Should most Conjuration spells that conjure creatures be considered a form of slavery and thus evil.
Yes. That's why Animate Dead is really the only ethical way to create obedient servants.
Necromancers for Civil Rights!
DemoMonkey wrote:
DemoMonkey wrote:
Written permission is the new material component for the politically correct Animate Dead spell.
arnwolf666 wrote:
"You have to get written permission for the corpse first, otherwise it's theft."
Not if you create the corpse yourself. As the process owner, you retain possession of the end product. That's why you get to keep the treasure when you kill monsters, under the legal pricipal of Finderius Keeparum.
So, murder, THEN Necromancy, is the ethical course.
DemoMonkey wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
Joe_the_Rat wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
Conjuring you cause something to appear.
Summoning you order something to appear.
FFSAA wrote:
Is the draft immoral?
Is training a dog for a K-9 tactical unit immoral?
Celestials and elementals are probably fine. Celestials are being drafted by clerics into necessary service against evil, and elementals are lesser intelligence creatures like a trained dog. Some people would argue that the draft is immoral, but if you don't think it is, I don't see how you could argue that drafting celestials or fiends into your battle against evil is immoral.
Summoning fey, on the other hand, is absolutely immoral. They are intelligent willful creatures being forced out of their home to fight for you and possibly die for a cause they don't care about. The draft anology doesn't work with them. It is kidnapping.
arnwolf666 wrote:
draegn wrote:
thespaceinvader wrote:
DavidArgall wrote:
Beoric wrote:
One could also make the arguemnt that slavery itself is not evil. Its not good either and some forms of it would be but Is it evil to enslave PoWs in a world where PoW camps do not exist and business as usual is to kill PoWs? Of course it would be evil to launch a war with the express purpose of collecting slaves.
It is amazing the topics that make people start justifying slavery. This must be a topic that makes people uncomfortable.
I would add, I do like Conjuring spell, I just prefer them where you are negotiating and making pacts of creatures and/or entities to use the spells. By such a token the creatures summoned wouldn't do anything a PC wouldn't do. If a PC would say, screw you, I ain't doing that, the creature most likely wouldn't enter into a pact with you.
Whether Summoning or Necromancy are inherently Evil should depend on the campaign setting. Evil (and Good, Lawful, and Chaos) are forces in the D&D multiverse so the DM should decide when creating a setting. As DM I would say the casting of magic from any school is not inherently reflective of any Alignment, rather intent of the casting would determine Good or Evil, Lawful or Chaotic. What are most Healing spells? I could see a setting that enforces those tropes (i.e. Dark Side or Light Side).
strider13x wrote:
strider13x wrote:
spelley wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
DavidArgall wrote:
draegn wrote:
draegn wrote:
The creatures that can be summoned via Conjure spells aren't free-willed, and thus it isn't slavery-- they are sentient, but incapable of deviating from their natures.
FaerieGodfather wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
strider13x wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Captain_Kobold wrote:
FaerieGodfather wrote:
Llenlleawg wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
Eric888 wrote:
Why are we assuming the summoned creatures are compelled, and not eager to volunteer to serve the calling character? It could be a badge of great honour in their cultures to serve and die in the service of the One Who Calls.
DemoMonkey wrote:
Wasn't it in 3rd ed where summoned creatures got the celestial or fiendish tag? That ment that they didn't actually die but just got sent back to their home plane unharmed when either at 0hp or spell ended. The rule tag might not exist anymore, but doesn't mean the intention couldn't be there still in some settings.
Why is it assumed that it's against their will to be summoned/conjured. There could be a big queue in the eternal beast lands of beasts just waiting for the opportunity to be summoned and have a fun fight with no consequences.
It COULD be considered slavery, but it could also be considered an act of kindness to the creature that just wants a minute of material plane air after it died and went to the beastlands....all depending on setting I guess 
Are summoned beasts even sentient? Otherwise is it unethical to eat good berries.
Spekaing of eating, are farmers evil for raising beasts and killing them for meat?
So I guess my personal answer is: It depends on the setting/DM
arnwolf666 wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
Just in case somebody would find it useful: Found an interesting angle on these ethical questions and related plot ideas here:
http://goblinpunch.blogspot.dk/2013/06/a-spell-called-catherine.html
That's an interesting blogpost and plotline.
As an aside, it's clearly a case of Conjuring as opposed to Summoning. The creation comes from nothing and goes to nothing, rather than having an independent existence it is whisked away from.
strider13x wrote:
DemoMonkey wrote:
"Good point. Does your society give you the option or choice to refuse those services?"
Yes. By leaving the community.
Your point of consent is choosing to live in that community, with it's rules and regulations, or not. Once you have chosen to do so, it's impractical to choose what you want to pay for as if it was a restaurant menu.
To put it in the terms of the game, the summoned creatures point of consent is to answer the summons or not. And f they don't, someoen else will.
"Very good point. I like it. Why are you assuming the opposite?"
Oh, I don't. I'm merely suggesting it as both a possibility, and a world building choice.
In effect, you CAN make summoning evil, or you can make it ethically ambiguous or even noble. What drives the stories you want to tell?
