What's a "unique being" for purposes of Gate?

[Aesmael]

I'd use the criteria that if the caster knows in advance exactly which being he wants to summon, the being gets a choice. There is a good reason for this. If your wizard wants to gate in a fiendish, vampiric ancient blue dragon, chances are he just wants some help during a nasty combat. However, if he wants to Gate in Sharzzakhar specifically, chances are he's doing so for a specific plot reason, perhaps as part of setting a trap for the Great Mother dragon, or to ask specific questions the answeres to which only Sharzzakhar knows. Not allowing the Gating of specific indivuals helps the DM maintain a bit more control over the plot, especially if it's centered on the political machinations between groups of outsiders (as I believe PC's game is at the moment).

Whereas I would probably allow it, because allowing would (IMO) have more potential for both fun and story. If it is really, really important that the party not get the answers they are after, Sharzzakhar prevaricates until rescued. Dragons (well, maybe not the blue ones) are known for being loquacious, after all. If you don't want the trap to work, maybe the Great Mother was growing tired of her consort anyway and is glad to be rid of him. Of course there must (may) be a token effort to rescue him (e.g. another half-dozen fiendish vampiric blue dragons). For me, plot is there to give the pcs something to bend to suit themselves. That's where my fun is.


Or, hey, maybe she just gates him back.

But that is just that example. I personally like the idea of calling specific individuals, even powerful ones. I do not believe that advancement, templates, or class levels necessarily make something unique. That is a decision to be made on a case by case basis, I think. I would tend to give the status 'unique individual' only to creatures built as such, all members of every class of one.

For the example of 'King Skyfire' above, for me it comes down more or less exactly as coyote 6 said. If it is just a tough balor that happens to be a little more powerful, a little different from the norm, no choice about gating. If it is merely that a balor's stats were used as the basis for this creature, it is probably unique.

I certainly do not, however, have any immutable guidelines for deciding what is a unique reature and what is not. As another example, in my primary campaign setting the term 'Gloom' describes a large class of epic monsters, each of which is also a unique creature.

If the description in your head is 'advanced this', 'templated that' or 'X with Y levels of Z' it is almost always not a unique creature (single member of a class of creatures). If the players want to summon one they have to stat it up themselves, preferably beforehand. I decide if it exists, if it needs to be modified, and if it happens to be unique. Of course.

Has that, in any way, even touched on the question at hand? Unlikely. *shrug*

 

[saucercrab]

In particular I was thinking of solars, who can cast as 20th lvl clerics. I've got beasties out there who can gate as well.

Oh, okay. If your beasties have gate as a (sp), then they can ignore the alignment descriptor, right?

 

[Krafen]

See Sepulchrave's story hour, where it's well known by archfiends that solars can create what they call a cascade -- first solar gate in another, then both each gate in others, etc. With up to 4 gate spell by solar, you can get a nigh-exponential progression.

I had a player try something like this in an epic game a while back. This was during 3.0, so, while hasted, he cast two twinned gates summoning four solars in one round. Unfortunately, standard solars aren't all that tough in the epic game. All four died in the next round. Four solars permanently dead in 12 seconds. Oops.

 

[Raven Crowking]

No argument necessary.

Some spells have the [good] or [evil] descriptors. That's what they are there for.

A cleric can't cast spells in opposition to his deity's alignment (not even his own-- his deity's) and it's not much of a stretch to assume that an outsider is bound by the same rules.

Wulf

The terms "good" and "evil" are used in more than one way in the game, however. For example, even a paladin does not gain the "good" descriptor due to his class, even though a paladin must be good aligned. The "good" and "evil" descriptors seem more likely to indicate the metaphysical source of certain powers; i.e., drawing from the upper or lower planes. Thus, a creature could have both the [Good] and [Evil] descriptors (say, if it had both the half-fiendish and half-celestial templates). A cleric cannot cast spells in opposition to his deity's alignment in this case simply because his deity does not supply that sort of power.

This is very different from the ethical alignment descriptions that apply even to creatures, actions, and (one would assume) spellcasting, whether or not there is a [Good] or [Evil] descriptor attached to the character, monster, action, or spell.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

That, however, flies in the face of the mythos upon which D&D is based, in which calling demons is easier when you know the name of that which you're calling.

That's something I'm not particularly happy about regarding your interpretation.

3.X is a pretty big step away, in many ways, from the mythos of the earlier editions.


RC


EDIT: Even in earlier editions of the game, being able to summon such a powerful being was no insurance that it would do what you wanted.

Why is it so far-fetched to assume that when you try to Gate the Whisperer in the Night to learn some new evil spells, the Whisperer is eager to come, but when a score of high-level paladins are standing about it simply does not?