Recently in my game I had a player that summoned a dog, then killed it to drop his blood in a magic well to test if it would work. The group discussed if the action would led to a change of alignment, but we did not came to a conclusion.
There any rules (for any even if not for all) that would prevent a character from purposefully killing your summoned creature (or familiar, or animal companion, or any other form of companion)? A good character could kill his own summoned creature?
Firstly, one single action does not cause alignment change. Alignment changes are gradual.
No, there are no rules for that, outside of the hassle of replacing them, as LazarX says.
|
Here is what the PRD says about Summoning:
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.
.
.
So, summoned creatures are real, feel pain, and do not wish to die. While summoned creatures cannot die, many are of animal intelligence and would not be aware that they could not die.
Would it be against the character's alignment to cause pain to an animal with little or no thought to it's well-being?
It sounds pretty cruel to me. I agree with Zhayne that alignment changes should not be attributed to one act (unless it is wildly significant). I would put a good or neutral character on notice about the act (although the neutral character would have more leeway).
Actions determine alignment, not the other way around. Whatever alignment he is, it does not, in any way, prevent him from taking any actions.
Actions determine alignment, not the other way around. Whatever alignment he is, it does not, in any way, prevent him from taking any actions.
Right.
Also magic users be cray cray with everything FOR SCIENCE!/MAGIC!
...and alignment should influence (but not determine) role play...
No. Actions determine alignment, and alignment does not stop you from taking any actions at all. Your LG character can absolutely lose his temper at some annoying schmuck and deck him. You play a personality, a character, NOT an alignment.
BTW, use of the meaningless buzzword 'roll-playing' cost you every last shred of credibility you might have had.
Actions determine alignment, not the other way around. Whatever alignment he is, it does not, in any way, prevent him from taking any actions.Right.
Also magic users be cray cray with everything FOR SCIENCE!/MAGIC!
I have no idea what message this nonsense is intended to convey.
Maybe the action to kill the summoned creature do not change the alignment by itself, but its repetition, due to cruelty with a live sentient being could lead to change of alignment.
My question is: do the rules face the summoned creature as cannon fodder, or actions performed with them (or against them) have influence in the moral rules of the game?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...and alignment should influence (but not determine) role play...No. Actions determine alignment, and alignment does not stop you from taking any actions at all. Your LG character can absolutely lose his temper at some annoying schmuck and deck him. You play a personality, a character, NOT an alignment.
BTW, use of the meaningless buzzword 'roll-playing' cost you every last shred of credibility you might have had.
Zhayne. Some people like to roll-play role-playing games. There is nothing wrong with that if that is the way they want to play. Get off your high horse man. If anyone has lost any credibility, it is you my friend.
As far as alignment NOT influencing role-play, you are absolutely wrong. It is the characters outlook on morals, ethics, empathy, compassion, etc.
I have no idea what message this nonsense is intended to convey.Actions determine alignment, not the other way around. Whatever alignment he is, it does not, in any way, prevent him from taking any actions.Right.
Also magic users be cray cray with everything FOR SCIENCE!/MAGIC!
Ahem.
I was attempting to derive humor from the many many morally dubious actions magic users have done in the world of Golarion in the name of research.
Liches for example are often the result of casters attempting to prolong their life and gain power in their pursuit of said research.
On the subject of summoned creatures, I have a big meh. Summoning them to do battle for you isn't that much different than summoning them for research.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What is wrong with pointing out that some games are more roll-play while others are more role-play? I see nothing wrong with RedDog's post.
We live in a world where we have the luxury to spend time on things such as animal rights and as a society we still breed, conduct tests on and kill animals for our benefit (besides that which is required for survival) every day. I imagine in a magical world where we were not the top of the food chain, and we had even more control over animals, we would do even more vicious things than we do today.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe the action to kill the summoned creature do not change the alignment by itself, but its repetition, due to cruelty with a live sentient being could lead to change of alignment.
Also, bear in mind that you have to take the character's entire behavior into account. If he's out saving the world the rest of the time, he's still going to be Good. You can't just look at the bad stuff and ignore the good stuff.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
...and alignment should influence (but not determine) role play...No. Actions determine alignment, and alignment does not stop you from taking any actions at all. Your LG character can absolutely lose his temper at some annoying schmuck and deck him. You play a personality, a character, NOT an alignment.
BTW, use of the meaningless buzzword 'roll-playing' cost you every last shred of credibility you might have had.
Zhayne. Some people like to roll-play role-playing games. There is nothing wrong with that if that is the way they want to play. Get off your high horse man. If anyone has lost any credibility, it is you my friend.
As far as alignment NOT influencing role-play, you are absolutely wrong. It is the characters outlook on morals, ethics, empathy, compassion, etc.
