I'm of the mind that summoned creatures are representations of real creatures, are basically disembodied spirits given temporary form, and are not real creatures insomuch as they are magical effects.
Kind of like how an eidolon isn't a real creature, but rather an aspect of a real creature "out there, somewhere."
I'm also of agreement that summoned creatures are not truely effected by the summoning. As per the description: "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."
Now, to me, if your summoned horse dies, you can't summon a horse with the same spell again for 24 hours. So if you cast mount, and the horse dies, you can't cast mount again for 24 hours. If you cast summon monster and summoned a horse, and it died, then you couldn't use either for 24 hours. This limits the abuses pretty well.
Lastly, if summoning animals to their deaths (traps or combat) is evil and causes your summoning spells to cease working, how does anyone who is evil in the world still have their abilities? Why wouldn't the "gods" or whoever grants abilities in the first place just take them away so that everyone can get back to frolicking around naked in world peace?
This is a common misconception.
You can't summon THE CREATURE THAT DIED for 24 hours. There is absolutely nothing preventing you from summoning a different horse with the same spell.
The rule you quoted only really effects things like a summoner conjuring up a scout creature, telling it to scout, and then re-summoning the EXACT SAME scout creature to ask it what it saw on its mission.
If your interpretation were true, you would never be able to summon multiple creatures of a like kind, which obviously isn't the case.
|
Summoned animals are real animals who are temporarily summoned from their natural environment to serve the summoner.
Players who summon animals and subject them to terrors and abuse them to get them to do what they want in my campaigns cannot be considered "good" characters.
Everyone plays differently, but doing this sort of thing could well come to the attention of a local druid.
And frankly I just find this sort of thing irritating. People who could look into the eye of a summoned animal and then subject them to this sort of abuse are quite rare in the real world. And rightly so.
"Hey, that room might be trapped!"
"No problem, summon a puppy and toss it in there."
"Righto!"
As the player of a conjurer, i must say this. Telling a local druid is pointless. That druid can spontaneoulsy cast summon animal spells, which makes him the kind of person that puts summoned critters is harms way....now if the player were to bind an angel and make that angel kill orphans, i can see having a good vs' evil issue.
Nothing in the mount spell suggests that a specific horse is summoned. IF whatever horse you summon does die, there is nothing stopping you from casting the spell again and summoning a different horse.Mount is a conjuration (summoning) spell. Under the magic chapter, summoning spells are described as: "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 no, you can't summon it again for 24 hours.
So if I'mm a sorcerer with the Mount Spell, and I cast it twice before the duration ends (the horse is alive), I don't get anything the second time? You can't cast the spell twice?
What about summon monster. Can I memorize Summon Monster VI twice? Can I then summon 2 tigers, or I can't, becouse I'm forced to summon the same one once and again?
People. You need to relax. Seriously.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
People. You need to relax. Seriously.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am continually amazed at how many people seem unable to distinguish between summoning an animal or creature to fight for a cause, and sending a helpless animal or creature out to trigger a trap.
Especially since there are so many other ways to deal with traps.
Summoning a tiger to fight the ogre at your side is not remotely the same thing as summoning a horse to drop down a pit onto a demon.
The inability to recognize the difference between these two explains why this argument even exists.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Summoning a tiger to fight the ogre at your side is not remotely the same thing as summoning a horse to drop down a pit onto a demon.
The inability to recognize the difference between these two explains why this argument even exists.
Summoning a goblin to drop down a pit onto a demon is not remotely the same thing as summoning a horse to drop down a pit onto a demon. That's why people don't become evil when they buy a horse, mark it with a red hot iron, and tie it to a plow and force it to do harsh labor, BUT they become evil when they buy a human being, mark him with a red hot iron, nd tie him to a plow and force him to do harsh labour.
The inability to recognize the difference between these two is what explains why this argument even exists.
How is summoning an animal to fall down a hole more evil then (or evil at all compared to) summoning one to:
1) be incinerated by dragon fire
2) have its brain extracted by mind flayers
3) dissolved by a gelatinous cube
4) have its live drained away by any number of Energy Drain monsters
5) being eaten alive by a purple worm or tyrannosaures rex
Personally, if I was the summoned creature, I would prefer falling into a hole over any of the above.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think it is evil to mark a horse with a red iron. At all. It's not evil to put heavy weight on a mule or ass, and it's not evil to force an ox to pull a plow. I don't think it's evil to have dogs in a sled. And using humans for any of those, would be an evil act.And I'm not saying it's "less evil than". It is not evil.Not in the slightest way. It's something a Paladin could do, without sweating.
