Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Gallaway 04-18-07, 03:10 AM	I am aware that evil familiars are prohibited but what about using summoning monster to call up fiendish versions of animals. Is this allowed or also banned. If it IS allowed would this be a roleplay experience issue for good characters ?
gomeztoo 04-18-07, 06:32 AM	Is this allowed or also banned. It's allowed (except by good clerics), but it is an evil act (though a minor one). If it IS allowed would this be a roleplay experience issue for good characters ? Since it's an evil act, it probably should. Whether these evil acts have consequences is dependent on the situation. Good PCs should generally avoid it though.
Gallaway 04-18-07, 09:48 PM	It's allowed (except by good clerics), but it is an evil act (though a minor one). Since it's an evil act, it probably should. Whether these evil acts have consequences is dependent on the situation. Good PCs should generally avoid it though. That seriously limits the summon monster choice of wizards at some spell levels. Oh well.
Jay_Ibero_911 04-18-07, 09:57 PM	That seriously limits the summon monster choice of wizards at some spell levels. Oh well. summoning evil creatures with the summon monster spells makes the spell evil and therefore an evil act, but one which likely doesn't warrant reporting unless you do evil things with the summoned creature. Wizards do not have any alignment restrictions or prohibitions, so there is nothing preventing a wizard of any alignment from summoning any creature. A good wizard can summon all the fiendish creatures he wants without any direct penalties, but may be at risk of being reported for an evil act depending on what the summon is used for...
mlund 04-19-07, 04:08 PM	You might also just raise a stink with local authorities in-game if they see you summoning Fiends and Fiendish Creatures. - Marty Lund
Jay_Ibero_911 04-19-07, 04:37 PM	You might also just raise a stink with local authorities in-game if they see you summoning Fiends and Fiendish Creatures. - Marty Lund True, but most won't have the ranks in knowledge (planes) to identify them as fiendish, they'll just see that you summoned up something nasty to trounce the bad guys, and be grateful for it...
Rerednaw 04-19-07, 05:40 PM	True, but most won't have the ranks in knowledge (planes) to identify them as fiendish, they'll just see that you summoned up something nasty to trounce the bad guys, and be grateful for it... Is there an LG option to summon celestial versions of critters that for some reason get stuck with the fiendish template. Right now my wizard can summon a fiendish wolf...but not a celestial one?
LachlarlanIII 04-19-07, 05:48 PM	I prefer to stay away from summoning fiendish and celestial anythings. I stick to summoning psuedonatural creatures which is neither evil nor good.
KarmaInferno 04-19-07, 06:15 PM	Depending on the region, summoning ANY wierd looking creatuire that a commoner can't immediately identify as "not forbidden stuff" may result in trouble with the local authorities. :D -karma
pedr 04-19-07, 06:31 PM	I prefer to stay away from summoning fiendish and celestial anythings. I stick to summoning psuedonatural creatures which is neither evil nor good.Because that's not going to get you odd stares from the locals at all, is it!?
Japangirl 04-19-07, 06:45 PM	Because that's not going to get you odd stares from the locals at all, is it!? Hmm, probably not actually. In the BK, if it doesn't concern them, people "don't see" anything that they shouldn't. And after all, adventurers are closer to good guys than just about anyone else around, so whatever we summon is good enough. Right? Right? :D
Lomiat 04-19-07, 07:29 PM	Hmm, probably not actually. In the BK, if it doesn't concern them, people "don't see" anything that they shouldn't. And after all, adventurers are closer to good guys than just about anyone else around, so whatever we summon is good enough. Right? Right? :D Since when has ANYONE maintained that adventurers in the BK are "good guys"? I mean, sure, they may be ultimately against evil and therefore on the side of good. Or, rather, they may ultimately work against one form of evil and therefore work to the advantage of a lesser evil... which is, I guess, more good, right? Thereby slightly tipping the scale in favor of the less evil? Which might almost amount to Neutral? Darn it! C'mon, Japangirl, where did this sudden "good guy" stuff enter your standard post of "kill it, loot it, cut off its head, and divide skull and jawbone"? Now I'm confused...
