Just curious about this so I can play the mindset appropriately. I have sometimes had summoned devils say in the past "Go ahead and kill me, I'll just reappear in Hell and I'd prefer to be there anyways", so they're less susceptible to intimidation. However I was reading through Abomination Vaults and noticed a devil that tries to bargain for its life that was brought through an Infernal Pact ritual. That would seem to imply that if it died on the material plane, it would die for real and not be subject to the rules for summoned creatures that they just get banished to their home plane at 0 HP.
So my question is -- do devils (or other outsiders) brought to the material plane through a ritual gain the summoned trait?
Thanks
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To clarify, Paizo has revamped the classic summoned creatures & called creatures paradigm.
-Summoned creatures are all fake, though note that "Summoned" is now a technical game term not a blanket description of creatures a caster brings to themselves. They're copies, simulacrums, whatever suits your sensibilities, but they're no longer real creatures kidnapped from their homes/home planes to fight at the behest of mortals.* They do not "return", they simply dissipate. I believe they don't die either, so don't fulfill requirements that rely on a death.
As well as clearing up any moral dilemmas, it also prevents using them as expendable, renewable souls (et al).
-Extraplanar creatures die anywhere. Whether called through a Ritual, walking through a permanent Gate, or by finding a rift between dimensions, it doesn't matter how a creature gets to point B from point A; they're fully there. If killed there, they die, they do not respawn. This does alter some motivations & narration from previous editions, sometimes by a lot in specific instances. That said, if necessary for one's story, one could grant such an ability (much like many undead have, i.e. ghosts) or have avatars/clones available for initial confrontations. So essentially all real extraplanar creatures count as PF1 called creatures did if not explicitly a Summoned creature (and thus fake).
Oddly, PF2 Eidelons seem more akin to the previous planar paradigm, returning to their planes (even the Material Plane) when at zero hit points (though technically not killed, Dying, etc.). There are other factors involved, including only semi-existing, yet existing, when not manifested. That needs some clarifying, especially re: Conditions & spells carrying over.
*Planescape in DnD 2.0 showed the moral ramifications of this. It was intriguing; the kidnappings caused extraplanar creatures to resent mortal casters.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Summoned creatures are all fake...
Source? I had heard the opposite.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Summoned creatures are all fake...Source? I had heard the opposite.
James Jacobs has repeatedly stated in various threads that summoned creatures are created spontaneously from energies drawn from the relevant plane by the summoning spell, and are reabsorbed when the spell ends.
This is because the narrative of "I yanked an angel out of choir practice to force it to fight" raises way too many difficult questions and makes it feel kind of gross to use summoning magic.
Questions like;
What if the creature was doing something important? What if that angel was tasked with guarding some imprisoned evil, and you helped that evil escape by yanking away the angel?
Are you yanking angels/demons/etc at random? Or are there just a bunch of angels on "be summoned by adventurers" duty who just wait around to be summoned? What if too many people summon angels at once? Can heaven run out of angels?
Then there's the issue where summoning spells don't actually give the summoned creature a choice - they obey your commands no matter what.
It's just easier on the metaphysics and less gross if you summon planar energies to form a temporary fake creature.
Creative Director
|
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
We never really addressed this issue in 1st edition, but instead danced around it. We talk specifically about it in Secrets of Magic.
To me, the idea of a summoning spell summoning a sort of "ideal" of a creature to serve the spellcaster is much more palatable for a non-evil spellcaster than is the alternate. Otherwise, the idea of a good character summoning creatures to send them to their likely death in combat, or a druid summoning animals out of their environment to do the same (to name two examples) feels inappropriate and kinda gross.
Instead, those spellcasters are drawing upon their magic to manifest physical incarnations of their thematic interests to fight for them. This also dodges the weirdness that might result from someone trying to use a summon spell to gather information from the creature, or taking the gear they show up with for their own, or feeding people on them, and on and on.
This also helps to justify the more powerful series of planar ally (spells in 1E, rituals in 2E); these actually DO conjure a creature out of their home, but there's built in mechanics for how to handle the fact that you might be sacrificing them, etc. in that you have to bargain or pay.
