Can a Summoned Creature get pregnant?

[Sarzael]

This question occurred to me upon hitting level 11 with my Arcanist Occultist...

Obviously, most Summoned Creatures would vanish far too soon, but there are exceptions: Namely a level 20 Occultist Arcanist's capstone or an Antipaladin's Fiendish Boon. Both allow Summoned Creatures to last potentially permanently, and you have plenty of creatures known to mingle with mortals, such as the Succubus.
What do you think would result from this?

[Mark Hoover 330]

Tiefling

[Tacticslion]

The status of summoned creatures is a little bit... "iffy"... but ultimately, if it's permanent, yes, it probably can get pregnant (presupposing the original creature can); that said, if the creature (for any reason) disappears before birth, it seems like the pregnancy would cease, as no physical effects remain with the form of the summoned creature once it's no-longer-summoned.

As well (though this is probably known), "conjured" creatures are different from "summoned" creatures.

Note that some interpretations don't even allow that summoned creatures are "real" - notably James Jacobs once posted something to that effect (that the summoned monsters aren't real, but are kind of created projections of the ur-creature); so that might be a thing, somehow.

So... "Yes... unless no."

[Mondragon]

Mmmm i think not.

If you wound or kill her she vanish and back to home.

If you give her an item, when she vanish she dont take away it with her.

Buuuut maybe a summoned could pregnant a local female. . . Or not... What happens with summoneds blood in the floor?

I guess a called one can be pregnant, but summon not.

[David knott 242]

This third party product has rules for what happens when a summoner gets his eidolon pregnant (or, more likely, vice versa).

[Decimus Drake]

I would say no but then I adhere to the James Jacobs summons; they're facsimiles of the creatures they summon and are not truly real. Further, my explanation as to how someone can summon a creature they've never seen or heard of is that the spell is doing all the work; it's like selecting an option in a computer programme.

If they were real creatures then summoning magic would be somewhat evil. You're tearing a creature away from its home plane, enslaving it, and often cause it to suffer pain.

[Quintain]

Decimus Drake wrote:

I would say no but then I adhere to the James Jacobs summons; they're facsimiles of the creatures they summon and are not truly real. Further, my explanation as to how someone can summon a creature they've never seen or heard of is that the spell is doing all the work; it's like selecting an option in a computer programme.

If they were real creatures then summoning magic would be somewhat evil. You're tearing a creature away from its home plane, enslaving it, and often cause it to suffer pain.

I'm with James here. With the advent of the "Akashic Record" revelation in the Occult product, it seems that summoning spells actually make a copy/paste of a "generic record" of a particular creature type.

Notice that there aren't really any rules for actual individuals to be summoned in any fashion. It's all generic creatures. Individuals are always "called" vs summoned.

[Sarzael]

Still, even if they're not actual creatures but just quasi-real vestiges l, this is not really relevant to this question, I think. They are, physically and likely mentally(As it keeps its mental scores), identical to a generic creature of its type. Thus, if the original creature could, is there reason to believe a summoned one with the same physiology can't, if it isn't dismissed before?
This puts more questions on the table: Would the child of a summoned creature (If such is indeed possible) be a fully real creature? Anything created by a summoned creature vanishes along with it, be it a weapon or its blood. What would happen to its offspring, which is at least partially product of the Summoned Creature, when this one is dismissed?

Edit: I'm also aware about called Creatures. Being "real" Creatures though makes that a nonquestion, methinks. They simply return to wherever.

[Cuup]

Agreed that a Summoned creature is basically an empty shell. I've always seen the Astral Projection spell as a sort of inverted version of summon spells. If your Astral form were to be killed, maimed, or otherwise permanently altered, your real body would wake up largely unaffected when the spell ended. This would also be the case were you to otherwise become pregnant; it simply wouldn't work. Obviously, there are differences between the functionality of Summon spells and the Astral Projection spell, but that's largely what I'm basing my thoughts on. Even with a class ability that lets you have a Summoned creature last indefinitely, I believe it would be an inert form.

