Using Summoned Creatures to gain an AoO

[Geron Raveneye]

Erm, guys, the problem here is apparently that this spell effect can be interpreted in more than one way. As far as I read it, the spell summons a few creatures from their home plane, places them at your command (or instills the desire to attack your enemies on sight), and sends them back home when it ends, or when they are killed, in which case they get reformed on their home plane one day later. The creatures are taken from the Monster Manual, with add-on template. The fact that the magic winks out under certain circumstances, and that they reform due to the effect of summoning magic doesn't mean they aren't living creatures...in my opinion.

 

[KarinsDad]

In response to the second quote: Surprisingly, no! My players do kill in self defense, or when they have no other option (which is something I as a DM have to help them with). But they don't actively go hunting or killing enemies strictly for treasure(unless its our military campaign, but everyone is evil, and following orders ). They do tend to take what the other enemy had, but you can chalk that up to practicallity. Like I said, they have yet to go kill something just for treasure. Then again, the nature of the campaign is that each player has an important destiny, so everyone is hunting them.

In an average campaign, who gives the PCs authority to effectively be adventurers?

If PCs are attacked, they typically fight back to the death.

If PCs come across Orcs or Undead or "other evil races", a fight often breaks out and that fight is also often to the death. How many good PCs go out of their way to bandage up the wounded opponents so that they do not bleed to death?

If PCs are surprised, a fight typically breaks out. And, it is usually to the death since the game system makes it difficult to knock an opponent unconscious.

And isn't taking what the enemy had theft?

Even in a medieval society where outlaws exist (i.e. outside the law), what gives the PCs the right to kill and steal from bandits that they encounter?

Sure, there are some campaigns where morality plays a larger roll, but attacking a group of Orcs because it attacked a village is typically no more moral or immoral than any other action.

The mere mention that Orcs attacked a village is typically enough to get PCs moving for revenge or rescue or whatever.

Does this take into account that the farmers had invaded Orc lands and are now competition for resources?

Does this take into account that the farmers killed a few Orcs on sight?

Typically not. Morals usually do not come into play for certain creature types (undead, vermin, constructs, monstrous humanoids, etc.).


I find it fairly hypocritical to state that this tactic is immoral in a game system where PCs regularly torture/maim (e.g. fireball) opponents, kill them, and steal from them.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

In an average campaign, who gives the PCs authority to effectively be adventurers?

If PCs are attacked, they typically fight back to the death.

If PCs come across Orcs or Undead or "other evil races", a fight often breaks out and that fight is also often to the death. How many good PCs go out of their way to bandage up the wounded opponents so that they do not bleed to death?

If PCs are surprised, a fight typically breaks out. And, it is usually to the death since the game system makes it difficult to knock an opponent unconscious.

And isn't taking what the enemy had theft?

Even in a medieval society where outlaws exist (i.e. outside the law), what gives the PCs the right to kill and steal from bandits that they encounter?

Sure, there are some campaigns where morality plays a larger roll, but attacking a group of Orcs because it attacked a village is typically no more moral or immoral than any other action.

The mere mention that Orcs attacked a village is typically enough to get PCs moving for revenge or rescue or whatever.

Does this take into account that the farmers had invaded Orc lands and are now competition for resources?

Does this take into account that the farmers killed a few Orcs on sight?

Typically not. Morals usually do not come into play for certain creature types (undead, vermin, constructs, monstrous humanoids, etc.).


I find it fairly hypocritical to state that this tactic is immoral in a game system where PCs regularly torture/maim (e.g. fireball) opponents, kill them, and steal from them.

The point about morals in D&D is that you can keep them as simple or as complex as you want.
All I'm saying is that I consider attacking an ally with the intention to kill it for the gain of a sole attack on an opponent to be an action that will slide the alignment of a good-aligned character towards neutral, and if it's done frequently, towards evil. And before this is dissected for it's foggyness, please refer to the posts I posted further up in this thread, and in the one that spawned this here, for more details on my opinion.