So uh, why is it evil to use Final Sacrifice on creatures from summoning spells?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So uh, why is it evil to use Final Sacrifice on creatures from summoning spells?
Probably because it was written with too narrow of a thought. Which is to say thinking about real creature companions, and not summons.
IMO, summons should be a valid candidate without being evil, since they're not real.
Otherwise, it should also be evil to summon the same fake creature for the express purpose of fighting where it is likely to "die". At the very least it discorporates at the end of the spell duration, which has to be vaguely as uncomfortable as being discorporated by force.
I simply can't see a scenario in which it's okay to use a summon for a fight and that act isn't evil, but sacrificing the same summon using final summon wouldn't be okay.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a GM I’d say summoning a creature specifically for the purpose of dying would be evil, but for defense would not be.
Summons aren’t mindless, they’re sapient. Even if their existence is short they still have minds and can experience pain and fear. Sacrificing and/or torturing a Summon is Evil.
There is a difference between summoning something to blow it up and to fight a large monster but it isn't that much in my opinion. If it would be immoral to kidnap a being and make them fight something then so is creating a sapient life and force it in combat as well.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So uh, why is it evil to use Final Sacrifice on creatures from summoning spells?
Because the notion of suicide bombers of any kind strike the developers as "icky?"
My reasoning is that either the summoned creatures are real in some regard, i.e. they are aware of the world, they feel pain, they have emotions, and then enslaving these beings to die against a monster should also be icky and possibly worth of the evil tag as well.
And if this is not the case then exploding it should be the same as exploding a construct summon as well.
|
|
If they are sapient in anyway, summoning is outright evil. You are creating something with full understanding of itself, but dooming it to a 60 second long life of enslavement. Absolutely disgusting and not defendable.As a GM I’d say summoning a creature specifically for the purpose of dying would be evil, but for defense would not be.
Summons aren’t mindless, they’re sapient. Even if their existence is short they still have minds and can experience pain and fear. Sacrificing and/or torturing a Summon is Evil.
Gonna disagree.
The act in their nature when created but are under the control of the summoner per metagame rules, they're perfectly fine with getting to exist for the time they have it. If they weren't we'd have some different type of spells, like the one that forcibly calls Immortals or something.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If they are sapient in anyway, summoning is outright evil. You are creating something with full understanding of itself, but dooming it to a 60 second long life of enslavement. Absolutely disgusting and not defendable.As a GM I’d say summoning a creature specifically for the purpose of dying would be evil, but for defense would not be.
Summons aren’t mindless, they’re sapient. Even if their existence is short they still have minds and can experience pain and fear. Sacrificing and/or torturing a Summon is Evil.
Gonna disagree.
The act in their nature when created but are under the control of the summoner per metagame rules, they're perfectly fine with getting to exist for the time they have it. If they weren't we'd have some different type of spells, like the one that forcibly calls Immortals or something.
I just can't agree with your point of view.
If summoning a sapient creature to exist for 60 seconds for the purpose of fighting another thing isn't evil, then summoning it just to sacrifice it isn't evil either.
To me there isn't enough difference between the actions to change the morality of it.
That's not to say summoning would always be evil, because you could certainly summon a creature for non combat purposes (not sure why but you could).
However, if summoning for combat purposes isn't evil it can only be (IMO) because it's not really a sapient thinking feeling creature. If it were, forcing it into combat with what amounts to mind control would be evil.
As JJ said in this very thread, they made sure to clarify/change the idea behind summons so that the idea of a good caster sending a summoned creature to their death made sense. And if that's the case, then I can't see a convincing argument that magically sacrificing the same creature that you were going to let die anyone, is somehow less morally defendable.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If they are sapient in anyway, summoning is outright evil. You are creating something with full understanding of itself, but dooming it to a 60 second long life of enslavement. Absolutely disgusting and not defendable.As a GM I’d say summoning a creature specifically for the purpose of dying would be evil, but for defense would not be.
Summons aren’t mindless, they’re sapient. Even if their existence is short they still have minds and can experience pain and fear. Sacrificing and/or torturing a Summon is Evil.