Haro 04-19-07, 07:32 PM	Hmm, probably not actually. In the BK, if it doesn't concern them, people "don't see" anything that they shouldn't. And after all, adventurers are closer to good guys than just about anyone else around, so whatever we summon is good enough. Right? Right? :D True, although my pseudonatural monkey familiar (Chuckles to his friends) does get very odd looks when I send him on errands. ;)
LachlarlanIII 04-19-07, 09:54 PM	Funny thing. While my wizard is indeed a BK resident, he's only got 2 ARs from there out of his ~30. It's a place he tries to avoid at all costs :)
copper_wyrmling 04-19-07, 10:40 PM	Darn it! C'mon, Japangirl, where did this sudden "good guy" stuff enter your standard post of "kill it, loot it, cut off its head, and divide skull and jawbone"? Now I'm confused... Huh? Why are we doing that rather than just reducing the body to ash, again? Now I'M confused. (Not from the BK... but Iuz's Border States is close enough, at least in some respects.) On the topic of the thread, my Sacred Exorcist gives wizards nasty looks when they summon fiendish creatures, but she's made deals with a marilith to help hinder Iuz, and thus doesn't have a lot of high ground to stand on. Provided the creatures are being used to help destroy a greater evil, while she thinks their summoning is a BAD thing, she won't actually take action to stop it.
Rerednaw 04-20-07, 09:30 AM	I prefer to stay away from summoning fiendish and celestial anythings. I stick to summoning psuedonatural creatures which is neither evil nor good. Yeah I took a look at alienist, but decided my wizard would rather spend time in adventures then in a New Dawn camp being reprogrammed (the class is illegal in the Pale). So yes, conjuring hellish minions from the nether regions is okay...but pseudonatural critters...now that's really evil. :hides: So if you're not summoning celestial or fiendish...uh what are you summoning? Unless you are using SNA (or cleric with animal domain) you're pretty much stuck with the PHB list. If you're high enuff I suppose you could summon elementals. I actually wouldn't mind for roleplaying purposes if there was a way to either drop a template or as I mentioned previously, summon the celestial version of a fiendish critter.
gomeztoo 04-20-07, 10:17 AM	Wizards do not have any alignment restrictions or prohibitions, so there is nothing preventing a wizard of any alignment from summoning any creature. If you are meta gaming, yes. But a good aligned caster should not make a habit of casting evil spells. If you expect to summon evil critters with any regularity, you should IMO make a neutral caster.
Jay_Ibero_911 04-20-07, 12:25 PM	If you are meta gaming, yes. But a good aligned caster should not make a habit of casting evil spells. If you expect to summon evil critters with any regularity, you should IMO make a neutral caster. Well that's your opinion and has no bearing on the rules of the game. You are also assuming that the character IS expecting to regularly summon evil creatures, when it could just as easily be that in a given situation the evil creature was the most useful. Being good doesn't mean you have to play stupid.
magebeast 04-20-07, 03:19 PM	Since when has ANYONE maintained that adventurers in the BK are "good guys"? I mean, sure, they may be ultimately against evil and therefore on the side of good. Or, rather, they may ultimately work against one form of evil and therefore work to the advantage of a lesser evil... which is, I guess, more good, right? Thereby slightly tipping the scale in favor of the less evil? Which might almost amount to Neutral? Darn it! C'mon, Japangirl, where did this sudden "good guy" stuff enter your standard post of "kill it, loot it, cut off its head, and divide skull and jawbone"? Now I'm confused... She didn't say that us BK adventurers are good, just that we're the closest thing these poor schmucks have got!
gomeztoo 04-21-07, 08:17 AM	Being good doesn't mean you have to play stupid. Casting an evil spell because it is most useful is neutral behavior, not good. And this does have bearing on the rules in so far that, last time I checked, this is a roleplaying game, not a roll-a-die game, and you actually have to play the alignment. If you not act good, your alignment will change. Being good, and acting good, is hard. It IS easier to be neutral, or evil. You need to make choices. When you do not make those choices because they are inconvenient, then you are acting neutral, not good, and your alignment should change. Not that occasionally, a decision is forced. But I cannot think of any situation where a good person is forced to cast an evil spell (not that there are not any, but they would be exceedingly rare, plot driven, and I acnnot think of any right now). There are always other choices - even if they are less optimal. That is the POINT of good: you do the right thing even if it is harder.