 

[Philip]

Would it be at least considered moral when the fighter kills the summoned creatures (and does not cleave the BBEG for a change) when the BBEG surrenders but the summoned creatures (even the 'goodly' Celestial ones) keep on attacking the BBEG (like they were programmed or something), and the summoner is unable to tell them to stop in time?

Automatically attacking your enemies without remorse or quarter unless explicitely told to do otherwise seems a bit immoral to me. But that's not the summoned creature's fault, really.

If summoned creatures were real-life creatures who are actually experiencing everything, I would also consider it fairly immoral to even summon those creatures, regardless if you or the enemies attack them.

How would your PCs feel when they are suddenly yanked away from their home, magically enchanted with an overpowering urge to attack your summoner's enemies, for a cause you don't know and possibly don't support and risk a gruesome death only to wake up 24 hours later?

Summoning is kidnapping, blackmail, coercion, mental and physical abuse all rolled into one neat package. Summoning would probably highly immoral if you consider the summoned creatures to be real.

The duration of the summoning spells does not lend itself to summon the creatures for a good conversation or a good musical performance. It lends itself to combat, menial labor, scouting and trapsprining. Even highly moral summoners would be hard-pressed to find proper moral duties for their summoned creatures to perform.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

Would it be at least considered moral when the fighter kills the summoned creatures (and does not cleave the BBEG for a change) when the BBEG surrenders but the summoned creatures (even the 'goodly' Celestial ones) keep on attacking the BBEG (like they were programmed or something), and the summoner is unable to tell them to stop in time?

Automatically attacking your enemies without remorse or quarter unless explicitely told to do otherwise seems a bit immoral to me. But that's not the summoned creature's fault, really.

As soon as the big bad evil guy has surrendered, he stops being your "enemy", as far as I'm concerned. He becomes your prisoner. So the summoned creatures will, as per spell description, stop attacking him automatically.

If summoned creatures were real-life creatures who are actually experiencing everything, I would also consider it fairly immoral to even summon those creatures, regardless if you or the enemies attack them.

How would your PCs feel when they are suddenly yanked away from their home, magically enchanted with an overpowering urge to attack your summoner's enemies, for a cause you don't know and possibly don't support and risk a gruesome death only to wake up 24 hours later?

Summoning is kidnapping, blackmail, coercion, mental and physical abuse all rolled into one neat package. Summoning would probably highly immoral if you consider the summoned creatures to be real.

The duration of the summoning spells does not lend itself to summon the creatures for a good conversation or a good musical performance. It lends itself to combat, menial labor, scouting and trapsprining. Even highly moral summoners would be hard-pressed to find proper moral duties for their summoned creatures to perform.

That's an interesting question, to be honest. Something to be pondered about for sure.

 

[KarinsDad]

All I'm saying is that I consider attacking an ally with the intention to kill it for the gain of a sole attack on an opponent to be an action that will slide the alignment of a good-aligned character towards neutral, and if it's done frequently, towards evil.

And all I am saying that killing a summoned creature is not an evil act.

Period.

Why?

Because the creature cannot die in that case. Killing a summoned creature is the moral equivalent of putting a human to sleep.

The act can be used for good or evil purposes, but the act itself is NOT inherently evil.


Even wounding the creature in an attempt to do this is not an evil act because the creature will be "unwounded" within 24 hours as well.

People are attempting to equate real world pain, suffering, death, and morality with game extraplaner creature pain, suffering, death, and morality. The two do not equate.

In the real world, people do not reform in 24 hours.


Wizards do not pull these creatures in and compel them to attack without the creatures consent. Otherwise, these spells are more powerful than Teleport and Domination combined.

There must be an agreement between the summoned creatures (or their superiors) and the original crafters of the spell and the spell does not put limitations on how the creatures summoned by it can be used, hence, the summoned creatures did not make that part of their agreement to be part of the spell.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

And all I am saying that killing a summoned creature is not an evil act.

Period.