Gonna disagree.
The act in their nature when created but are under the control of the summoner per metagame rules, they're perfectly fine with getting to exist for the time they have it. If they weren't we'd have some different type of spells, like the one that forcibly calls Immortals or something.
I just can't agree with your point of view.
If summoning a sapient creature to exist for 60 seconds for the purpose of fighting another thing isn't evil, then summoning it just to sacrifice it isn't evil either.
To me there isn't enough difference between the actions to change the morality of it.
That's not to say summoning would always be evil, because you could certainly summon a creature for non combat purposes (not sure why but you could).
However, if summoning for combat purposes isn't evil it can only be (IMO) because it's not really a sapient thinking feeling creature. If it were, forcing it into combat with what amounts to mind control would be evil.
As JJ said in this very thread, they made sure to clarify/change the idea behind summons so that the idea of a good caster sending a summoned creature to their death made sense. And if that's the case, then I can't see a convincing argument that magically sacrificing the same creature that you were going to let die anyone, is somehow less morally defendable.
I'm not really sure how you can't see a difference from "protect me/my friends" and "I created you just to kill/torture you".
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because it's not protect me and my friends, it's "I'm sending you to take all these hits so we don't have to because you're just a figment. Not real, and the feelings and pain you will experience doesn't matter."
The caster might think they're doing it to protect their friends, which can be true. But it's also true that they're forcing the summoned creature to have a short existence in which they will most like die and certainly experience pain.
Or, you follow JJ's idea that these creatures existence is such that they don't experience that pain and don't have these kind of thoughts, existing more like a computer program. And if that's the case, there should be no qualms about using them however you want.
I wonder if you have ever summoned something to check a place for traps...
|
|
Thatsbsome very ends justifying the means logic Rysky. Oh it'd fine to create a life that can think and feel but has no personal autonomy at all because me and my friends benefit from that and we think we are good.
Heck even without the horribly short lifespan, creating thinking life just to be your servant is disgusting.
Have you always been this passionately disposed towards Summons or is this recent?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Conjuring a creature into existence to serve you in combat is clearly much different than to be sacrificed or tortured. But the root question of whether conjuring such a creature for combat is evil seems reasonable.
I believe such temporary creatures are not fundamentally different from more permanent ones, so performing evil acts on a summoned creature would still be evil. But requesting aid from a creature you can speak with doesn't seem evil to me, subject to the same stipulations as requesting any other creature to do something. The most common summon spells seem to create combat-ready forms of creatures, as their default actions are to attack your enemies to the best of their abilities. Just casting those spells and allowing the creature to take whatever actions it wishes doesn't seem evil.
Demanding or tricking non-mindless summons into triggering traps seems pretty evil to me, though asking one to search for or disable it to the best of their abilities seems fine. My fey sorcerer frequently summons animals with extraordinary senses (scent, echolocation, etc.) to search for hidden dangers.
In any case, this feels like something summoners/philosophers would argue over in-universe.
Oh great, so to dodge all the moral issues of dealing with drawing in living creatures, we have the solution of creating living creatures instead.
Wait? Wuh? That can't be right. That's the exact same issue!
Though on the side of handwaving, I think Summoned creatures are not intended to be living creatures, at least not morally or philosophically, so they aren't. Mechanically sure, they qualify, but they don't have souls. (Do they??)
Of course, delving deeper, there are conundrums like the fact they have Recall Knowledge skills & languages that the caster may not.
So wait, they have memories, yet no prior existence which created them?
We're into the "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" territory now, which can be an intriguing exploration, yet would undermine the simple point that Summoned creatures were converted from actual beings (DnD) to undetermined (PF1) to not actual beings (PF2) to avoid moral qualms.
So to talk about their 6-60 second durations as if those were lifespans is missing the larger point: the creators of this universe (Paizo staff) have stripped Summoned creatures of all moral gravitas.
They are "essence constructs" with that concept having no correlation to our earthly moral systems, and no place in Golarion's.
Oh, wait, except re: the Final Sacrifice spell... Dang it!
Feels like a left-hand/right-hand error over at Paizo. Maybe due to the designer understanding the old paradigm?
