Using Summoned Creatures to gain an AoO

[Storyteller01]

And I can give off rule reasons as to why I could use an ally for the same trick.

We disagree - lets let these threads go. Its time.

As well you should! Just saying not to use the rules as an excuse.

Agreed. The horse is quite dead. Later...

 

[Evilhalfling]

Well in my games the fact that you summon the same individuals each time means that they each type of critter would allow this once, mabey twice.
The spell description says you can direct them, but leaves open to DM call if they have to do it exactly, and how much free will they have.

Striking down you allies, for free attacks is an evil act, no question.
no moral grey area to be seen.

As for evil PC's or villians? *shrug* evil dosen't have to play nice.

 

[KarinsDad]

Well in my games the fact that you summon the same individuals each time means that they each type of critter would allow this once, mabey twice.
The spell description says you can direct them, but leaves open to DM call if they have to do it exactly, and how much free will they have.

That's fine for your game, but that is not the rule based on the spell description.

"It appears where you designate and acts immediately, on your turn. It attacks your opponents to the best of its ability. If you can communicate with the creature, you can direct it not to attack, to attack particular enemies, or to perform other actions."

The spell does NOT allow for DMs modifying those directions.

That is a house rule for your game.

Striking down you allies, for free attacks is an evil act, no question.
no moral grey area to be seen.

Totally wrong.

This only applies to allies who can get injured (and specifically killed) by the act and even then it is not necessarily evil. A summoned creature cannot be killed. It is no more immoral than putting a human asleep because it does not really harm them.

Another example: How many people here on the boards has had a Wizard in the group Fireball members of his own party in order to save his own party?

I know it has happened on a few rare occurances in our games.

The wizard has a choice. Watch the party get killed by the opponents, or use his most potent spell to wound and/or kill as many opponents as possible, knowing that one or more allies will also get wounded or killed, and hope that the odds are in the party's favor after the Fireball.

It is NOT evil to do this, especially when the situation is so grim that NOT doing so would result in the death of all allies.


Morality is situational dependent.

Depending on your reason, virtually any act can be good or evil.

 

[Storyteller01]

Totally wrong.

This only applies to allies who can get injured (and specifically killed) by the act and even then it is not necessarily evil. A summoned creature cannot be killed. It is no more immoral than putting a human asleep because it does not really harm them.

Another example: How many people here on the boards has had a Wizard in the group Fireball members of his own party in order to save his own party?

I know it has happened on a few rare occurances in our games.

The wizard has a choice. Watch the party get killed by the opponents, or use his most potent spell to wound and/or kill as many opponents as possible, knowing that one or more allies will also get wounded or killed, and hope that the odds are in the party's favor after the Fireball.

It is NOT evil to do this, especially when the situation is so grim that NOT doing so would result in the death of all allies.


Morality is situational dependent.

Depending on your reason, virtually any act can be good or evil.

Right, but can you give a real time example, or just an example whose reasoning is not based on the 'rules don't say I can't' arguement, where you would deliberately kill (deliberately drop the hp to 0 or less) an ally to gain an extra attack out of turn on an opponent. Please note that there is a definite intent to drop the hp to 0. IMHO, it is not the same as the wizard taking the risk of a fireball on the party. If I read the response right (i apologize if I do not) the wizard is banking on the fact that some or all the players have a chance of surviving. the wizard is not hoping or betting on dropping the players hp to 0

Why would a paladin say 'okay, I'll kill this celestial being in front of me, and hope the follow though will hit the BBEG'

Or worse yet 'the celestial critter is in the way. I'll take the shot, since it's only a summoned critter, and being hacked in half will not cause permanent harm."

Why would a good creature say "I'll stab through my buddy, whose grappling with the BBEG, into the BBEG himself [edit] without the direct consent of said buddy" ?

I can see this one (and I think I have somewhere :\ .
'player to player': Dude, why did you do that?

You were dying.

But I wasn't dead yet.

Oops, sorry. It's okay. You would have been anyway. (just a joke folks)

I can see allowing it under very specific circumstances, but to allow it to be used as a standard tactic, because the RAW allows it, with no further thought or explaination as to why they do it. Just because "the rules allow it"?

Also, why is attacking a summoned creature different from attacking a fellow player? (I know, I've asked before, but I'm still not satisfied with previous answers. No insult intended.)

Assuming that the spell does not create constructs for these creatures to control (spell does not specifically say that it does, and this seems overly complicated for a 1st level spell IMHO), why is the creature different? Both come back from the dead (one requires a bit more effort, but most DM's don't make too big a deal of it), and the consequences they suffer from the attack have little impact on you (player may be PO'd and try to kill you later, but the lost level is easily regained).

I'm not condoning either action, just want to know: why is attacking one intelligent creature who trusts you different from the other? Why is it an accepted tactic when you would not do this anywhere else?

Heck, when is deliberately killing an ally able to grant extra attacks at all (not counting the RAW)?