Why?

Because the creature cannot die in that case. Killing a summoned creature is the moral equivalent of putting a human to sleep.

The act can be used for good or evil purposes, but the act itself is NOT inherently evil.


Even wounding the creature in an attempt to do this is not an evil act because the creature will be "unwounded" within 24 hours as well.

So simply killing another ally in your group for the same advantage would be just as okay as long as you raise him again afterwards? I guess we have to agree to disagree here. And no, killing a summoned creature is the moral equivalent of reducing a human being to -10 hitpoints and perfectly resurrecting it 24 hours later. It's in the description for Summoning magic that they are killed and reformed 24 hours later. They die!. And then the magic makes them come back.

People are attempting to equate real world pain, suffering, death, and morality with game extraplaner creature pain, suffering, death, and morality. The two do not equate.

In the real world, people do not reform in 24 hours.

I don't have to equate it with real-world pain and suffering...I simply imply that losing hitpoints, and dying from that loss, causes pain in every PC, NPC and creature in the game. And just because those creatures reform, due to that spell, 24 hours later doesn't mean they don't feel pain and suffer it while they die?

Wizards do not pull these creatures in and compel them to attack without the creatures consent. Otherwise, these spells are more powerful than Teleport and Domination combined.

There must be an agreement between the summoned creatures (or their superiors) and the original crafters of the spell and the spell does not put limitations on how the creatures summoned by it can be used, hence, the summoned creatures did not make that part of their agreement to be part of the spell.

Yes, I actually agree. That's a similar contract that you get when you have mercenaries that are of the same alignment as you are. You made an agreement with their leader so they fight your enemies and follow your commands. Simply slaying them in the middle of the fight because you might get a small advantage out of it is still not acceptable for a good character, in my opinion. And even with the added raise dead options, it's simply snuffing out the life of another sentinent being for a small gain, namely one additional attack on the enemy.

But each to his own game, right?

 

[KarinsDad]

Yes, I actually agree. That's a similar contract that you get when you have mercenaries that are of the same alignment as you are. You made an agreement with their leader so they fight your enemies and follow your commands. Simply slaying them in the middle of the fight because you might get a small advantage out of it is still not acceptable for a good character, in my opinion.

Except it is not real death or real killing. You keep ignoring this basic fact for some bizarre reason.

Is putting that mercenary to sleep and teleporting him off the battlefield with one spell immoral?

Because that is equivalent what you are doing when you kill with one blow a low level summoned creature.


Since the summoned creature effectively does not get killed, you cannot in any way compare it to killing a mercenary.

You can compare it to putting the mercenary in a 24 hour suspended animation on another plane of existence in order to get a small advantage in combat.

Where is the immorality in that?


Morality is not good or evil based solely on an act. Morality is also good or evil based on the reasons for the act.

 

[Storyteller01]

In an average campaign, who gives the PCs authority to effectively be adventurers?

If PCs are attacked, they typically fight back to the death.

If PCs come across Orcs or Undead or "other evil races", a fight often breaks out and that fight is also often to the death. How many good PCs go out of their way to bandage up the wounded opponents so that they do not bleed to death?

If PCs are surprised, a fight typically breaks out. And, it is usually to the death since the game system makes it difficult to knock an opponent unconscious.

And isn't taking what the enemy had theft?

Even in a medieval society where outlaws exist (i.e. outside the law), what gives the PCs the right to kill and steal from bandits that they encounter?

Sure, there are some campaigns where morality plays a larger roll, but attacking a group of Orcs because it attacked a village is typically no more moral or immoral than any other action.

The mere mention that Orcs attacked a village is typically enough to get PCs moving for revenge or rescue or whatever.

Does this take into account that the farmers had invaded Orc lands and are now competition for resources?

Does this take into account that the farmers killed a few Orcs on sight?

Typically not. Morals usually do not come into play for certain creature types (undead, vermin, constructs, monstrous humanoids, etc.).