If you think it's, then I guess you don't use a horse to ride, becouse forcing the horse to carry your weight and your gear in his saddles is an abuse. I'm sure if you use an slave to carry you and your gear, it would be an evil act. And animals and persons are all of them living being and all that. Arent they?
Are you seriously saying that using a horse to plow a field is morally equivalent to pushing a horse into a pit to fall to it's death on top of a demon? Seriously?
Or to put it another way, from a real world perspective, are you suggesting that tossing your puppy onto a mine to set it off is morally equivalent to teaching your dog to retrieve a stick?
I think this thread has officially jumped the shark....
blackboodtroll, if you bred rabbits for the purpose of tossing them onto mines to set them off, then yes, you are evil.
If you bred horses for the purpose of dropping them off cliffs onto your enemies, then yes, you are evil.
If you bred puppies for the purpose of sticking a light on them and slapping them on the butt to go into dangerous places, untrained and undefended, then yes you are evil.
Clear everything up for you?
Mount is a conjuration (summoning) spell. Under the magic chapter, summoning spells are described as: "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 no, you can't summon it again for 24 hours.
The counter argument is that the mount spell does not specify it summons a single horse unique to that caster's copy of the Mount spell. I can see where "It takes 24 hours for the creature to reform" could be taken to imply just that that, but Paizo ought to have more specific if that was the case.
Are you seriously saying that using a horse to plow a field is morally equivalent to pushing a horse into a pit to fall to it's death on top of a demon? Seriously?
Not at all! Forcing an animal to die slowly is FAR MORE evil than sending it to a quick death.
;P
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This thread is so full of win. I've LoL'd a few times.
I am continually amazed at how many people seem unable to distinguish between summoning an animal or creature to fight for a cause, and sending a helpless animal or creature out to trigger a trap.
Especially since there are so many other ways to deal with traps.
Summoning a tiger to fight the ogre at your side is not remotely the same thing as summoning a horse to drop down a pit onto a demon.
The inability to recognize the difference between these two explains why this argument even exists.
Regarding the bold portions. The ability of you to see a difference between those acts is a root cause of most of the things in the world that hurts us. Everything is relative. Just because you see something one way, and condemn another way, but the end result is the same (animals dead in this case), makes it okay for you to manipulate and subjugate your detractors. You've already emphatically stated that you'll single out people playing your game with a differing viewpoint and hamper them unfairly. It seems to me that someone doing that is just as likely to cause discomfort or harm to someone else, as the person throwing horses at a demon.
If I could breed rabbits to search out and detonate mines, I would. If you think that is evil, I am sure there are a ton of permanently injured children around the world who would disagree.I don't value one life above another.
Tell me that when a fireman has time to save either your brother or your dog from a fire. Can only save one before the entire room explodes. What to do?
If you bred puppies for the purpose of sticking a light on them and slapping them on the butt to go into dangerous places, untrained and undefended, then yes you are evil.
Clear everything up for you?
So if I train dogs to go into the snowy dangerous mountain and risk their lives to save people, I'm evil? Go figure... We should tell that to Switzerland http://www.eljueves.es/medio/2011/02/10/san_bernardo_310x310.jpg
So if I train dogs to go into the snowy dangerous mountain and risk their lives to save people, I'm evil? Go figure... We should tell that to Switzerland.If you bred puppies for the purpose of sticking a light on them and slapping them on the butt to go into dangerous places, untrained and undefended, then yes you are evil.
Clear everything up for you?
Fixed it for you.
Fixed it for you.So if I train dogs to go into the snowy dangerous mountain and risk their lives to save people, I'm evil? Go figure... We should tell that to Switzerland.If you bred puppies for the purpose of sticking a light on them and slapping them on the butt to go into dangerous places, untrained and undefended, then yes you are evil.
Clear everything up for you?
RD, you truly don't see the difference between training dogs to search for and find lost people and sending dogs to their certain death by stepping on mines?
I'm done with this. The moral equivalency and moral relativism is off the scale.
|
I just have the players make Handle Animal checks to push the animal every time they try and get the horses to do something other than ride it. That is often enough to stymy that tactic. And I can't see a horse jumping to it's death with any Handle Animal check. You could probably fool it other ways though.
