument is fundamentally flawed, as far as I can tell.
In reverse order, so starting with #2:
He is not trying to do good deeds, he is trying to to achieve a good end. He's trying to do evil deeds (since summoning the fiend is evil) in the hope that good ends will result.
The best description of that kind of behavior is pragmaticism. It's a utilitarian model of looking at the world, where you assume that if everyone is happy then the world is good, and thus if whatever you do increases happiness more than it decreases it, it is good.
The difference of course is that if you do a good deed and something unexpected and bad happens as a result, then you're not at fault - you did a good deed, and that's what actually matters. Whereas if you do something evil and things don't work out as you plan and happiness isn't increased, then you still did something evil.
To the first point:
Does people seeing fiends being used for helpful purposes cause the influence of fiends to spread? That would seem to be something knowable about Golarion, and I guess you'd be the guy to...
Or, more simply put do the ends justify the means(performing an evil act to bring about a good end), or do the means justify the end(performing a good act even if the result could be evil, intentionally or otherwise)?
Hellhound being quadruped and medium have a better carrying capacity? Hellhounds are also LE, they will honor all agreements. Trying to find loopholes can be said to be more chaotic.
Tell that to a lawyer or a devil. Loopholes are what it's all about. It's how people lose out in those deals with the Devil. The letter of the law. Nothing chaotic about it.
Your using a bag of holding weight is the same light amount no matter how many you save. Its small and can fly.
Lawful will honor the Terms as stated of the agreement not the spirit.
If you tell a devil to save a child from a burning building to the best of its ability but dont restrict it more the best of its ability my be to turn it to stone. Its now fire proof and even if the building collapses it should be fine.
You're not talking bad people. You're talking the big "E" as in evil. Not misunderstood, not just on the other side. Evil. There are other creatures with DR fire that would do. And they're not going to try to screw you over while doing it. When you bring an evil being into the world you're giving it the opportunity to do evil. It's going to do what comes naturally for it. It'll do what you want and what it can get away with. You're summoning some damn thing, literally, and you expect it to be a boy scout? A good creature is going to do a good deed. No problem. You summon something neutral, it'll probably do what you want. Evil? It'll do what you force it to. Mostly. And maybe a bit extra.
Drench doesn't prevent the damage the fire deals to it. Just means that he can extinguish fire it enters, up to large size (if it were to touch a 5ft radius fire). Likewise at the same level I could summon a medium water elemental to try and make it inside the burning building to save somebody, I could also summon Lassie (read: Hell Hound) to take this large sack (or bag of holding) and pull it over the victim(s) and then bring them out of the fire safely and as quickly as possible. Having 6 Intelligence, and under my command, the creature must go inside and rescue them to the absolute best of his ability, as instructed.Hell hounds are completely immune to the fire as well, so if I had a decanter of endless water, I could have gave it to the hound to go inside and begin dousing the flames from the inside of the building as well, without getting harmed.
But y'know, as long as you just wanna argue that somehow forcing bad people to do good things is making the bad guys win, go for it. It's kind of laughable.
Or whatever it feels like. Mephits from the earlier example are mischievous, fire mephits are vengeful. You know exactly where evil stands, it's neutral you have to watch out for.
Your using a bag of holding weight is the same light amount no matter how many you save. Its small and can fly.
Lawful will honor the Terms as stated of the agreement not the spirit.
If you tell a devil to save a child from a burning building to the best of its ability but dont restrict it more the best of its ability my be to turn it to stone. Its now fire proof and even if the building collapses it should be fine.
"Petrified" is easier to cure than "dead".
Or whatever it feels like. Mephits from the earlier example are mischievous, fire mephits are vengeful. You know exactly where evil stands, it's neutral you have to watch out for.
.....................
You advocate use of evil creature so you can control it hoping you word it right sense its Lawful. But Neutral your worried about. Somewhere in hell more lawyers are being forced to teach dirty litigation to low end devils in preparation for being summoned.
Or whatever it feels like. Mephits from the earlier example are mischievous, fire mephits are vengeful. You know exactly where evil stands, it's neutral you have to watch out for......................
You advocate use of evil creature so you can control it hoping you word it right sense its Lawful. But Neutral your worried about. Somewhere in hell more lawyers are being forced to teach dirty litigation to low end devils in preparation for being summoned.
I'd say you got that right. Mortals 101.
Or whatever it feels like. Mephits from the earlier example are mischievous, fire mephits are vengeful. You know exactly where evil stands, it's neutral you have to watch out for......................
You advocate use of evil creature so you can control it hoping you word it right sense its Lawful. But Neutral your worried about. Somewhere in hell more lawyers are being forced to teach dirty litigation to low end devils in preparation for being summoned.
You could very well be right, but forewarned is still forearmed.
How do lawyers make it to hell? They should all be in the abyss ;)
Your using a bag of holding weight is the same light amount no matter how many you save. Its small and can fly.
Lawful will honor the Terms as stated of the agreement not the spirit.