Called creatures, on the other hand, are a whole different story. Called creatures are individuals physically pulled from their home plane. As long as the individual has the ability to procreate, and has the ability to do so with Humanoids, then I believe there's no reason why they wouldn't be able to.

This is all just semantics, though - I don't think the op had any of this in mind. I think he literally just was wondering what sort of outcomes could become of extraplanar beings procreating with humanoids from the Material plane. There's actually a plethora of possible outcomes, all dependent on the plane and race of the being. Tieflings and Aasimars are the obvious ones, but the elemental-touch playable races (Ifrit, Sylph, etc.) could all come from such bonds. Many Sorcerer Bloodlines explicitly state the possibility of extraplanar lineages. Templates (usually off limits to PC's) like the Devil-bound, Half-fiend, Fey Creature, etc. could be used as well. I'm sure there are many more examples; these were just off the top of my head.

[Sarzael]

Ah, no. Not sure if I ninja'd you but that is not quite my question, as you can see in my previous post. I'm aware of the difference between called and summoned Creatures and meant specifically the latter.
Also, while they may not be "Real" per session, they keep the mental ability scores and the alignment, so I don't think it's so clear they're exactly an "Empty Shell". After all, if they have CHA and an alignment, is it fair to assume they're just going to stand in a corner if not given orders, rather than whatever they usually do? Moreover, they're the same physically (As much as that can be for an outsider) so if a normal individual of its kind can get pregnant, why not a summoned identical one?

[Daw]

Since the summoned creature does not leave a corpse when killed, this does suggest you have a reasonable facsimile of a creature rather than a real one or even a perfect copy. I would tend to say say no with a commonly summoned creature.

Some, if not all, summoners are strange though, so the the idea of specialized summoning spells and reinforcing magical circles to enhance and stabilize the summoned creature are certainly within reason in sad, desperate, wierd-science sort of way. I would rule that at least one of the "parents" would need to be real/native for a stable/viable progeny.

I would expect difficulties for the progeny of such a karmicly pathetic beginning.

[WatersLethe]

Biologically speaking, it seems the question comes down to whether the offspring disappear or not when the summoned parent is dismissed.

However, there is also the concrete question of souls in the Pathfinder universe. I would argue that if a summoned creature can produce offspring, and the offspring gets a soul from the positive energy plane, then that soul would be enough to keep it existing in one form or another after the summon is dismissed.

[Claxon]

No, because there are no rules to support what would happen if you did allow it?

Such as does the off-spring have a soul?
Does it continue to exist if the summon should end?
Etc

The simple and sensible answer is no.

[Sarzael]

Claxon wrote:

No, because there are no rules to support what would happen if you did allow it?

Such as does the off-spring have a soul?
Does it continue to exist if the summon should end?
Etc

The simple and sensible answer is no.

The rules do not say you can so... No? Sorry, this is not a good argument in my eyes. There are many things the rules do not specifically say you can do. There are no rules for anyone becoming pregnant at all(Well, save for a few very specific entities), so it never happens?

[Claxon]

Actually, it's a very solid rules argument even if you don't like the results.

Pathfinder is a rules permissive system. It tells you what you can do, not what you can't (typically, sometimes it reminds you what you can't do).

[WatersLethe]

Claxon wrote:

Actually, it's a very solid rules argument even if you don't like the results.

Pathfinder is a rules permissive system. It tells you what you can do, not what you can't (typically, sometimes it reminds you what you can't do).

I mean, sure, but if you're taking that stance you might as well say it can't be done because there are no pregnancy rules in Pathfinder.

[Sarzael]

Additionally, even if the title is worded as a question, this is General Discussion, not Rulings. The last question was "What do you think would happen?"
I'm not asking from a rules standpoint as it would be a GM-Dependent Boolean, but because I think the idea is interesting and would like to know what everyone else thinks of it. Saying "No, the rules don't say you can" is kind of irrelevant.