Fixed it for you.So if I train dogs to go into the snowy dangerous mountain and risk their lives to save people, I'm evil? Go figure... We should tell that to Switzerland.If you bred puppies for the purpose of sticking a light on them and slapping them on the butt to go into dangerous places, untrained and undefended, then yes you are evil.
Clear everything up for you?
RD, you truly don't see the difference between training dogs to search for and find lost people and sending dogs to their certain death by stepping on mines?
I'm done with this. The moral equivalency and moral relativism is off the scale.
That...
...Those actually sound equivalent to me. Both involve sending dogs into extremely treacherous terrain in order to save human lives.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
RD, you truly don't see the difference between training dogs to search for and find lost people and sending dogs to their certain death by stepping on mines?
I'm done with this. The moral equivalency and moral relativism is off the scale.
You need to look at yourself through another perspective.
The fact that you can rank things with a 'moral scale' is disturbing. Compounded with the admission that you punish people for dissenting from your viewpoint should register as evil, if you believe in such nonsense.
|
|
Fixed it for you.So if I train dogs to go into the snowy dangerous mountain and risk their lives to save people, I'm evil? Go figure... We should tell that to Switzerland.If you bred puppies for the purpose of sticking a light on them and slapping them on the butt to go into dangerous places, untrained and undefended, then yes you are evil.
Clear everything up for you?
RD, you truly don't see the difference between training dogs to search for and find lost people and sending dogs to their certain death by stepping on mines?
I'm done with this. The moral equivalency and moral relativism is off the scale.
That...
...Those actually sound equivalent to me. Both involve sending dogs into extremely treacherous terrain in order to save human lives.
But the dog going into the cold has a chance to come back alive[/sarcasm]
Moral discussions aside, if i saw a druid sending summoned animals down trap filled corridors/pits ect they'd lose their druidic powers pretty damn quickly, they are supposed to be protectors and servants of nature.
|
|
Common misconception, butBut the dog going into the cold has a chance to come back alive[/sarcasm]
Moral discussions aside, if i saw a druid sending summoned animals down trap filled corridors/pits ect they'd lose their druidic powers pretty damn quickly, they are supposed to be protectors and servants of nature.
A druid who ceases to revere nature, changes to a prohibited alignment, or teaches the Druidic language to a nondruid loses all spells and druid abilities (including her animal companion, but not including weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies). She cannot thereafter gain levels as a druid until she atones (see the atonement spell description).
You can revere nature while still putting the lives of your companions and yourself before the animals you summon.
|
|
Common misconception, butBut the dog going into the cold has a chance to come back alive[/sarcasm]
Moral discussions aside, if i saw a druid sending summoned animals down trap filled corridors/pits ect they'd lose their druidic powers pretty damn quickly, they are supposed to be protectors and servants of nature.
A druid who ceases to revere nature, changes to a prohibited alignment, or teaches the Druidic language to a nondruid loses all spells and druid abilities (including her animal companion, but not including weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies). She cannot thereafter gain levels as a druid until she atones (see the atonement spell description).You can revere nature while still putting the lives of your companions and yourself before the animals you summon.
Summoning an animal to help you fight - fine
Summoning an animal that will probably die within a round so you can run and live - fineSummoning an animal to set off a trap - no, we have the 10 foot poles for a reason
|
|
Common misconception, butBut the dog going into the cold has a chance to come back alive[/sarcasm]
Moral discussions aside, if i saw a druid sending summoned animals down trap filled corridors/pits ect they'd lose their druidic powers pretty damn quickly, they are supposed to be protectors and servants of nature.
A druid who ceases to revere nature, changes to a prohibited alignment, or teaches the Druidic language to a nondruid loses all spells and druid abilities (including her animal companion, but not including weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies). She cannot thereafter gain levels as a druid until she atones (see the atonement spell description).You can revere nature while still putting the lives of your companions and yourself before the animals you summon.Summoning an animal to help you fight - fine
Summoning an animal that will probably die within a round so you can run and live - fine
Summoning an animal to set off a trap - no, we have the 10 foot poles for a reason
I'm saying as long as the druid finds a way to revere nature while sacrificing his summoned animal, there is no problem.
If he's using his summoned ally to lead the way, checking for traps and occasionally setting them off, that's fine. The druid should certainly thank the animal when it performs well. The druid shouldn't use the animal's suffering for entertainment.
Revering nature does not mean never sacrificing animals so that he or others may gain.