Perhaps that line has to be errata'ed to ignore Summoned creatures?
Not a question if Summoned creatures are phony. Fix that, Paizo.
Also, I'm pretty sure an Angel w/ at most a 60 second "life" and perhaps wounded already, would want to sacrifice itself to damage fiends and promote the cause of Good (et al). It's something the real ones do.
If a GM wishes to reintroduce those issues, then that can of wiggly worms is theirs to capture.
So uh, why is it evil to use Final Sacrifice on creatures from summoning spells?Because the notion of suicide bombers of any kind strike the developers as "icky?"
Or the notion of compelling creatures to become suicide bombers is.
I remember laughing when I realized that the D&D 3.5 prestige class Jade Phoenix Mage was set up to eventually allow a PC to become an experienced suicide bomber.
But I would have to agree that summoned creatures potentially have too much sentience to make their temporary existence anything other than a horror for them, if they last long enough. They have alignments typical of their kind and can speak multiple languages in some cases. It is only their extremely limited lifespan (no more than a minute, with nearly all of that time spent in combat) that prevents them from being aware of their imminent non-existence.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Conjuring a creature into existence to serve you in combat is clearly much different than to be sacrificed or tortured.
Is it though? I mean it's different in the sense that you're doing two different things, but is it morally different to create a creature that is a slave to you to be used as a pawn in combat leading to the end of its creation, vs creating the creature and exploding it? No from my perspective.
But the root question of whether conjuring such a creature for combat is evil seems reasonable.
This really the question. Why would someone think it's okay to force a creature into such a short miserable painful existence? But then turn around and balk about ending it even more quickly.
To me, they are both evil acts assuming the creature can experience pain or have independent sentient thought.
Rather, my headcannon is that the are not sapient/sentient creatures and are really more like an illusion given force, controlled by the mind of their creator.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wonder if you have ever summoned something to check a place for traps...I have not.
It's a time honored tradition to summon a bunch of low level creatures and have them charge like lemmings to trigger any and every trap and/or ambush they can. Bonus points because they at least had to be able to understand you to do this. It continues to be one of the few useful things summons can do in this edition and can be a great way to use outdated low level slots if you don't have a dedicated anti-trap character.
|
For me, it is easy. Summon creature to fight, explore ... = not Evil per se.
Detonate not-mindless creature (including Summoned) = Evil.
Why ? Because the RAW says so and I need nothing more.
I will let you people count the number of angels ad nauseam while I go and play some nice uncomplicated yet wholesome game with friends.
To think that all this is because some people want their Cleric of Desna to detonate non-mindless summoned creatures willy-nilly with no blemish on their Good alignment. Rolls eyes.
Sapience without any free will means nothing. Blow the buggers.
I'd also argue that they are not creatures*, but spell effects.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It generally attacks your enemies to the best of its ability. If you can communicate with it, you can attempt to command it, but the GM determines the degree to which it follows your commands.
Summons in PF2 seem to have free will, they just come into being with a desire to attack your enemies to the best of their ability.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think most of the world generally makes a moral distinction between sending soldiers into battle and sending soldiers as suicide bombers. It might have the same end result sometimes, but there is still a generally accepted distinction because of how you get there.
Additionally, the sentiences created by summoning magic (and they might not actually be sentient, it is theoretically possible for a simulacrum of sentience to perfectly simulate the outward appearance of sentience without actually being sentient) are just fragments of a larger sentience (that of the plane or god or whatever) that just gets reabsorbed into the larger sentience when they die. Destroying one of the bodies of Dr Manhattan isn't really murder, it's not even a mild inconvenience for him.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think most of the world generally makes a moral distinction between sending soldiers into battle and sending soldiers as suicide bombers. It might have the same end result sometimes, but there is still a generally accepted distinction because of how you get there.
To be honest I would say, suicide bombing is more evil but sending people to die to defend the interests of the rich while pretending to make it about freedom and not supporting the soldiers after death or injury is only slightly less evil.
|
|
I think most of the world generally makes a moral distinction between sending soldiers into battle and sending soldiers as suicide bombers. It might have the same end result sometimes, but there is still a generally accepted distinction because of how you get there.To be honest I would say, suicide bombing is more evil but sending people to die to defend the interests of the rich while pretending to make it about freedom and not supporting the soldiers after death or injury is only slightly less evil.