[Tacticslion]

Sarzael wrote:

Moreover, even if the title is worded as a question, this is General Discussion, not Rulings. The last question was "What do you think would happen?"

I'm not asking from a rules standpoint as it would be a GM-Dependent Boolean, but because I think the idea is interesting and would like to know what everyone else thinks of it. Saying "No, the rules don't say you can" is kind of irrelevant.

I think most people are using Discussion and not Rulings (though they're backing up their side of the Discussion as if by Rulings).

There is no RAW for summon monsters, one way or another.

[Tacticslion]

My point is, it seems most people are saying, "No, because Squick. Also, here's stretching for rules taht might support that." which is a very valid response.

[BlackOuroboros]

Claxon wrote:

Actually, it's a very solid rules argument even if you don't like the results.

Pathfinder is a rules permissive system. It tells you what you can do, not what you can't (typically, sometimes it reminds you what you can't do).

Wow... pedantic and abrasive, a twofer!

Also remember that if we are going to go by pure RAW there is no explicit language in Pathfinder that states that once you acquire a condition that strips your agency, such as panicked, that your agency is ever returned to you. Likewise, there is not explicit language that, if you were to go straight from normal to dead, you lose any agency. So, if we are going to be pedantic about it, your character is far more disabled if they are ever scared witless (because there nothing explicitly saying your character can ever to stop fleeing) then if they are crushed by a boulder (because death has no language saying you can't still act while dead).

[Sarzael]

Of course, I simply don't think "You can't because the rules don't say you can" adds much. We already know that the rules don't say you can. There wouldn't be a reason to ask this if they did. I don't think anyone is going to try to accomplish any of this in a game (At least not because of this thread!) and it would be up to their GM to decide if they did.

Edit: That said, keep it civil please! I do not agree with what he said and expressed why, but let's not get caught in being aggressive towards one another.

[Daw]

^-^
A car horn can be useful in warding off potential accidents. Mostly though, it is an annoying noisy thing, often misused.

[William Werminster]

Redefining the meaning of a 'quickie' are we?

[Tacticslion]

William Werminster wrote:

Redefining the meaning of a 'quickie' are we?

Heh.

but for the sake of clarity:

Sarzael wrote:

Obviously, most Summoned Creatures would vanish far too soon, but there are exceptions: Namely a level 20 Occultist Arcanist's capstone or an Antipaladin's Fiendish Boon. Both allow Summoned Creatures to last potentially permanently,

:)

[Set]

I'm kind of inclined to say no.

AFAIK, summoned creatures can't be milked of venom (or milk, for that matter), for instance, nor do any conditions they suffer while visiting the material plane (such as being poisoned or energy drained or diseased or cursed or hit point damage) seem to affect them if they are resummoned a few rounds later (the Eidolon being a fine example, as the Summoner class would suck if the Eidolon retained any disease, poison, curse, ability drain, negative energy levels, etc. inflicted during previous visits! 'Hey, we fought a wight, and now my defining class ability is permanently weaker than it was!'), so I'd say no to pregnancy (or parasitic infestation or gaining the ghoul or vampire templates or whatever).

While there don't seem to be any hard and fast rules, I think of summoned creatures (as opposed to *called* creatures) as being like the fake bodies created by astral projectors. If they get messed up or killed or even buffed or enhanced, those changes don't carry over to the original creature (assuming there even is an original creature, and the summoned creature isn't just a temporary manifestation created off of a template and cease to exist the moment the spell ends...).

By the same logic, a summoned creature wouldn't be able to impregnate anyone either. Woo hoo! Safe sex, summoner style!

[Sarzael]

Set wrote:

I'm kind of inclined to say no.

AFAIK, summoned creatures can't be milked of venom (or milk, for that matter), for instance, nor do any conditions they suffer while visiting the material plane (such as being poisoned or energy drained or diseased or cursed or hit point damage) seem to affect them if they are resummoned a few rounds later (the Eidolon being a fine example, as the Summoner class would suck if the Eidolon retained any disease, poison, curse, ability drain, negative energy levels, etc. inflicted during previous visits! 'Hey, we fought a wight, and now my defining class ability is permanently weaker than it was!'), so I'd say no to pregnancy (or parasitic infestation or gaining the ghoul or vampire templates or whatever).