Timlagor 04-21-07, 09:13 AM	You don't have to be unremittingly and constantly good to have a good alignment. The point of good is to do good stuff. It doesn't have to be hard.
gomeztoo 04-21-07, 10:36 AM	You don't have to be unremittingly and constantly good to have a good alignment. The point of good is to do good stuff. It doesn't have to be hard. The point is to WANT to do good stuff. Any neutral, or even evil, person can do soemthing good once in a while - even often, if it just happens to be what comes along. If you decide to perform an evil act (cast an evil spell) because you feel it is easier, then you are not good. You are a neutral person who happens to do something good while looking for the easiest way to do it. That last part makes the difference. You are not good if you only do good when it is easy.
King Kashue 04-21-07, 01:42 PM	You are not good if you only do good when it is easy. Or you're someone who wants to do good but fails when it's too hard... Just because you're choosing to frame a given action a certain way does not make it the reality of a given situation. You're taking a single hypothetical action and a single hypothetical character, and making a broad judgement on any situation that matches your limited characteristics without considering any of the context of the given situation. Don't be surprised if people don't agree with your absolute out-of-context judgments...
thorinXXX 04-21-07, 01:56 PM	The point is to WANT to do good stuff. Any neutral, or even evil, person can do soemthing good once in a while - even often, if it just happens to be what comes along. If you decide to perform an evil act (cast an evil spell) because you feel it is easier, then you are not good. You are a neutral person who happens to do something good while looking for the easiest way to do it. That last part makes the difference. You are not good if you only do good when it is easy. As a rule what you stated is correct. But good people occasionaly slip. Sometimes they even do bad things for the greater good. As long as they do not make a habit of placing expediency above what is right they still count as good.
katrick 04-21-07, 05:34 PM	Casting an evil spell because it is most useful is neutral behavior, not good. And this does have bearing on the rules in so far that, last time I checked, this is a roleplaying game, not a roll-a-die game, and you actually have to play the alignment. If you not act good, your alignment will change. Being good, and acting good, is hard. It IS easier to be neutral, or evil. You need to make choices. When you do not make those choices because they are inconvenient, then you are acting neutral, not good, and your alignment should change. Not that occasionally, a decision is forced. But I cannot think of any situation where a good person is forced to cast an evil spell (not that there are not any, but they would be exceedingly rare, plot driven, and I acnnot think of any right now). There are always other choices - even if they are less optimal. That is the POINT of good: you do the right thing even if it is harder. you obviously have never been to Dorakka? (questionable deed, Indeed?) Good/Evil is only ever an opinion, and opinions are like buttocks; everyone has one and they all stink! katrick
gomeztoo 04-22-07, 07:27 AM	As a rule what you stated is correct. But good people occasionaly slip. Sometimes they even do bad things for the greater good. As long as they do not make a habit of placing expediency above what is right they still count as good. Sure, you can slip up. My characters occasionally do. They sometimes give in to fear or hatred, or make a compromise out of need. But tehy don't summon fiends, instead of celestials, just because they are more powerful. That is not a slip up. That is choosing for the easy route. I don't know a scenario where specifically summoning fiends is the only way to solve a situation. There may be such situations, but I haven't encountered them. If you summon a fiend because it is tougher, you are not acting good. You give into the urge to be more powerful. A good person wouldn't summon an evil creature like that just because it is stronger. It is similar to torturing someone because it is easier to get them to talk, or killing someone because it is easier than taking them prisoner.