Introducing RL politics is a sure way to get the thread closed.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The magic of creation gathers raw material essence, the matter of the universe, and temporarily confines it in a concrete physical form, which dissipates when the spell ends. Summoning magic is similar but creates a simulacrum of a creature from matter, willpower, and sometimes raw spiritual quintessence.
[...]
For much of my career—though it must seem like ancient history to readers of this almanac—practitioners disputed whether summoned monsters were created facsimiles that lacked true life of their own, or whether they were being drawn from somewhere else: an alternate dimension, or a unique potentiality housing the thoughtforms representing the idealized concept of a creature. Though this debate is now settled, and modern scholars agree that summoning creates facsimile.
If you summon something that feels pain or has feelings is debatable, but if you do then I don't really see it being moral to send it to battle to die for your cause it isn't invested in at all.
Any such notions of desire is implanted by the summoner and if it want to fight creatures that are much stronger than it, sustain damage and die for me is acceptable, then I truly don't understand why it wanting to die for me doesn't include being used as a target for Final Sacrifice. Sure is less painful than getting stabbed, your skin being targeted by fire or even acid.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Say you summon a facsimile of one of your childhood's heroes, a hero of old, always fighting for the right reasons and willing to die rather than surrender.
They fight for you. Is that Evil ?
Now, you take the same creature, and, without asking them, blow them apart to hurt the people near them. Is that not Evil ?
Say you summon a facsimile of one of your childhood's heroes, a hero of old, always fighting for the right reasons and willing to die rather than surrender.
They fight for you. Is that Evil ?
Now, you take the same creature, and, without asking them, blow them apart to hurt the people near them. Is that not Evil ?
That also raises the question of what if you have asked them?
Is Final Sacrifice still Evil if the Angel on its last round of its existence says you may?|
|
Say you summon a facsimile of one of your childhood's heroes, a hero of old, always fighting for the right reasons and willing to die rather than surrender.
They fight for you. Is that Evil ?
Now, you take the same creature, and, without asking them, blow them apart to hurt the people near them. Is that not Evil ?
That also raises the question of what if you have asked them?
Is Final Sacrifice still Evil if the Angel on its last round of its existence says you may?
Does it have free will to say so, or is it merely a puppet of its summoner's thoughts ?
If this is the scenario, then what if you are a neutral being, fighting for control in your area. Not a righteous cause by any means but it isn't evil.
Is it evil to summon in this case? The hero of old, fighting some member from an opposite gang, taking a stab from a knife and feeling that pain because you needed back up that day.
The summon has absolutely no say if this is a cause that aligns with their ideal and any such cause is created by the summoner. If it is ok to create causes for them that involves bodily maim and grevious pain for you then why not a cause where they are ok being the target of Final Sacrifice?
Does it have free will to say so, or is it merely a puppet of its summoner's thoughts ?Say you summon a facsimile of one of your childhood's heroes, a hero of old, always fighting for the right reasons and willing to die rather than surrender.
They fight for you. Is that Evil ?
Now, you take the same creature, and, without asking them, blow them apart to hurt the people near them. Is that not Evil ?
That also raises the question of what if you have asked them?
Is Final Sacrifice still Evil if the Angel on its last round of its existence says you may?
Or a puppet to the "ideal essence" of its type, or preprogrammed along similar lines (and so forth). Heck, is Free Will even a concept in Golarion? (And to what degree?)
One minute is hardly enough time to apply a Turing test, so maybe we'll never get sufficient answers.Unless we ask Paizo, who have said the alterations in the metaphysics of summoning should erase moral qualms. And despite that, Final Sacrifice does raise moral qualms re: sentient beings.
Is it too good, er...effective, a spell when in the hands of heroes?
(Heck, maybe, since it does better than average damage for its level.)
I could see making cheap, low-level constructs to send to their doom, especially if a Divine caster w/o a Fireball-like spell available.