While there don't seem to be any hard and fast rules, I think of summoned creatures (as opposed to *called* creatures) as being like the fake bodies created by astral projectors. If they get messed up or killed or even buffed or enhanced, those changes don't carry over to the original creature (assuming there even is an original creature, and the summoned creature isn't just a temporary manifestation created off of a template and cease to exist the moment the spell ends...).

By the same logic, a summoned creature wouldn't be able to impregnate anyone either. Woo hoo! Safe sex, summoner style!

Ah, but can't they? A summoned spider has venom just like a real spider. They poison your enemies after all. Is there anything stopping you from milking said spider? It has the same abilities, after all. It seems to me that the main reason such thing is not done usually is the duration, as it's not very profitable to gather venom if it will just disappear half a minute later.

However- A level 20 Occultist, an Antipaladin, or to a lesser (ironically) extent a Summoner can circumvent this as their Summoned Creatures are of permanent duration. If you command a Succubus to grant you a profane gift, this profane gift lasts until the Succubus is dismissed, violently or otherwise, right? But if the Succubus is never banished, you'd have it permanently. Similarly, an eidolon will remain diseased or otherwise hurt until it is dismissed. If they weren't dismissed at all, they'd have to recover naturally, right?

[Tacticslion]

I will mention my house rules, here.

This has come up in a few games we've run, where, basically, permanent partially real people (like simulicra, but made of nothing more than magic; though with real souls) exist.

The way we've consistently ruled it in the past is that the longer they exist the more "real" they become: the more they eat, breathe, drink, excrete, and so on, the more really-real physicality they take into themselves: after all, outside of some very, very nasty disease, 100% of that apple ain't comin' out at the same time.

To that end, magic items like a ring of sustenance or ioun stones that allow you to get away without needing to eat or breathe or whatnot don't actually do anything for them: they need to get real stuff inside of them and a part of their form.

We've never pinned down the exact timing - I think we've said a month is "enough" but seven years is required to "complete it" - basically, if the magic is dispelled, treating the new people as is they have negative levels until enough time has passed for all the cells to be more or less replaced. (The aura is there until dispelled, though.)

In any event, permanent summons are likely treated the same way in our games. Weirdly, it's never come up.

[Sarzael]

That's an interesting way to go about it, though bear in mind- Outsiders don't need to breathe, drink or eat (Though they may).

[Tacticslion]

Sarzael wrote:

(Though they may).

This is the crux of it. It makes them very vulnerable (almost nascent) in some ways, until they manage to "become" a "real" creature once again. The fact that they have the ability to generate biological processes suggests that this interpretation could be used across the board.

But for outsiders (unlike humanoids) it must be very intentional.

[Claxon]

BlackOuroboros wrote:

Claxon wrote:

Actually, it's a very solid rules argument even if you don't like the results.

Pathfinder is a rules permissive system. It tells you what you can do, not what you can't (typically, sometimes it reminds you what you can't do).

Wow... pedantic and abrasive, a twofer!

Also remember that if we are going to go by pure RAW there is no explicit language in Pathfinder that states that once you acquire a condition that strips your agency, such as panicked, that your agency is ever returned to you. Likewise, there is not explicit language that, if you were to go straight from normal to dead, you lose any agency. So, if we are going to be pedantic about it, your character is far more disabled if they are ever scared witless (because there nothing explicitly saying your character can ever to stop fleeing) then if they are crushed by a boulder (because death has no language saying you can't still act while dead).

I only responded to the perceived dismissive attitude the OP used towards my initial response, which was neutral. So if you want to crucify me, perhaps you should also target them. And you own attitude is equally abrasive and rude. So perhaps target yourself as well.

We can all get high and mighty if we want to start pointing fingers.