So far, the only examples that have managed not to base their reasoning soley on the RAW have been decidedly evil. Claiming that such an action is not evil is fine, But I have a hard time see that using this, is not evil, or worng, or just a manipulation of the rules.

Guess this horse ain't dead yet!

 

[Abraxas]

So far, the only examples that have managed this have been decidedly evil. Claiming that such an action is not evil is fine, But I cannot envision a nonevil reason that would allow the use of this loophole.

You do realize your real world examples of cutting down one badguy to get a shot at another could be considered just as evil, especially if you are taking advantage of a seriously weakened opponent who probably would surrender if the BBEG was taken out.

You do realize that the action is perfectly justified in others peoples games and that doesn't mean - its OK cause the rules allow you to do it. There are plenty of movie examples where someone sacrifices themselves, allowing an ally to take them and the badguy out at the same time. Why can't you accept that in other peoples game worlds the summoned creatures show up with exactly that mind set already in place.

Your opposition is based on your games. In another game world this use can be explicitly non evil. Real world examples can't be used because you can't summon creatures in the real world. Stop trying to use, "Well you woukldn't do this in the real world as the basis for your argument.

In a game world other than your's this activity doesn't even show up on the good/evil radar. Why can't you accept that?

You aren't going to change anyone else's mind.
All the reasons it works have been laid out for you.
If you want to cry meta gaming, fine - I call shenanigans on you. All your examples are also meta gaming.

Ciao

 

[Evilhalfling]

This only applies to allies who can get injured (and specifically killed) by the act and even then it is not necessarily evil. A summoned creature cannot be killed. It is no more immoral than putting a human asleep because it does not really harm them.

It still causes them pain. It is more like knocking a human out with a sap - perhaps no permanent damage, but it still hurts. There can be situations where it is acceptable, like hurting another party member, but from any moral person requires and apology and an explination.

 

[Wrathamon]

someone mentioned the reasons why WotC made Summon animals.monsters extraplanar to avoid morality issues is not accurate at all. The logical answer to why they made them extraplanar was to answer the question of where did they come from. As in okay I summon 3 hippogriffs... um okay the hippogriffs hear your call and start flying towards your direction... Hippogriffs just happened to be around the corner to answer your call? They made it so you had a magical explanation to how these things arrived to "aid" you.

Also, they wont go running in blindly... they will attack to the best of their ability. And running in to get slaughtered with AoO wouldn't be to the bestof their ability they would avoid them.
No offense but that sort of tactics of sending them to the slaughter house would mostly likely spread amongst the extraplanar communitee and when summoned most likely attack you or just refuse to aid you if possible.


YOu mentioned killing these creatures as the equivalent of knocking them out or putting them to sleep...

um.. lets see they take damage, die and then over the course of the next day reform to do what they do on their native plane only to hear the call the following day to get slaughtered again... that sounds like torture or living in some sort of hellish life.

Torture is pretty evil.


The other day when I was running a game the party was summoned to one of the layers of the abyss by a Good Diety who was fighting a powerful evil demongod. The party had to attack the demon but the Good Dietie's ally got Aoo on the party and cleaved them all killing them. But, he was able to kill the evil demon, go party! The party died, but over the course of the next day they reformed. During that day they lost their base was attacked, burned down and all their treasure was stolen.

Do you think they should reform at full HPs and spells for the day or do you think they are left at 1hp?

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

What about animals from SNA? Int 2 so not sentient.

Where do they come from?

There are ways around all these moral criticisms...

Really though, I must wonder, why try so hard to disallow these tactics? Scion & I hashed over the balance issue eary in the thread. I have not heard a dissenting opinion yet.

 

[KarinsDad]

someone mentioned the reasons why WotC made Summon animals.monsters extraplanar to avoid morality issues is not accurate at all. The logical answer to why they made them extraplanar was to answer the question of where did they come from. As in okay I summon 3 hippogriffs... um okay the hippogriffs hear your call and start flying towards your direction... Hippogriffs just happened to be around the corner to answer your call? They made it so you had a magical explanation to how these things arrived to "aid" you.

Wrong. Summon Nature's Ally already pulls in non-extraplanar creatures. So, your explanation does not wash.

Also, I mentioned it because I recall the Sage stating this a long time ago when the "bucket of snails" problem came up.

Plus, if they were natural creatures, Summon Monster could be a special version of summoning which pulls natural hippogriffs in from 2000 miles away, just like Summon Nature's Ally already does. No problem.

They are extraplanar because:

1) It avoids the morality issue when the creature reforms. Summoning spells are purposely "non-intrusive" as opposed to calling spells where called creatures actually die (or planar teleporting spells where the same can happen).

2) Fiendish and Celestial creatures (the two primary SM types of creatures) are already outsiders and hence extraplanar when on the material plane. It was easier and more consistent (rules-wise) for the game designers to make all such creatures extraplanar in Summon Monster that way.