KarmaInferno 04-22-07, 10:45 AM	Just because something is not good, does not mean it is evil. Merely summoning one type of thing over another because it is more powerful is neither good nor evil. It is at most a neutral decision based on need. That said, if you are seen doing it all the time, that might be cause for an alignment shift, due to a clear shift in the way you are thinking and acting. It might not push you all the way to 'evil', but it certainly might move you from 'good' to 'neutral'. -karma
Jay_Ibero_911 04-22-07, 12:59 PM	Casting an evil spell because it is most useful is neutral behavior, not good. And this does have bearing on the rules in so far that, last time I checked, this is a roleplaying game, not a roll-a-die game, and you actually have to play the alignment. If you not act good, your alignment will change. Being good, and acting good, is hard. It IS easier to be neutral, or evil. You need to make choices. When you do not make those choices because they are inconvenient, then you are acting neutral, not good, and your alignment should change. Not that occasionally, a decision is forced. But I cannot think of any situation where a good person is forced to cast an evil spell (not that there are not any, but they would be exceedingly rare, plot driven, and I acnnot think of any right now). There are always other choices - even if they are less optimal. That is the POINT of good: you do the right thing even if it is harder. Fortunately, in LG, the player is the only one who decides what alignment a character is officially, with the exception of a character being pulled from the campaign due to the Circle deciding they are really evil. Unless your class has specific code of conduct, there are no requirements for characters of any alignment to behave in any particular way 100% of the time. I could have lawful good written on my character sheet, and still consistently act chaotic neutral and there is nothing anyone can do about it. And I almost enjoy the fact that something as silly as this actually bothers some people.
King Kashue 04-22-07, 01:59 PM	Just because something is not good, does not mean it is evil. Merely summoning one type of thing over another because it is more powerful is neither good nor evil. It is at most a neutral decision based on need. In D&D and in LG, summoning a fiend is an evil act, so you don't have any basis for your statements... No one is saying "it's not good therefore it's evil", they're saying "it's evil because the rules say it is"...
gomeztoo 04-22-07, 01:59 PM	As a DM, I CAN decide when your roleplay does not fit your alignment. I can revoke powers for certain (prestige) classes, and dock xp for bad roleplaying. Not that I will randomly do that, but I can (according to the rules). And if someone enjoys it when their roleplaying annoys people, I hope I never play with them. I'd rather play with people who it is fun to be around (whether or not they consistenyly play their alignment).
King Kashue 04-22-07, 03:16 PM	As a DM, I CAN decide when your roleplay does not fit your alignment. I can revoke powers for certain (prestige) classes, and dock xp for bad roleplaying. Not that I will randomly do that, but I can (according to the rules). Always best to read what people actually write... Unless your class has specific code of conduct, there are no requirements for characters of any alignment to behave in any particular way 100% of the time. And Jay is quite correct (and conversely, you are wrong), even by the rules as written... Alignment is a tool for developing your character's identity. It is not a straitjacket for restricting your character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two lawful good characters can still be quite different from each other. In addition, few people are completely consistent.. A lawful good character might have a greedy streak that occasionally tempts him to take something or hoard something he has, even if that's not lawful of good behavior." (PHB p. 103) And all it says a DM can do with alignment is "decide that his alignment has changed to match his actions" (PHB p. 104, DMG p.134), which for LG is restricted to evil acts as violations of class codes of conduct, neither of which is under discussion here. Any other alignment change is explicitly defined in the rules as gradual and taking long periods of time, neither of which are in an LG judge's power for a single session. If I say I'm playing a Lawful Good character who's has a weakness for summoning fiendish creatures because he gets power hungry in his summoning, and otherwise he's a model of Lawful Goodness, not only do you have absolutely no basis in the rules for saying I'm anything but the alignment I say I am, you're unnecessarily suppressing another player's role-playing, not because of some rules issue, but rather because you don't like that style of role-playing... And when that's the basis for your decisions, your personal preferences rather than the actual rules, you've crossed the line into arbitrary exercise of power and are no longer acting as a neutral facilitator for the players (which is what the explicit job of the judge is)...