DemoMonkey wrote:
"For me, that's where evil begins in the world. Forced compliance or we take your property and exile you or kill you."
You didn't happen to just finish reading Ayn Rand for the first time, did you?
It's normal. Sit down, have an adult beverage and a nice creme brulee, and listen to some music. It will pass!
DemoMonkey wrote:
FFSAA wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
Bennedict wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
DemoMonkey wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
strider13x wrote:
Captain_Kobold wrote:
A lot depends on the lore.
Summoning has a variety of traditions but most break down into contract or force. I'm ignoring unintelligent summons.
Forced summoning is evil, you are compelling a creature to do your bidding regardless of it's own desires. This is ironically most often seen when infernal creaures are compelled via the use of their true names or magic circles.
COntract however is generally legit, even if you have to use the contract as a compulsion as long as the other party enters into the contract of their own will, and without duress.
Frankly summoning would be a lot less morally grey, and a lot cooler if they took a page from naruto and required contracts. Instead of prepping summon X, you have a contract with a monster or group there of and can burn spell slots to summon a creature with whom you have contract.
There is the implication sometimes that certain monsters and casters would be natural allies in which case there is a contract but it is informal, temporary, and often unwritten, but is generally assumed to be legit to make things simpler. Although why this specific thing need to be made simpler for casters escapes me.
Ignore moral implications seems to be an assumed class feature for most spell slingers through dnd history.
So like with many of the implications of spell casting things are left up to the DM to either ignore or deal with their way.
Conjuring creatures from nothing on the other hand is just plain scary. If you conjure a presumably intelligent being, especially something that can be hit with mind-affecting abilities, probably means that you've created a creature with a lifespan measured in minutes, forcing such a creature to waste it's few precious moments of life fetching your slippers or holding off a dragon is pretty much worst parent of the year material.
Frankly summon monster is probably one of the numerous effects that should never have been crammed into a mere spell in the first place.
rampant wrote:
rampant wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
UnknownMourner wrote:
@ draegn, other things that should probably not be crammed into mere spells include animating persistant undead, ressurections/reincarnations, long term wards, persistant enchantents, persistant transmutations, long term curses/geases, breaking long term curses/geases, and the never to be sufficiently cussed out Wish.
rampant wrote:
UnknownMourner wrote:
FaerieGodfather wrote:
autolycus wrote:
FaerieGodfather wrote:
DemoMonkey wrote:
FaerieGodfather wrote:
Here are the facts. The game is 100% silent on the reasons behind who and what shows up (other than mechanics) when summoned. That means that summoning is only evil and slavery if you the DM choose for it to be. You could just as easily choose for them to be created from nothing, be summoned as punishment by the gods for heinous crimes, be completely unaware of their former lives while summoned and not retain any memory of the summoning, or a multitude of other reasons. It's as evil is you choose for it to be, or as good as you choose for it to be.
While I agree that a lot of the background lore is decided by the DM I'd just like to note that all of your suggestions are pretty heinous Orethalion.
I've mentioned why creating sophonts for the expressed purpose of serving your will is creepy.
As for summoning being a punishment from the gods that's shady at best because frankly pimping out your convicts to foreign agents operating abroad is kind of suspicious as well as being a morally questionable act, as would participation in such activity (i.e. actually being the summoner).
As for the unaware argument, even assuming this is softball summon rules where the creature is at no risk of dieing or suffering injury, and let's be really generous and say that the time spent with ou is hand waved, or even better it's just a copy or projection of the original (we'll also ignore the whole possibility that a copy or projection might have the same moral and/or ethical issues as the conjured being issue) then you're still using their image, reputation, skills, and abilities for your own ends without compensating the source. I mean best case scenario is intellecual property rights violation, the originator of your summon may very well have grounds to have you put to trial, of course depending on what/who you're summoning ther emay be a slim chance of that happening, especially since most medival level towns don't really have intellectual property laws, but slander was a big deal still, as was misrepresenting yourself if you used the summon to mask your alligiance. I mean the schmuck you're copying probably deserves royalties at the very least.
rampant wrote:
rampant wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
A solid illusion would be a construct, or maybe an ooze because living spells was a thing.
Summoning a sophont creature brings you a sophont creature one with mental stats and the ability to be affected by mind influencing effects, it's alive. If it's a spell effect then the spell has created life, and you're wasting that creature's short life on your desires. I mean talk about selfish parenting.
If I had a five minute life span before my existance waswiped out, I wouldn't waste it fighting some orcs.
Ok you're assuming softball rules as a given baseline, things like summons don't actually get hurt, or sffer from accidents when they poof back, if that's so where's the punishment? Unless the servitude is the punishment. As for why it's suspicious would you be comfortable if chinese criminals started being shipped all over the world to perform tasks for people. That is some wierd as pandemonium prison labor system. I'd be more comfortable if prisoners and convicts of outsider origin were kept away from the material plane, not given passports.