Also, they wont go running in blindly... they will attack to the best of their ability. And running in to get slaughtered with AoO wouldn't be to the bestof their ability they would avoid them.

Running in a straight line IS "to the best of their ability" unless they would take an AoO from a creature they KNOW to be an opponent. If they do not know the Fighter is going to attack them, then they would not worry about it.

From Lesser Planar Ally:

"Few if any creatures will accept a task that seems suicidal (remember, a called creature actually dies when it is killed, unlike a summoned creature)."

Note the word "seems".

Summon Monster does not state this because they do not actually die.

No offense but that sort of tactics of sending them to the slaughter house would mostly likely spread amongst the extraplanar communitee and when summoned most likely attack you or just refuse to aid you if possible.

Again, totally wrong.

From the FAQ:

"In any case, they suffer no lasting effect (for good or ill) from any summoning episode. If a character uses a summon nature's ally spell to summon an animal, the caster could indeed cast an animal friendship spell on it. When the summon nature's ally spell ends, however, the animal is gone, and it is no longer affected by the animal friendship spell."

They suffer no lasting effect, including remembering anything about what happened to them.

YOu mentioned killing these creatures as the equivalent of knocking them out or putting them to sleep...

um.. lets see they take damage, die and then over the course of the next day reform to do what they do on their native plane only to hear the call the following day to get slaughtered again... that sounds like torture or living in some sort of hellish life.

Torture is pretty evil.

It might if they remembered it.

But, "they suffer no lasting effect (for good or ill) from any summoning episode".

Period.

No exceptions.

Anything else is just people changing the rules and the FAQ.


The morality issue is totally moot. Not one quote from the books or the FAQ has been used to support the morality issue, just people's opinions. That doesn't count in a rules forum.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

Anything else is just people changing the rules and the FAQ.


The morality issue is totally moot. Not one quote from the books or the FAQ has been used to support the morality issue, just people's opinions. That doesn't count in a rules forum.

Well, I'm sorry if that may be a bit unclear here, but there are no detailed rules as to what constitutes an evil or a good action. That is, ultimately, always up to the opinions of the DM and the player in question, and just in case this has escaped the whole discussion...in the end, the DM will have to judge the behaviour and adjust the alignment as he sees fit. And yes, that is in the rules.

As for your argumentation, you go and claim that, as long as a deed has no lasting effects, it's cannot be considered evil. This is where I, and not just I, beg to differ.

And before I go on, let me just state again that killing a summoned creature is not like putting a human to sleep and waking him up 24 hours later, no matter how much you'd like it to be. A flesh and blood creature is summoned from it's home, it's dropped to -10 hit points (or lower), effectively killed, with all the blood and gore and pain you want to describe with that, then it's material body vanishes, the soul is sent back home and gets a new body after 24 hours.
And that's from the rules, too.

Killing an ally, without a second thought, without hesitation, and without consent from said ally is, except in the most extreme cases, an action no good character can do without consequences. In the long run, with repeated actions like this, that simply means a shift in alignment.

Yes, there is no "lasting damage" done...great. Does your character know that? If yes, that still is no real excuse to simply kill off an ally in a callous, disregarding manner like it is described in most examples here. Good and evil are not simply judged by the consequences of a deed, but also by the means to those consequences, and by the motives with which those means where applied. And in all the examples that have been given so far for this "Summon Swarm of AoO Victims" tactics, not one of them sounded even remotely like they could be executed by a good character without alignment infraction. A paladin doing stuff like that would permanently lose his powers by the rules.

All other arguments you bring on stem from a mix of rules, mainly going "It works by the rules as written, and as per the rules, no permanent damage is done, so it can't be evil." And here's where you simply go wrong. You can go with the rules by the letter in your actions, and still commit one evil act after the other, even if no permanent damage is done. Alignment judges the mindset and behaviour of your character, more than the consequences of your actions. And using an ally the way it is described simply shows a very shallow, callous view on the life of others by the character, who dispatches it left and right without second thought because by that he can shine a bit better in combat.

Otherwise, if we follow your line of arguing, a villain can

- run around, kill people without remorse, because hey, there's Raise Dead and Resurrection available, so if they are resurrected, he didn't do anything evil, and if they aren't, those who denied those spells are just as evil as him.

- kidnap the wife of the local tyrant, torture the informations of the castle's secret entrance out of her, then kill her in a gruesome manner to leave her mutilated body in the market square the next day to infuriate her husband into sending all his guards after him, then sneak into the castle while everybody's busy searching for him, poison the tyrant with a nasty poison, and afterwards claim that it was all done in a good name.

Alignment is not written in stone...but it also isn't as simple as some might want it to be. AoO+Clav works as per the rules of the game. If it's allowed to work is up to the individual DM...as are the consequences of abuse in the way portrayed through the Summon Monster tactics. And that's always based on opinions, not rules.