gomeztoo 04-22-07, 03:44 PM	Always best to read what people actually write... I do, and I would wish one would also apply this when it concerns my posts, because few people seem to do so. I am talking about casting evil spells (minor though they be) because it is 'easier', in a more-or-less consistent manner. Performing evil acts in a consistent manner, for whatever reason, should eventually prompt a change in alignment. A gradual change is up to a player, but if I, as a DM, note his behavior, and note consitent behavior, I am in my right to warn him/her, and if I feel warranted, dock xp. That is what the 'roleplay' xp (in LG scenarios) is for. It is something you reward for people who roleplay well. We all get used to getting that xp regardless, but I can dock it if I feel someone doesn't play his part. In general, that would be due to extreme behavior, but all kinds of behavior kan prompt it, and the above is a possibility. It is always dependent on context, but I CAN dock xp if I feel someone is not actually roleplaying. And I CAN witdraw abilities from classes that require a certain code of conduct. If you play your PC like he is CN, while your prestige class powers require you to be LG, I can claim that you do not properly qualify for a class and revoke (some of ) its powers (for that session, or possibly until an atonement). I wouldn't quickly do that, but the rules allow me to. Note that there is a prestige class that allows a good summoner to summon evil monsters without repercussions. So I am not saying the concept is alien - but outside this prestige class, it does violate alignment (the existence of the prestige class actually supports that). Btw, I am not talking about whether this is the best way to do things. It need be rather extreme imo before it gets to this. In general you should talk it out, or agree to disagree. But the rules do allow the DM to make such calls.
King Kashue 04-22-07, 05:41 PM	I am talking about casting evil spells (minor though they be) because it is 'easier', in a more-or-less consistent manner. Performing evil acts in a consistent manner, for whatever reason, should eventually prompt a change in alignment. Except that's not what the RAW say, and you continue to ignore that. A broad pattern of evil acts, certainly, but that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about one, limited type of behavior, and the RAW specifically allows such variation in general, and certainly not if there's a legitimate role playing reason for it... Say I have a neutral good wizard specialist conjurer. His main spell-casting tactic is summoning, has all the feats for it, etc. Because he's so into summoning, he takes too much pride in it, and has a bad tendency to summon fiendish creatures simply because they're the most powerful creatures for him to summon (and as mentioned, he takes pride in how good of a summoner he is). Other than that, he's a paragon of goodness, doing nothing else in the way of evil acts. Heck, he always makes sure that the fiendish creatures are used only for the most good of deeds, but just in the case of summoning, his love of conjuration power gets in the way of his goodness. Now, most folks would look at that and say "interesting concept, good role-playing fuel to play out the conflict between wanting to summon evil creatures because they're more powerful and his otherwise overriding goodness"... What you're saying is "It's bad roleplaying because he's NG and summoning a fiend is an evil act"... No matter how you wish to spin this, it's not a rules issue. The RAW doesn't agree with you, and considering that, you're left with an absolute statement, made without any consideration of context, and based not in the rules, but in your opinion... And your opinion is fine, as long as you recognize it's just that. But you refuse to acknowledge that it is just that, and continue to claim it's a rules issue when the RAW doesn't agree. And just to note again, stop bringing up characters who have codes of conduct or alignment restrictions, because they have been explicitly excluded from the discussion, multiple times. No one disagrees with you there, so there's no use in bringing them up... Yes, characters with codes of conduct need to worry about violations of those codes. Yes, characters with strict alignment requirements need to worry about any violation. We're not talking about them though, so they're irrelevant to the discussion (because no one is saying the DM can't "violate" a paladin, etc., since they explicitly can)...
gomeztoo 04-23-07, 02:54 AM	Except that's not what the RAW say, and you continue to ignore that. Since you are unwilling to actually read my posts, and ignore anything I write except what you can draw in the extreme, I am done with this thread.
