RUMBLETiGER
Adventurer
Mephits have pregnacies?
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
The morality of Summon Familiar
- Thread starter Herzog
- Start date
Summer-Knight925
First Post
it's only a slave if you force it to do anything OR it competes in sports for you wizard's college
from what I understand, the Bigby Familiars are gonna take Merlin's Cup this year
from what I understand, the Bigby Familiars are gonna take Merlin's Cup this year
RUMBLETiGER
Adventurer
Mephits are not Imps, nor are they aligned with any of the lower planes.
Jared Rascher
Explorer
Like a few others, I had always assumed that intelligent outsiders that become familiars make some kind of deal when they first bond with their spellcaster, not that they are somehow forced against their will into servitude.
Then again, when it comes to summoning things, my brain always fills in gaps in the story. For example, I have always assumed that conjurors summon their various summoned creatures when they first learn their spells and cut deals or what have you so that they can do the "short version" of the summoning in combat situations.
Then again, when it comes to summoning things, my brain always fills in gaps in the story. For example, I have always assumed that conjurors summon their various summoned creatures when they first learn their spells and cut deals or what have you so that they can do the "short version" of the summoning in combat situations.
Celebrim
Legend
That's a really interesting thought and I'm going to think about the implications of it for a while before adopting it, but I like the general idea.
Man in the Funny Hat
Hero
Problem the first: the player of the mephit should have been immediately disabused of the notion that mephits (or indeed any familiar, much less an outsider) either has mates or human-like reproductive processes.
Problem the second: the implied notion that summoning a familiar has ethical or moral implications at all. The PH says a familiar serves as a companion and servant. It does not say it does so unwillingly or by being removed from some other path through life which it would prefer at any point for any reason. You summon the familar... you get a companion/servant... end of story. If DM or players want to editorialize and create content and controversy where there is none, well game on and enjoy. It actually sounds somewhat interesting. Kudos to the player for good roleplaying. But it immediately and irrevocably means the DM in particular assumes responsibility for figuring out what moral and ethical implications this then creates for any spellcaster. The PH says nothing about such things, probably because there IS nothing that needed to be said.
Again, more good roleplaying but this is strictly house rules territory. Myself, I have always sensibly assumed that even if there were some potential issue of free will (or lack thereof) in summoning a familiar that this would be rendered moot by the process itself. That is, a familiar who in ANY way/shape/form is not willing to serve forever and without question the master who summons it would not actually BE summoned.
A LG character can summon the same animal familiars for example as a CE character and yet there's no issues about a LG spellcasters rabbit familiar having a more deep-seated need to "go home" and make a bunch more little bunnies than serving the spellcaster, much less any potential obligation of the LG spellcaster to LET IT as a matter of ethics/morality. At the very least it would then have to be assumed that in order to serve unto death the caster who summoned it, whatever life the familiar may have had is either willingly sacrificed, non-existent, or otherwise in all ways rendered irrelevant.
A few - but they don't last too long and/or are not taken seriously.
Celebrim
Legend
Indeed. Additionally, if we pursue this logic we note that only a LE spellcaster may have an Imp as a familiar, and only a LG spellcaster may have a Brownie as a familiar. If the relationship between the spellcaster and the familiar was one of unwilling bondage, then we would expect that there would in fact be no such restrictions. If the relastionship was one of master to slave, a LE spellcaster could presumably force a psuedodragon into bondage and obedience if they desired. The very fact that they cannot indicates that the familiar only enters the relationship if it is willing to do so, and indeed only if it prefers to do so.
This is not to say that the relationship between master and familiar is necessarily entirely without acrimony or drama. In particular, I would expect CN familiars to remain quite willful and independent indeed; indeed, the relationship probably hinges on the expectation that the master - being CN himself - admires the familiars willfulness, independance and even cockiness on some level and tolerates it most of the time. The CN familiar probably only agrees to the relationship because it knows that the master is the sort who will tolerate being teased, and likewise because it accepts the master's traits like willfulness, indenpendence, moodiness and occasional surliness as being fundamental rights of every being and something attractive and even admirable. I would imagine that in the mind of the CN familiar, there is much less focus on the contractual nature of the relationship as their is on the intimate nature of the relationship. The CN familiar thinks to itself that it obeys not because its forced to by a legal contract that it has entered into, but because it wants to obey because the master is so attractive and engenders such pleasant feelings in the familiar. In other words, to the extent that the CN being can feel these things, it believes it is in love with the master.
Familiars of other alignments would of course focus on other aspects of the relationship; as an obvious example the LN familiar would probably be almost the opposite of the above, believing i'ts feelings (if it has any, which it might not) are wholly irrelevant in the relationship compared to the huge substantial fact of its duty to its master.
Celebrim
Legend
No, not really, although I have had familiars played be played by game observers who didn't yet feel comfortable taking on a full PC in the game. In fact, my own wizard's familiar has on occassion been played by my wife - and played quite well at that.
I do not believe that tension of this sort between the master and his familiar is necessary for interesting interaction between the master and the familiar, or a necessary component of thoughtful play. Indeed, truth be told, it strikes me as rather inexperienced and niave play. If you enjoy it, that's fine and by all means I'm pleased to see actual intraparty roleplay at the table, but to me when I imagine the account of this roleplay it seems awkward and forced, because intraparty play that ends up taking away party resources is generally a no-no unless everyone consents to the idea. There are plenty of oppurtunities for a married couple to roleplay a master and familiar acting like a married couple (as it were), without being destructive (in this case, the story line was attempting to negate a feat that the player had just spent).
If you want to make the bond between a mage and his familiar one of forced bondage then you can but I personally can't see how it could be fun for every game.
From what I have always understood a familiar is called or summoned and has choice if it wants to come or not.
The feat improved familiar allows the mage to take a more intelligent familiar and that familiar also choose to join the mage.
From what I have always understood a familiar is called or summoned and has choice if it wants to come or not.
The feat improved familiar allows the mage to take a more intelligent familiar and that familiar also choose to join the mage.
AdmundfortGeographer
Getting lost in fantasy maps
For us, familiars are simply physically manifested spiritual essence that takes an animal form relevant to the caster. Looks and sounds perfectly identical to a normal animal, but it radiates a magic aura, is not "alive".
Similar Threads