Roll-play is nothing more than an attempt to say 'you aren't doing it like I do and that's BADWRONGFUN'. It means nothing else.
And those change, and your character's alignment changes with them. This is not a big deal. The mistake is thinking that your alignment is a straitjacket. "I am (alignment), therefore I must (action)" is wrong. "I act like (this), therefore I am (alignment)" is right. Just determine your character's personality and play it; let the GM figure out your alignment.
Roll-play is nothing more than an attempt to say 'you aren't doing it like I do and that's BADWRONGFUN'. It means nothing else.
No, it means one set of rules apply for groups that role play, and those rules are not important for people that do not role play. If you don't role play, who cares if you're slaughtering your summoned creatures or not, it doesn't matter.
And those change, and your character's alignment changes with them. This is not a big deal. The mistake is thinking that your alignment is a straitjacket. "I am (alignment), therefore I must (action)" is wrong. "I act like (this), therefore I am (alignment)" is right. Just determine your character's personality and play it; let the GM figure out your alignment.
So if someone plays like "I am (alignment), therefore I must (action)", does that mean they're having BADWRONGFUN?
Maybe the action to kill the summoned creature do not change the alignment by itself, but its repetition, due to cruelty with a live sentient being could lead to change of alignment.
My question is: do the rules face the summoned creature as cannon fodder, or actions performed with them (or against them) have influence in the moral rules of the game?
I wouldn't throw alignment change. After all it's not so different from summon a creature to combat by your side. All casters know that a summon monster summon a really weak creature compared to apl. So if a wiz summon a monster to aid in combat, sending it to certain death just to grant an aid action to an ally, should be considered evil?
|
Isn't sending a summoned creature to assuredly die in battle against your foes more or less the same thing as killing it yourself? The critter still "dies" because you brought it there. Why is it morally different if you hold the knife or the orc across the room is?
Its actually fairly rare for a summoned monster to die. The bad guys don't want to essentially waste actions when they could instead be killing PCs.
You've got to be careful with ethics and summoned monsters or you run the risk of making the spell almost useless for characters who would actually care about pain and suffering.
Here is what the PRD says about Summoning:
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.
.
So, summoned creatures are real, feel pain, and do not wish to die. While summoned creatures cannot die, many are of animal intelligence and would not be aware that they could not die.
'Real' is hard to define, but at no point does it explicitly state the creature can feel pain or that it cares if it lives or dies. It certainly doesn't act like it minds dying; they'll go on fighting a hopeless battle while you escape.
That they 'reform' makes me think they come from some kind of spirit realm.
Alternatively, maybe when you cast a summoning, somewhere else in the world a guy is riding an elephant which suddenly disappears from underneath him, dropping him to the ground. It then reappears eleven rounds later with multiple stab wounds.
Its actually fairly rare for a summoned monster to die. The bad guys don't want to essentially waste actions when they could instead be killing PCs.
Unless they land an area effect, which happen fairly often at mid and high levels.
|
Well, I assume 2 things from the post.
1) the character alignment is some shade of good or at least neutral
2) The player and possibly the character believe that summoning a creature conjure an imitation of that creature that is not real and whose life doesn't really have value.
now, the second point is actually debatable. Contrary to what some people in the topic says I don't think there is hard proof anywhere about the fact that summoned creatures are real creatures that even exist outside the duration of the spell.
If that would be the case we could even debate about the fact that magically kidnapping a sentient creature to enslave and do your bidding may be an evil act by itself.
I always considered summons to be at the very best some kind of aspect of the real creature. Something that is born in that moment and will disappear from existence at the end of the spell. the summoning of real creatures from outer planes is the realm of spells like summon planar ally and gate.
Even in the case the creature is real you should ask yourself if the character was aware of that and if it is not, if is an action terrible enough to trigger an alignment change even from a position of ignorance.
I think that if the character didn't realize what he did and said action is sporadic that should not trigger an alignment change in the same way you do not change alignment for stepping on bugs while walking.
Should the character learn about the nature of the summoned creatures he killed, if he is good he is expected to feel regret about his past actions.
There are way to many contextual concerns to say, in blanket terms, what killing a summoned creature, familiar, or animal companion would mean as far as morality. I ran a game in which a scout/wizard sacrificed his familiar to save another PC's life. Seemed pretty reasonable to me.
You have to look at how the event and class features fit into the whole context. If the animal companion is seen as a favored pet - then I could see how sacrificing it willy-nilly could be seen as morally dubious. But if you see the class feature as nature providing the druid or ranger with a companion - then it's not so hard to see sacrificing it as being fine. Nature provides it and, if sacrificed to further the druid's cause, that's all well and good. If the familiar is seen as a manifestation of wizard's soul, then sacrificing it is also appropriate. And so on. There could be a lot of table variation on this.