Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jack Simth" data-source="post: 4219894" data-attributes="member: 29252">I was using multiple points of reference to show that a difference of fundamental assumptions exist.  I thought I said that; I must be mistaken.  Query: Where did I say they were the majority, or anything of that nature?  You appear to be reading more than what I type.No matter what ethos you use, you have certain fundamental building blocks involved.  Even the most logic-bound of them (Kant) ends up with fundamental assumptions - his definition of "person" that the good is to be sought after, that a "person" is inherently valuable, and so forth.  These fundamental assumptions are fundamentally inarguable.  You will not convince a Catholic that it's a sin to eat beef any more than you'll be able to convince a Hindu (in the religious sense) that it isn't.  Both have fundamental assumptions involved - that being their choice of scripture.  These fundamental assumptions are unavoidable.  Or to put it another way: Can you prove you're not a brain in a box hooked up to an elaborate simulation to make you think you're in a fleshy body? Proper science will reject this hypothesis outright without first getting concrete proof - for the simple reason that modern science has a fundamental assumption that observations are valid, which (for most purposes) a "Matrix" hypothesis contradicts.I say we have a difference in fundamental opinion.  In fact, there have already been one or two people in this thread that have actually said why they consider it evil.Oh, heh - look!  I've got you thinking in terms of base assumptions!  You're on the right track!  Why, you've even listed your own, in an area where it makes an actual difference!It's also a house rule, not the rules as they are written:(Emphasis added)I don't have a quote on hand for you, but by default, a Summon spell gets a generic creature, typical for its kind.  Specific creatures are a variant, not the norm, so the 24 hour thing has no mechanical impact on the caster.They're not killed, but by RAW, they're real creatures, who are inconvenienced by what you're doing.  Even if you ignore the pain while they're Summoned, those killed are definitively missing out on a day of life after they've been "killed".  The Summon Elemental vampiric healer is going to "kill" a LOT elementals in a day.  The guy distracting the Balor is going to "kill" a handful.  There's a distinct difference in magnitude there.When you add to that the little issue that the tactic isn't actually too much more efficient compared to methods that do not have that niggly bit built into the rules as they are written (over the course of levels 9-20, it's only about half or a third the cost of Wands of Lesser Vigor, depending on your assumptions about party damage per encounter and encounters per level).  Tell me: What's the difference between kidnapping someone for information and convincing them to give it to you willingly by paying them for it?  In either case, you get the same info (in theory, anyway).  In one, the pain of another is fairly high.  In the other, it's not.  In one, you expend resources (payment).  In the other, you don't (just time).Of course, as I've done an analysis of morality and ethics that notes that there is a fundamental arbitrariness to them, I don't actually need an explanation for an individual call to remain self-consistent.  After a fashion.  Considering that there's been quite a few people pointing out it isn't really an efficient method, and at least one has called it "violence for violence's sake" (eamon).  One would almost think you hadn't read beyond the first page and the post you're responding to.</blockquote>

Verification