As for the last one, again you're using the creature's skills, and abilities for your on ends, which means you're using their labor without compensating them, even if it was only the labor of getting those skills and abilities in the first place. If someone could pick my brain, use my image, my collection of lore and secrets, or gain access to the power of my muscles without compensating me, I'd be pissed as hell. Especially if they opened a bakery using my personal cookie recipes or summoned versions of me to bake them. It'd be arson time.
arnwolf666 wrote:
rampant wrote:
You can have energy constructs, they're usually classed as elementals, but I recall a prismatic golem from the 3e fiend folio.
If the spell gives it a working sophont brain, it's a sophont. It doesn't matter if it was magically constructed from mcguffium particles and will disperse in 20 minutes, for all intents and purposes it's just like the creature whose stats it's borrowing.
These summons are certainly given something if they're smart enough to obey orders, speak language, and possibly even have skills and special abilities.
You were the one claiming they wouldn't get hurt by being summoned not me.
You can have energy constructs, they're usually classed as elementals, but I recall a prismatic golem from the 3e fiend folio.
If the spell gives it a working sophont brain, it's a sophont. It doesn't matter if it was magically constructed from mcguffium particles and will disperse in 20 minutes, for all intents and purposes it's just like the creature whose stats it's borrowing.
These summons are certainly given something if they're smart enough to obey orders, speak language, and possibly even have skills and special abilities.
You were the one claiming they wouldn't get hurt by being summoned not me.
rampant wrote:
Any sufficiently detailed copy can substitute for the original, there's no reason to assume the copy is not a sophont since a copy of a sophont would logically be a sophont.
MAybe you don't need to be a 'living' being to have kills and abilities, but you have to admit it's far more common, and that there is something there especially in the case of a summon with a skill the caster doesn't have.
Orethalion wrote:
I'm pretty sure he wasn't saying the way it worked but gave a list of possible ways to use it as there are no details in the spells. Saying its slavery and therefore evil is adding just as much of not more than saying they could be copied, prisoners etc.
Oh I get that he was going through various options, I'm just saying that all of said options were morally grey at best.
rampant wrote:
Ahglock wrote:
rampant wrote:
I dunno if I'd say that modern robots have skills, I'll admit I haven't been keeping up with the latest research, but last I checked they had the beginings of what I'd define as actionable memory, give it another 20-30 years of work and maybe.
OR when they start mouthing off to us on their own initiative, whichever comes first.
Caliburn101. wrote:
rampant wrote:
If I take the above to be true then it describes none of the situations you proposed.
BUt it does beg 2 questions:
1. Why do summons behave as if alive? to the point of being vulnerable to things that wouldn't affect elementals/constructs/oozes/undead.
2. Ho does summoning work? Is there some cosmic force that likes copying creatures just so mages can have cool critters to summon?
rampant wrote:
I'm not saying you can't have moral summoning, I'm saying none of your examples qualified. In fact I suggested contract based summoning as a solution to the issue, i.e. the caster makes a ocntract with a creature or group there of and as long as both parties abide by the rules of the contract then evrything is golden.
A summon creature created from nothing is still a creature with the stats of a presumeably sophont being, thus creating one from thin air has rather nasty moral implications since you've just created a life with a short time to live simply to go into battle or perform some other task for you. Which is pretty obnoxious. It appears and responds as a normal creature of it's type, and as such would likely be deserving of the same rights and respect as any member of it's apparent race.
The first question is a matter of practicality, if summons are in fact unthinking, unfeeling, unalive magical constructs then why would they be made to be vulnerable to things that such constructs would normally ignore like poison, or bleeding. I know it's possible to mimic life, the question is why do so when it only makes the spell summon weaker?
rampant wrote:
See that's dumb, you're making a spell more complex to lower it's level. You're saying it's somehow easier to make a more complicated constrct than a simpler less vulnerable one.
You haven't described how your copies are any less alive than the creatures they mimic, if they're good enough to have the exact same stats, then they're probably close enough to count as alive.
rampant wrote:
Back to the OP, it really depends on the setting. By default, short-term summoning via Conjuration doesn't cause any harm to the Outsider, and the Outsider, while not necessarily happy with being summoned, is generally obligated to answer in some manner by ancient pacts, bargains, etc. However, it could easily be considered a serious crime/sin if you change how it operates in your setting.
For many casters, it's easy to paint an inherent reltionship that allows for at least a few creatures to be summoned per tier of the spell. If it's the cleric version, I'd imagine that you generally have a pact with your diety and/or philosophy which make some outsiders natural allies who are ok with you summoning them for short periods, as long as it's not frivolous. The same could apply to warlocks and druids and some intelligent creatures on their summon list.
Wizards would hit a bumping point, and generally run into more morally ambiguous practices by default. How evil is it to enslave a demon or devil to do good? If the wizard has to tie Conjuration spells to specific outsiders he/she has either built alliances with or enslaved, it would add a significant degree of deapth to the spells.
Conjured or summoned creatures could be the fantasy equivalent of Siri, (but with attack stats). Expert systems, able to mimic sentience without actually possessing it.
Really, it comes down to "Do you choose for there to be a moral quandary at the heart of summoning because that's a story you want to tell, or do you want it to just work without any moral grey area?". Because it is a choice. There is nothing inherent in the spells that requires it to be one way or the other.