Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Storyteller01" data-source="post: 1901411" data-attributes="member: 20931">In response to the first quote: If extraplanar creatures (and that is what is summoned, as I recall) do not exist, why would WotC created the Manual of the Planes? Why gives them homes, ecologies, or predators to run from? And more importantly, why are they usable as player characters (Manual of the Planes as well as the Savage Species book)? Are these player characters illusions as well?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 <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> ). 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. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />In response to the third quote: Never said killing a summoned critter for food would be evil. Desperation kicks in, and things happen. Too bad the meat disappears! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />  Seriously though, its not the same thing. We can argue survival over morality for the rest of time. My concern is: you strike down and intelligent creature (they can understand what you say, not just a limited sweries of trained phrases after all) summoned for the specific purpose of giving use a purely mechanical advantage. Even with the Angel example given in the previous thread, the cop deliberately missed Angels heart. Her intent was not "kill my friend to kill the other guy".As for whether morality is a moot point: then why have alignments at all? Now, if you don't use them. Great!! I wouldn't mind trying a cammpaign like this. But the a campaign where there is good and evil, and alignments matter, would the actions of those with specific alignments also matter?Seriously, my point isn't (or not completely) the morality of the situation. Going back to my example with riot police, would they kill each other to gain an AoO advantage (since most are trained in Aikido, AoO's are the bread and butter of their fighting style). No, because there is strength in numbers and the benefit is short lived. Also, the policeman's friend may kill you back. Now, I can give examples of attacking 'allies' to gain an advantage (Wesley Snipes throwing the Museuam curator through a plate glass window comes to mind...), and can even see 'the poor critter got in the way' arguement. My complaint is: "My fighter attacks that summoned creature".DM: "Why?"Response: "For the AoO."No explanation, no reason why THE FIGHTER would make such an attack, just a blatant malipulation of the rules by the player. Not even "In the heat of battle, I can't tell them from the enemy." Of course, that would go back to my previous argument: if summoned creatures (and we can agree that they are intelligent, if primal, buggers)are fair targets for AoO abuse, why not players?</blockquote>

Verification