If you tell a devil to save a child from a burning building to the best of its ability but dont restrict it more the best of its ability my be to turn it to stone. Its now fire proof and even if the building collapses it should be fine.
I love how people keep making stuff up. Last I checked, no where does it say - not once - that using Summon Monster I-IX has your summons try to subvert your commands.
Likewise, if I summoned a demon that could turn the kid to stone, and he did to save the kid's life because that's what I told it to do, then awesome and give the demon a pat on the back. He's thinkin' outside the box, and it's just a simple stone to flesh spell from being back to normal. Heck, even if the kid gets shattered by the falling collapsing building, a few mending or make whole spells later and little Johnny is back with his mommy and you're remarking to your demon about how he must have a soft spot somewhere inside to have thought of such a clever way to protect an innocent life.
"Petrified" is easier to cure than "dead".
Oddly enough "dead" is easier to cure than "stunned"
Oddly enough "dead" is easier to cure than "stunned"
"Petrified" is easier to cure than "dead".
Haha, you're right! You just made my day WPharolin. :D
Also I noticed something really funny just now. A Neutral Wizard that summons fiendish creatures summons Neutral Fiendish creatures, or Neutral Celestial creatures. Joy! :D
Beyond the pits of Hell, devils often travel to the
Material Plane at the summons of evil spellcasters. Quick
to bargain and willing to serve mortals to assure their
damnation, devils ever obey the letter of their agreements,
but serve the whims of Hell foremost. Thus, even the leastof devilkind might come to the Material Plane intent on further corrupting souls, cleverly escaping the bonds of their contracts to indulge their own plots, or to further the unspeakable goals of the archdevils of Hell.
Beastiary pg 71
Except for that Fort save to avoid dying from the shock.
"Petrified" is easier to cure than "dead".
Never noticed that before...
In 3.X the cleric had a spell to cure petrification, can't find it in pathfinder, though. Am I over looking it?
Beyond the pits of Hell, devils often travel to the
Material Plane at the summons of evil spellcasters. Quick
to bargain and willing to serve mortals to assure their
damnation, devils ever obey the letter of their agreements,
but serve the whims of Hell foremost. Thus, even the leastof devilkind might come to the Material Plane intent on further corrupting souls, cleverly escaping the bonds of their contracts to indulge their own plots, or to further the unspeakable goals of the archdevils of Hell.Beastiary pg 71
1 point for you, but you do not form contracts with "summoned" creatures, only with "called" creatures (read: spell subtype). It can be argued that summoned creatures do not have that type of freedom, but that is more of DM fiat.
1 point for you, but you do not form contracts with "summoned" creatures, only with "called" creatures (read: spell subtype). It can be argued that summoned creatures do not have that type of freedom, but that is more of DM fiat.Beyond the pits of Hell, devils often travel to the
Material Plane at the summons of evil spellcasters. Quick
to bargain and willing to serve mortals to assure their
damnation, devils ever obey the letter of their agreements,
but serve the whims of Hell foremost. Thus, even the leastof devilkind might come to the Material Plane intent on further corrupting souls, cleverly escaping the bonds of their contracts to indulge their own plots, or to further the unspeakable goals of the archdevils of Hell.Beastiary pg 71
Pretty much this. Sure planar binding might be more difficult, but Summon Monster means you own it.
Summon says you can direct it to do other actions true it doesn't specify one way or another how the creature feels about the intent of the instructions. I assume that since you have share a language to have it do something other than attack that it doesn't simply know what you want to a T. Leaving how to its interpation.
I also would find it strange that a lower level spell has so much more control over a creatures action since the creature can't even save vs the effect.
Summon says you can direct it to do other actions true it doesn't specify one way or another how the creature feels about the intent of the instructions. I assume that since you have share a language to have it do something other than attack that it doesn't simply know what you want to a T. Leaving how to its interpation.
I also would find it strange that a lower level spell has so much more control over a creatures action since the creature can't even save vs the effect.
It has a much shorter duration, and it cannot use all of it's powers. The creature is also easier to get rid of. Not to mention killing it just sends it back with a summoning spell, as if it were never hear at all...
But as I said, it is left to some interpretation (the spell effect).|
|
This is a debate that will never end. In our games it would be an evil act even if it is being used for good.
The old saying often quoted when a Paladin does something questionable 'The ends does not justify the means'.
The reason why summoning an evil creature is evil is for us:
1) you are bringing evil into the world for however short a period
2) We consider the magics used to summon evil different to that used to summon good - essentially you are using the darker arts, drawing power from 'the darkside' will leave a taint no matter how small, the more you do it the greater the taint. (obviously not RAW, but in pretty much any kind of fantasy, summoning demons is dark magic and we don't see why the PF world would be different)
Evil creatures will not simply kill and be done with it, they will kill in a ruthless manner, often ripping out intestines and feeding upon them, taking great glee from the sinister butchering it does. Being involved in its deeds in any way is tainting you, simlpy being in the party and witnessing this would be distasteful and a Good aligned character should be disgusted, hell even a Neutral char would be offended by the fiends work.