In any event, my point is there is no rules support and it causes many more questions if you answer yes, and if I am the GM I will simply say no unless I have a good plot reason to allow it.

As for you diatribe on pedantry I'm not a run it by "RAW" person soon you don't have to convince me of the problems of trying to overly strictly interpret rules, but this isn't about interpreting rules the wrong way. This is about how the rules are completely non-existent and silent on such issues.

Also, I wasn't being pedantic. I was pointing out how the rules don't exist, pedantry concerns the minutia of rules.I wouldn't call there non-existence minutia.

(I will admit that this post is probably a bit pedantic though) and perhaps a little abrasive, but again only because of the perceived attitude to which I am being responded with.

[Sarzael]

Tacticslion wrote:

Sarzael wrote:

(Though they may).

This is the crux of it. It makes them very vulnerable (almost nascent) in some ways, until they manage to "become" a "real" creature once again. The fact that they have the ability to generate biological processes suggests that this interpretation could be used across the board.

But for outsiders (unlike humanoids) it must be very intentional.

That's an interesting interpretation. Though, since an outsider is (in many cases) the crystallization of a soul, to put it that way, what does it mean for them to become a "real" creature? Did you draw a piece of the Hearth (Positive Energy Plane) in its creation (summoning)? Or is it something else entirely?

[blahpers]

In Pathfinder, nobody poops.

[Tacticslion]

Sarzael wrote:

Tacticslion wrote:

Sarzael wrote:

(Though they may).

This is the crux of it. It makes them very vulnerable (almost nascent) in some ways, until they manage to "become" a "real" creature once again. The fact that they have the ability to generate biological processes suggests that this interpretation could be used across the board.

But for outsiders (unlike humanoids) it must be very intentional.

That's an interesting interpretation. Though, since an outsider is (in many cases) the crystallization of a soul, to put it that way, what does it mean for them to become a "real" creature? Did you draw a piece of the Hearth (Positive Energy Plane) in its creation (summoning)? Or is it something else entirely?

It depends. On what? On what the GM feels is appropriate.

Outsiders are spirit poured into extraplanar flesh.

Whatever the GM feels appropriate.

We might just have them eat apples (for example) and nab the [native] subtype. I'unno, though. As I've said, it's not really come up.

The thing is, in our games, when this has come up, it's been a form of a resurrection that's a little easier/less costly than other forms. Hence, we drew a real soul, but placed it into a permanent illusory body that "got better" over time.

We've never really tried it with summons. My above was a thought-experiment through the lens of our house rules, if you presumed that summons weren't "real" (the latter of which I find slightly dubious*, because there's a weird and arbitrary cut-off point - I understand "why" but the way it's phrased is "off" to my ear**); so... grains of salt must apply, and you might even need a shaker for containment/reuse, later.

* This is the argument, not the people, and is only to my way of thinking, not as a general statement.

** I'd rather the arguments be something more like, "It's not permanent, hence no "change" ever truly takes place to its status - "damage" is not reflected as "damage" to an "ur" creature but destabilization within the magical matrix" or something. I do have a problem with summon creating a fake, though, as that's the job of a conjuration (creation) spell. But, again, that's not a strong argument, just one that feels off in a very personal and non-binding way. One person's way of interpreting it is not wrong, unless it causes problems at their table.

[blahpers]

Tacticslion wrote:

We might just have them eat apples (for example) and nab the [native] subtype.

Oooh, I like this reverse-Hades thing. *yoink*

Edit: Though I suppose poor Ryuk would be in a bit of trouble.

[Hugo Rune]

I think the PFS answer would be no and the non-PFS answer is ask your GM. If your GM is happy with the game group exploring the intricacies of summoned creatures becoming pregnant and the genealogy of their offspring then the answer is yes, otherwise it would be a no.

[Tacticslion]

blahpers wrote:

Tacticslion wrote:

We might just have them eat apples (for example) and nab the [native] subtype.

Oooh, I like this reverse-Hades thing. *yoink*

Edit: Though I suppose poor Ryuk would be in a bit of trouble.

