Does summoning a monster who proceeds to attack the enemy violate the vow of peace?

[Tidus4444]

Well then, what if I could order the monster to deal subdual damage instead of normal damage? Or if I used nonlethal substitution so it could only do subdual damage (pretty sure nonlethal substitution no worky with summon spells tho).

 

[Fieari]

I'm not familiar with the D&D Vow of Peace... what sort of benefits do you get out of it? I understand the Vow of Poverty, since you get all these feats and such, but D&D is mostly a game of FIGHTING MONSTERS and a Vow preventing you from doing such seems really weird for the game...

 

[Tidus4444]

It gives you +4 to all your spell DCs that don't do damage/ability damage/kill. So it's perfect for a buffing/enchantment wizard or sorcerer that won't be tossing fireballs around too often. Plus, IIRC you CAN deal subdual damage, just not lethal damage. And there's a meta magic feat that allows you to change lethal damage to subdual damage, making subdual fireballs a possibility.

 

[Li Shenron]

Ok, one more question then... some of the upper leveled creatures in the summoned list are sentient, and can cast divine spells that will aid the party. I know I can order them not to attack... but if I do so, and they continue to attack anyway, am I responsible for their attacking?

I'd talk out with the DM about always casting a personal version of summon monster spells which summoned creatures by default don't attack ever.

 

[Joshua Randall]

For what it's worth, it wouldn't count as an attack for purposes of breaking an Invisibility spell...

Whether it would break a Sanctuary spell, I'm not sure.

From the SRD (3.5):

Attacks: Some spell descriptions refer to attacking. All offensive combat actions, even those that don’t damage opponents are considered attacks. Attempts to turn or rebuke undead count as attacks. All spells that opponents resist with saving throws, that deal damage, or that otherwise harm or hamper subjects are attacks. Spells that summon monsters or other allies are not attacks because the spells themselves don’t harm anyone.

So a summon monster spell is not an attack in D&D parlance, even though the summoned monsters attack your enemies by default!

As for the sanctuary spell, it seems clear that summon monster would not break it -- the relevant language is

The subject cannot attack without breaking the spell but may use nonattack spells or otherwise act.

 

[Tidus4444]

I'd talk out with the DM about always casting a personal version of summon monster spells which summoned creatures by default don't attack ever.

That's a good idea. Our party is short a healer, so I'll see if I can convince him to let me summon a lesser angel, or something similar.

 

[Piratecat]

So a summon monster spell is not an attack in D&D parlance, even though the summoned monsters attack your enemies by default!

I'd argue that for a vow of peace, the spell has an ethical responsibility above and beyond the D&D parlance. If my neighbor sets his attack dogs (or his robotic Richard Simmons) on me, he's still attacking me even if he's sitting on his veranda drinking coffee at the time.

 

[mikebr99]

If my neighbor sets his attack dogs (or his robotic Richard Simmons) on me, he's still attacking me even if he's sitting on his veranda drinking coffee at the time.

I think you need to find a new place to live... Richard Simmons, in any incarnation isn't good for property values.


Mike

 

[Scion]

I think that having the monsters attack for subdual and all of their abilities do subdual (by useing the subdual feat with the spell) work very well.

Not very good ruleswise for the second part but I think it fits the flavor very nicely. Just say how the monsters summoned seem a little different.. softer around the edges and more fluffy maybe they are smiting you with happieness and love (aka subdual damage) not clawing your brains out..lol

 

[rrealm]

Does summoning a monster who proceeds to attack the enemy violate the vow of peace?

Just curious if this does violate my vow of peace.

Yes it does. I can't think of any workarounds where you could attack/injure/harm someone without having repercussions.