But that is just our reasons why we consider it evil in our games, there is no RAW specifically stating such summonings are evil, which is why this debate will not be solved
Maybe you should be in shock. Doing evil is evil. News at 11:00. Bringing evil into the world is... evil. That's why it has the descriptor evil on summoning something evil. Bringing good into the world is good. Whatever your reason for doing so. You're exposing yourself and the world at large to a force for good (and vice versa).As for "enslaving" / forcing the creature to do your will, that is less than nice as an action. That's not about the spell, it's about you being an evil @ss. Forcing some good celestial into a suicide mission, now that is evil.
On the other hand, you explain your reasons, bargain for it's services reward it for doing a good deed (and skip the suicide missions) and you may get off as less of an @ss. Somewhat anyway.
Why would JJ want to amend a statement that's based on the spell description?
You are potentially confusing Planar ally and Planar binding.
A creature that is planar bound is forced here against their will, trapped, and then forced to bargain for their freedom.
That's not my character, that's the spell.
My question would be: Why is that neutral wizard summoning fiends in the first place? Why not aeons or elementals or psychopomps? And for that matter, why is a neutral wizard trying to do good in the first place? He's not really neutral if:1) He's working with fiends and letting them spread their influence (even if that means nothing more than being visible).
2) He's trying to do good deeds.
The argument is fundamentally flawed, as far as I can tell.
This is an odd statement.
If a character who performs both good and evil deeds is not really neutral, then what alignment would you propose he is?
I think one of the main problems here is that several people seem to assert that doing evil things, be they insignificant or large, immediately results in a significant impact on your evil-o-meter, while doing good needs to be done in the purest intent, by the purest available means to even register.
Yes, one can follow that philosophy. However, don't be shocked when, by that very same logic, the vast majority of humankind is, by definition, evil.
from a dm's point of view I might say that as Devil's/Demons etc are evil and hate anything good with a vengence what's to stop them attcking the Paladin in the party...
yes they might be under the wizards control but surley a nice tasty goody goody paladin would make a nice tasty snack before being banished from service...
As most people have said if he carries on surley the rest of the party are going to start getting annoyed with him and get him to stop.
But yes as a DM i would say it was an evil act but as the wizard is LN would he really care as he is not good? No, but the paladin sure as heck would.
Of course this is going to irk the Paladin. Calling an incarnation of Evil into the world is nothing a Paladin should condone. From his point of view, working with people who employ evil beings equals working with these evil beings... which may be tolerable for short amounts of time, but nothing more than that.
In my opinion (note: these are MY opinions, and how I would see it as a GM), the wizard calling himself 'pragmatic' is playing with fire. He is using evil means to achieve a neutral (or even good) end.
Does one thing justify the other? As far as I am concerned, no. In my opinion, they both count. It's just that things might go out of hand, sometime; some minor flaw just being enough to get him over the edge... and being willing to resort to evil means is a significant step towards evil to start with.
In short, I wouldn't force an alignment shift on the wizard for calling up a devil once or twice. I would, however, warn him, that if he starts to make a habit of doing things this way, I will, at some time. And I won't warn him again.
I walk into your house and I cut down your wife with my sword.
I walk into a bar and cut down a patron with my sword.
I walk into a dungeon and cut down an orc with my sword.
I walk into a pit and cut down a devil with my sword.
At which point does this cease being an evil act?
Killing is evil. There is a great emphasis in the evil alignments for killing. There's a great emphasis on not killing in good alignments. At which point does killing/murdering/slaying stop being an evil act.
Figure that out, and I'll tell you at which point summoning a fiend to fight an evil is no longer an evil act - but a neutral one.
Ashiel, let's take this up a notch...
d20 is massively combat-centered. Combat, as in trying to KILL other creatures, quite a lot of them sentient.
If I am arrogant enough declare our cultural view on good and evil as an absolute definition for the fantasy world we play in... how come any of these butchers calling themselves adventures is anything other than evil? How can they be, after reaching the two-digit levels from experience that was mostly gained by KILLING others, gaining most of their wealth by taking the spoils of whom they killed, or by stealing it from someone's grave?
I may have missed this if someone else posted it, but...
As to why casting an [Evil] spell is an evil act, and a [Good] spell is a good act, even if afterwards you do the opposite act with them (such as making an angel destroy an orphanage, or a devil save one).
I think of it as toxic waste. If you summon toxic waste, even if you're dumping it on the most evil person in the world, you're still contaminating the environment with that toxic waste. Using a spell with [Evil] is basically spewing toxic waste and radioactive byproducts into the environment, and thus it's an Evil act.
By the same token, a [Good] spell spews positive energy into the environment.
Either way, you're spewing something around, and then you're using that. It might be a good or evil use (regardless of what you are spewing), so think of it as bargain basement night at the alignment bazaar. You can do something semi-neutral, or uber evil or uber good.
No Spell are not evil. What you do whit them is evil. It your PC action that is evil.