HAH! "poor Ryuk" - that guy's more than a little bit of a jerk!

... besides, it wasn't like he was using that (extraplanar) anything...

[Luca Eugenio Barlassina]

May I point out a SCIENTIFIC consideration?
What basically your parents give you is not the matter of your body, but your Genetic Traits.
This is partially true for your mother, because the mass that you have when you born (4-5kg) comes from the nutrients your mother pass you when she is pregnant. But your father... a part from genetic informations, he gives you just the matter present in the spermatozoon that fertilizes the ovum. So, unless your summoned father disappear before the first 3-4 cells are formed (so in 2-3 days from the sexual act, I think), no parts of your physical body will disappear (in a moment I go to the soul).
If your mother is the summoned there are a lot of troubles; and, if it's true that remarkable amounts of your body's matter in your cells are there since your mother was pregnant, I imagine she is going to eat something during the pregnancy and, unless she eats just other summoned creatures, the matter she introduces in her and in your body is real.
So, if your mother is summoned, probabily you have a small amount of matter that is going to disappear with her. That probably will kill you if you are a baby and not if you are an adult, even due to gradually replacement of your body's matter, but probably you will be seriously ill, maybe deadly, and you will need some magic cure.
PHILOSOPHICALLY Going to speak about the soul I don't think soul is something you inherit from your parents, as some Ancient Greek philosopher theorized (someone used to said soul is inherited from father, some other from mother, some other that is something some of your organ produces or that enters in your body from the mouth). To me this theories seems absurds because soul is something immaterial or maybe is a world to indicate certain qualities of a subject. So, if we presume the existence of a soul as appears in d&d/pathfinder universe, we must consider it such as "an immaterial quality that the conformation of the simmetries in your body's matter makes to come to the existence", so you will have an immortal soul, but maybe gods decides to treat you in a different way after you die. I cannot contest gods wisdom.

If both your parents are summoned creatures...
For your body It's the same as if just your mother was summoned.
For the soul it's a controverse question. Maybe nothing can come from nothing, so you not have one even if you are still thinking while biologically living. Maybe the real matter that makes up your body gives you one. Maybe you born without a soul but certain mental status or actions or determinations of free will or divine interventions or miracles or desire spell can give it to you. Or maybe you have it.
I think in this case logic permits multiple answers, all them possible.

[Nodrog]

Yes, but you have to do a couple things for it to work.

Firstly you must give the summon a gift.
Secondly, you can not have the summon engage in combat during any part of a 7 consecutive day span.
Thirdly you need some Barry Manilow and good wine
Fourthly and most importantly, you must treat your summon with respect and accept if they say no.

Though to be serious you could likely find rules in the book no one speaks of. Or just use cartoon porn rules which would be yes.

[Daw]

Isaac Hayes, not Barry Manilow.
You'll want the extra intensity over sentimentality.

[Mark Thomas 66]

David knott 242 wrote:

This third party product has rules for what happens when a summoner gets his eidolon pregnant (or, more likely, vice versa).

As a concept, "The Warped" are pretty damned awesome.

[Mark Thomas 66]

blahpers wrote:

In Pathfinder, nobody poops.

The Otyughs in the sewers disagree

[Lorewalker]

This is very much a "whatever your GM thinks" issue.

My personal take on it is that you get a real creature but not its original body. Much in the way Astral Projection functions if you visit another plane from the astral plane. This would allow manipulation of their silver cord... but luckily very few things can do that.

This also allows them to have a personality and history even if they are effectively dominated. Which means specific creature summoning is possible. As well as asking questions based on their experiences. "So, how much does Cayden Cailean drink... really?"

No harm would be permanent, though. Since their body is magically generated. This would allow you to get real samples from the creature but it would poof as soon as the creature does.

By my idea, though, they could get pregnant but it would end the moment they disappear.

On a fun note, 20th level wizard summoning school summons a permanent Xill... xill has many many children. Threatens large area. Wizard dies, summon poofs... as does all its children and children's children.

