Smite ontop of Smite? o_O

[Uber Dungeon]

I just had a thought and was wondering what everyone's thought about using both a paladin's "Smite Evil" with another form of smite such as Kiai Smite (samurai CW) or Smite Taint (Shintao Monk OA) in a single attack action. Or other variations of smite that differ from that of a paladin's

 

[Sekhmet]

I'm positive I've read a passage in a book that says this type of stacking is not allowed.
I can't think of WHERE, but I'm quite sure of it. I'm sure the_orc_within or another prominent member will remember.

 

[Ranes]

I don't have the stacking limitations handy and I don't know how this OA smite works but I suspect stacking would prevent it. Even more likely, if Smite Taint is a supernatural ability (and it probably is), then using it is also probably a standard action (i.e. unless it specifically says otherwise). As Smite Evil is supernatural ability too, and supernatural abilities are standard actions unless noted otherwise, you can only use them one at a time anyway.

 

[Dross]

Smite Evil (Su): a paladin may attempt to smite evil with one normal melee attack.

Smite Taint (Su): Once per day, a Shintao monk of 2nd level or higher may attempt to smite a Shadowlands opponent with one unarmed attack.

Kai Smite (Ex): free action to activate (via a shout)

Smiting Evil is with one normal attack, so we run it like a free action to activate (don't think that we've ever thought about >1 use in a round though). This may be (our reading of) RAI rather than RAW though.

Having not seen the ruling Sekhmet talks about, and not using the other 2 books, I have 2 Q's:

1. Smite Evil mentions 'normal' attack. if an attack is infused with a Smite power, is it a normal attack (and yes this could be considered a rather pedantic call)?
2. Does Kai Smite being Ex while the other 2 are Su change #1?

 

[Uber Dungeon]

1. Smite Evil mentions 'normal' attack. if an attack is infused with a Smite power, is it a normal attack (and yes this could be considered a rather pedantic call)?
2. Does Kai Smite being Ex while the other 2 are Su change #1?

Well by normal attack I guess it probably means a full attack action With nothing fancy. ~Points at kai smite and it's fancyness.~ so I guess smite evil is probably out.
As for smite taint "smite a Shadowlands opponent with one unarmed attack." I suppose it might be argued that kai smite could stack on that or at least apply to a separate unarmed strike (via FoB)
In that case one hit would be Ex and another Su. Or if they did stack then I believe it would maintain both properties.

 

[frankthedm]

Smiting Evil is with one normal attack, so we run it like a free action to activate (don't think that we've ever thought about >1 use in a round though). This may be (our reading of) RAI rather than RAW though

EDIT: It is vague enough that it came up a few times in the 3E life-cycle.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-legacy-discussion/194654-smite-ability-su.html
http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-legacy-discussion/42465-smite-evil.html
http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-legacy-discussion/197897-smite-evil-part-full-attack.html
http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-legacy-discussion/85284-aoo-smite-ability.html

IMHO the similar wording of sunder and smite evil mean they ought to be run the same way.