King Kashue 04-23-07, 03:19 AM	Since you are unwilling to actually read my posts, and ignore anything I write Me and everyone else, huh? Run the odds: Your words don't reflect your meaning (or, further, your argument lacks traction and basis)... vs. Your words are perfectly clear and your argument entirely sound, but everyone else in the thread is either misinterpreting them, or misconstruing them... I know what I'd put my money on...
gomeztoo 04-23-07, 06:38 AM	The fact that you cut of my posts mid-sentence indicates to me that you do not read beyond the first words. Else you would have noticed my reference to context and exceptions, and to take care when applying the means that DMs have at their disposal when dealing with alignment infractions. Regardless of whether one agrees or not when they are applied, however, those rules exist. That is simply fact. On whether casting evil spells is appropriate for good-aligned PCs we differ in opinion. I think that, in general, it is not. But that's an opinion. It's not less valid than yours. It's not wrong, it's not 'ignoring the RAW'. It's an opinion on where the line lies between good and neutral behavior. I simply place it higher than you. Because I feel being good should be something of a struggle.
King Kashue 04-23-07, 01:19 PM	The fact that you cut of my posts mid-sentence indicates to me that you do not read beyond the first words. Interesting conclusion...Utterly wrong, but interesting... Else you would have noticed my reference to context and exceptions, and to take care when applying the means that DMs have at their disposal when dealing with alignment infractions. Regardless of whether one agrees or not when they are applied, however, those rules exist. That is simply fact. Yes, you note exceptions and context, but still come to the same conclusion, which means you're ignoring those exceptions and context...If the context doesn't change your actions, then it's not an exception. And exception is, by definition, a situation that differs in a central characteristic. On whether casting evil spells is appropriate for good-aligned PCs we differ in opinion. I think that, in general, it is not. But that's an opinion. It's not less valid than yours. It's not wrong, it's not 'ignoring the RAW'. It's an opinion on where the line lies between good and neutral behavior. I simply place it higher than you. Because I feel being good should be something of a struggle. Except that isn't the point you've been pushing... You haven't just said "casting evil spells is not appropriate", you've said "The Rules allow and require me to change a players alignment", which is where you move beyond opinion into a claim of fact regarding the rules...That you don't see the difference is the issue... And I thought you were done with this thread? Or did I not read that correctly either?
zigspatty 04-23-07, 08:18 PM	I am talking about casting evil spells (minor though they be) because it is 'easier', in a more-or-less consistent manner. Performing evil acts in a consistent manner, for whatever reason, should eventually prompt a change in alignment. A gradual change is up to a player, but if I, as a DM, note his behavior, and note consitent behavior, I am in my right to warn him/her, and if I feel warranted, dock xp. <snip> And I CAN witdraw abilities from classes that require a certain code of conduct. If you play your PC like he is CN, while your prestige class powers require you to be LG, I can claim that you do not properly qualify for a class and revoke (some of ) its powers (for that session, or possibly until an atonement). I wouldn't quickly do that, but the rules allow me to. I hope you wouldn't be too quick to take away a PC's class features, but if as a judge you have warned the player "I would consider x action to be a violation of your paladin's code, are you sure you want to do that?" then you do have the right to do so. Generally, though, you're better off warning the player "I consider summoning fiendish creatures to be an evil action that I will note on your good wizard's AR and report to the triad. Are you sure you want to summon one?" If your note is the only one recorded for that PC, the triad will likely do nothing about the PC's alignment. If the triad recieves a dozen reports concerning the character, they may change the PC's alignment to neutral... and warn him of the potential consequences of further fiendish summonings. Literature is filled with tales of good men who lost their souls by dealing in dark magics... And doing some good does not necessarily balance doing some evil, even in a fantasy game. Faust would've been a really boring tale if he merely needed to do a few good deeds to undo his pact... And more than a few players enjoy playing Faust-like characters... Shouldn't there be a little bit of risk in doing so? Patty
Gallaway 04-23-07, 08:30 PM	I might enquire as to whether the ability to summon alternate Celestial versions of the Fiendish summon monsters is something I can make a favor on an AR in a future mod.