I find it fairly hypocritical to state that this tactic is immoral in a game system where PCs regularly torture/maim (e.g. fireball) opponents, kill them, and steal from them.

1) If someone attacks you with lethal force, you usually do the same in kind. Those that don't are rare, and are either trained to do so or die quickly

2) As for the Orcs and Undead, the Dragonstar Campaign setting (the one I'm playing at the moment) has a beautiful rule for this: The Law of Active Morality. In short, being evil is not just cause for an attack. A paladin who attacks evil intelligent undead or Orcs because of their evil aura is looking at jail time, if not the death penalty. Killing unintelligent undead would probably be considered valdalism/property damage

3) If the players are caught by surprise, they had best keep the urge to attack in check (Evil DM that I am, being caught flat-footed by neighborhood kids is a real possiblity).

4) Is taking what the enemy owns theft. Yes. Happens anyway

5) On the flip side, what gives the same king the right to hire privateers, who raid other countries and destroy their trade ships? the arguement is whether it is correct to summon creatures you will kill for a game mechanic, not whose culture is right or wrong.

Side note: Im suprised no one has brought differing cultural views into this...

6) Or, attack a group of Orcs who have attacked several villages and killed the last messenger sent to offer a last chance to surrender, leave, or or be violently dealt with. Competition for resources generally turns into a conflict, even in nature (using an amoral example)



regardless, any of these examples may be seen a moral or immoral, dependant on the situation and circumstances (yes, perspective does matter, unless you have found Utopia ).

Now, when sommoning monsters

1) explain how someone who left you an opening, because you are an ally and they are protecting themselves from the BBEG (and you in the process), is suddenly a target for an attempt at the AoO/CLeave.

2) How, after WotC has spent so much time fleshing out celestials and demons (and their half breed fellows), that they are simply magic constructs there to be taken advantage of. And if thwey are illusions, does the attacker/attackee get a save to disbelieve?

Also, as had been mentioned earlier, apparently this tactic is more effective than using strength of numbers. Why is this?

If I'm not mistaken, the response was 'in the game world, this tactic works better'(paraphrased). But no one can give me an example of someone deliberately killing, with intent to kill, an ally to gain an extra attack on someone else in real time. Even when Keanue shot his friend, he didn't intend to kill him. He also didn't gain an extra attack; his opponent lost his cover (anyone care to try holding up 180 lbs of dead weight, and still run/aim a pistol ).

However, I can give an example of mooks stepping forward, endangering the BBEG (as I mentioned earlier in another thread, upward slash to the leg of a mook that ends with the blade level, ready for a thrust into the BBEG. Works best with a 2 hnd blade. of course, results will vary by weapon type. and please, do not say that a longsword cannot thrust, since it is a slashing weapon or that a dagger cannot slash, because it is piercing. The agruement is't the weapon used, but whether allies count as targets, or if they are really allies if you strike with the intent to kill...)

Isn't saying 'in the game world' the same as saying 'by using game mechanincs'.

I'm sorry, but if a tactic cannot be plausibly (huge stress on this) replicated in real time then it is just that... a twisting of game mechanics.

Edit: and the 'I hit the critter to get it out of the way, it's not my fault it died' doesn't hold water either

 

[Storyteller01]

Except it is not real death or real killing. You keep ignoring this basic fact for some bizarre reason.

But using this logic, killing a player character or allied NPC does not cause real death (definied as no longer returning to the Prime Material). They can be resurrected, and the lost level is regained rather quickly, given the exp needs of the rest of the group compared to that of the recently dead. Level loss is a minor consequence, unless your DM really enforces some nasty rules. Can one player kill another to gain the same advantage (assuming that player a knows he can drop player be in one hit)?

What is the difference?

I'm not advicating killing players, I just want to know why killing a player is concidered evil/wrong if they can be resurrected (hence not truely dead, if a summoned creature is not considered dead if it appears at its home 24 hours later), but not a summoned creature, who goes home whole after being chopped/slashed/diced/minced/ etc.