[Luca Eugenio Barlassina]

Ahahah
Are u saying I'm too serious? XD

[Luca Eugenio Barlassina]

A great writer had said more or less :

"Sky may be green and clouds violet, but it's real."

If I simply try things to make sense I think is not about the lack of good wine (living in Italy it's not a problem).

[Mister Socks]

This item only complicates the question.

[Luca Eugenio Barlassina]

Mister socks, this is a confirm to my thesis (unless you say it's an exception).

[Claxon]

Mister Socks wrote:

This item only complicates the question.

Not really, the only thing that mask has to do with the question is that it mention it allows you to summon a hyena. The next line should really be a separate paragraph to make it clear how it works, but it just gives you the ability to breed with animals within one size category of you and explains how it works if you do.

It doesn't actually do anything to resolve the question of what happens with summoned monsters participating, but I understand how the mention of giving you the ability to summon a hyena does make it a little confusing.

[Tacticslion]

Claxon wrote:

Mister Socks wrote:

This item only complicates the question.

Not really, the only thing that mask has to do with the question is that it mention it allows you to summon a hyena. The next line should really be a separate paragraph to make it clear how it works, but it just gives you the ability to breed with animals within one size category of you and explains how it works if you do.

It doesn't actually do anything to resolve the question of what happens with summoned monsters participating, but I understand how the mention of giving you the ability to summon a hyena does make it a little confusing.

That is... interesting mental gymnastics to avoid a very obvious conclusion that is implied by the text not being a separate paragraph.

The conclusion you suggest is valid as well, of course, but by making a verbally strong stance against the applicability (by suggesting that the two effects are entirely separate and non-valid), you're ignoring common use of linguistic associations and writing style in an effort to support a forgone conclusion.

I mean, the item could say, "This allows you to summon a hyena; by the way, you should <censored, censored, oh my, no, oh, wow, that's just wrong, uh, also nope> and get a monster baby out of it, or do the same to other local wildlife." but the way the item uses its words is more economical, less over-the-top, and also allows for table variation: a win-win-win. Also, it leaves... certain things... left unsaid (or said in a more tactful manner). If you know what I mean.

Language is tricky enough, and your suggestion does fall under RAW... but it purposefully ignores the implication within grouping details together. Because that's just how language do. :)

At least some silliness intentional in that last sentence.

[Claxon]

I strongly disagree Tacticslion.

Here's why, let's look at the paragraph:
"If Lamashtu is the wearer’s patron, the mask counts as an unholy symbol and a hole for a third eye appears in its forehead. The wearer can use summon monster II once per day to summon a fiendish hyena, which obeys the wearer as if they shared a common language. The wearer may interbreed with animals within one size category of the wearer’s size. The offspring of such unions are members of the mother’s race with the fiendish simple template and bear monstrous aesthetic features of the father’s race."

The first sentence is talking about what happens if you're a worshipper of Lamshtu, and tells you it works as a unholy symbol and a eyehole appears in the forehead of the mask. The second sentence is completely unrelated (except that this ability again only functions if your a worshipper of Lamashtu) telling you that you can use Summon Monster II once per day to summon a hyena. The third sentence is again seemingly unrelated to either of the previous sentences (except again requiring your worship Lamashtu) telling you that you can interbred with animals. The 4th sentence is clearly related to to 3rd explaining what happens if you do breed with an animal.

I don't see any mental gymnastics in saying that it's abilities have very little to do with the the actual question of Summoned Monsters and breeding with them. The Hyena is Lamashtu's symbol/animal so it's not surprising you can summon it. And since she is the mother of monsters it's not surprising it gives you this weird ability to breed with animals. But I see no real implication between the summoning ability and the breeding ability. It's all just a bunch of abilities that make sense for someone who worships Lamashtu to have, but not that they're supposed to interact necessarily.

[Tacticslion]

Claxon wrote:

The 4th sentence is clearly related to to 3rd explaining what happens if you do breed with an animal.

Please clarify why this is true, when the other sentences are unrelated to each other.