zigspatty 04-23-07, 10:22 PM	I might enquire as to whether the ability to summon alternate Celestial versions of the Fiendish summon monsters is something I can make a favor on an AR in a future mod. Check with your triad. I've seen favors which allowed the celestial template to be applied to animal companions. Why not celestial versions of critters that are usually fiendish? Make sure the reward is appropriate for the mod's storyline, and the odds of your triad granting it will likely increase. Patty
King Kashue 04-24-07, 12:07 AM	I hope you wouldn't be too quick to take away a PC's class features, but if as a judge you have warned the player "I would consider x action to be a violation of your paladin's code, are you sure you want to do that?" Warning before evil acts is actually an LGCS requirement...
King Kashue 04-24-07, 12:08 AM	I might enquire as to whether the ability to summon alternate Celestial versions of the Fiendish summon monsters is something I can make a favor on an AR in a future mod. That's a really good idea...Maybe make it so that you choose one or two per summoning spell or something, so that there's variation between people and such...
gomeztoo 04-24-07, 03:37 AM	You haven't just said "casting evil spells is not appropriate", you've said "The Rules allow and require me to change a players alignment" No, I never said it required it. Someone posted that a DM can't stop anyone from playing a LG PC in a consistently CN way. I noted that the DM actually CAN do that. I have never said that it is what is required, just that the possibility exists. In fact, I wrote several times that things have to be extreme before I would feel that I can take such a measure. And as Patty wrote: there is a code of conduct regarding this. Things have to be obvious, the DM has to give warning, etc. That PCs casting evil spells is a slippery slope is a separate issue from that discussion. I have an opinion in it, and when I judge I will keep tabs to see if people are crossing the line, and warn them if they do. But I don't enforce how people play their PCs, and I will not have people put such words in my mouth. And yes, it is possible to make a person struggling with infernal powers while staying good. There's a prestige class that allows you to (in Complete Scoundrel, iirc). But I haven't yet seen people play such type of character. And finally, my own good PCs have received warnings for evil acts, and done questionable things. I do understand the alignment struggle. Occsionally one slips up. But preferably, what one does, affects one's alignment choices. I would be in favor of better celestial critters to summon (although the Bison isn't half bad).
Lupo 04-24-07, 03:56 AM	<snip>And yes, it is possible to make a person struggling with infernal powers while staying good. There's a prestige class that allows you to (in Complete Scoundrel, iirc). But I haven't yet seen people play such type of character.<snip> the chapter of the PHB II that presents the celestial heritage and infernal heritage states that sometimes BOTH lines might be present in a single sorcerer, the individum being torn between both. such a character might have interesting alignment issues :rolleyes: but if i was to play such a character, i would get it cleared with the regional triad, and maybe with the local DM as well :angelhide like being chaotic good but sometimes his summonings just go wrong (not based on usefulnes for a given situation but just by random) :D ciao martin m.
gomeztoo 04-24-07, 04:21 AM	the chapter of the PHB II that presents the celestial heritage and infernal heritage states that sometimes BOTH lines might be present in a single sorcerer, the individum being torn between both. such a character might have interesting alignment issues. And I thought my PC had issues with one single draconic heritage... Gomez
Madfox11 04-24-07, 10:33 AM	I am not going to comment on the alignment issues: that horse has been beaten into pulp a looooong time ago. I would like to point out to people that every official written material that allows alternative creatures to be summoned, exchanges the new creature for an existing creature on the list. This suggest to me, that the RAW consider the list being the only available creatures for balance purposes. Hence, if you want to summon celestial wolves you might need to remove the celestial badgers. Or at least, that is what my ruling would be on a favor like this... Pieter Sleijpen RPGA Living Greyhawk Circle The Splintered Suns
Timlagor 04-24-07, 11:30 AM	The suggestion is to allow Celestial X and remove Fiendish X. It would be nice to have an official ruling on the breed of the dead horse.
Samwise 04-24-07, 01:04 PM	*makes a DC 25 Knowledge (WotC feat list) check* Celestial Summoning Specialist from the Planar Handbooklets you add one good-aligned creature to your list for every summon monster spell you can cast. It does however include the dreaded "Work with the DM" phrase for selecting creatures, so there would have to be Triad and Circle approval for what could be selected. The Planar Handbook also has a section on changing the summoning list on page 134, and it makes it clear that the lists are set up to be balanced, and replacing a fiendish critter with a celestial critter would not be good. Instead you just replace a celestial critter with a different celestial critter. It isn't explicit, but I would expect this would also extend to replacing chaotic with lawful critters, as that also forms a barrier for clerics.
Madfox11 04-25-07, 04:04 AM	The suggestion is to allow Celestial X and remove Fiendish X. Which would make the list stronger for divine spellcasters and hence would not be according to the rules. Note though that this is all based on indirect evidence, so I might be wrong. It would be nice to have an official ruling on the breed of the dead horse. Well, there is an official ruling on the fact that summoning fiendish creatures IS evil. D&D has an absolute alignment system and it does NOT matter whether or not your character thinks it is good or evil. Now what a DM does with that fact and whether or not he thinks it is evil enough for a notification and an E-mail to the triad is up to the DM. The Circle simply cannot micro-manage the campaign on that level.
King Kashue 04-25-07, 04:20 AM	Well, there is an official ruling on the fact that summoning fiendish creatures IS evil. D&D has an absolute alignment system and it does NOT matter whether or not your character thinks it is good or evil. Now what a DM does with that fact and whether or not he thinks it is evil enough for a notification and an E-mail to the triad is up to the DM. The Circle simply cannot micro-manage the campaign on that level. But none of that is actually what's being discussed ;) No one is saying that summoning a fiendish creature is not an evil act. And no one is saying that DMs shouldn't notify their local triad if they think an act is significantly evil.
Timlagor 04-25-07, 10:29 AM	There would be a balance issue if we were talking about changing the list of critters summonable by the spell across the campaign. Offering a player the option of summoning something a bit different simply doesn't raise this issue. [afaics there is no significant power difference between the Fiendish and Celestial templates and Wizards +N Clerics can already summon everything]
Timlagor 04-25-07, 10:31 AM	Well, there is an official ruling on the fact that summoning fiendish creatures IS evil. D&D has an absolute alignment system and it does NOT matter whether or not your character thinks it is good or evil. Now what a DM does with that fact and whether or not he thinks it is evil enough for a notification and an E-mail to the triad is up to the DM. The Circle simply cannot micro-manage the campaign on that level. The big problem I have with this is that there is absolutely no hint as to the degree of evil involved in summoning a Fiendish Creature. One would presume that higher level Evil spells are generally more Evil but that doesn't begin to tell you how they compare to murder, theft, torture etc.
Samwise 04-25-07, 12:52 PM	[afaics there is no significant power difference between the Fiendish and Celestial templates and Wizards +N Clerics can already summon everything] If you read the comments on the summon lists in various books, it is an issue of what each type of critter is, combined with the template. Thus, a flyer, a swimmer, a fast creature, and so forth. And yes, wizards and Neutral clerics can summon everything, long term alignment issues permitting of course. It is the overall structure, not only the individual cases according to the commentary.
Madfox11 04-26-07, 03:38 AM	The big problem I have with this is that there is absolutely no hint as to teh degree of evil involved in summoning a Fiendish Creature. One would presume that higher level Evil spells are generally more Evil but that doesn't begin to tell you how they compare to murder, theft, torture etc. I agree, but that doesn't mean we can change anything about it. Alignment might be absolute in game, it hardly is out of the game ;)
Gallaway 04-26-07, 07:22 PM	There would be a balance issue if we were talking about changing the list of critters summonable by the spell across the campaign. Offering a player the option of summoning something a bit different simply doesn't raise this issue. [afaics there is no significant power difference between the Fiendish and Celestial templates and Wizards +N Clerics can already summon everything] The balance issue would be with clerics. Allowing mages to summon celestial versions would actually correct a current unbalance where LG mages are underpowered summoners compared to mages in mainstream D&D.