47 réponses à ce sujet

[Seagloom]

Most conjuration and enchantment magic is not considered evil. Very few spells are designated as evil in mechanics. Animate dead is unique in that it is one of the few spells that is treated as objectively evil to cast. To quote the final sentence of its description in the 2e Player's Handbook: "It requires a drop of blood and a pinch of bone powder or a bone shard to complete the spell. The casting of this spell is not a good act, and only evil wizards use it frequently."

That said, what is ethical in D&D is obviously not a reflection of what may be considered ethical in the real world. Many spells and actions I personally feel are abhorrent is acceptable good behavior in D&D. Most mind control falls under that category. Personally, I do not enjoy playing the game that way if my character is of good alignment. It results in intolerable cognitive dissonance. If my character has a shade of good written on their sheet, I role-play them in accordance with how I feel a truly noble person would act. I do take into account their personality, tendency toward law or chaos, and history. No one is perfect. What I do not do is role-play my character with ethical ambiguity on a regular basis. Not if they are of good alignment.

Your mileage may vary.

Modifié par Seagloom, 17 juillet 2011 - 01:17 .

[Carinna]

morbidest2 wrote...
And while we are at it, let's explain to Imoen and Nalia that "good" characters do not go around picking pockets. After that we can close down all the saloons in the city and make the possession of dwarven ale  a criminal offense.  

I agree with Morbidest (though forgive me if I'm interpreting you incorrectly, M).  Morality is a set of "rules" that is agreed upon by a society.  We are imparting the morality of our western society upon the citizens of Faerun, where it doesn't necessarily belong.  We can argue all day about how "our" morality is superior, but in the end, that doesn't make it Faerun's morality, even if you can look up Gygax or one of the later FR authors and give quotes.  Once there is more than one author (and there was from nearly the beginning, as I'd count all dungeon masters in this category), there are then multiple interpretations, so that we could probably go out (if we were sufficiently motivated to do so) and dig up quotes to support almost any side of the topic we wish, including the descriptions of the spells given in the BG manuals and game (this game being yet another DM's interpretation of the rules).

That said, the real question is whether animating dead interferes sufficiently with your (this is an abstract "your;" not anyone in particular) morality to cause, as Seagloom says, "cognitive dissonance" (I like that term).  If it does, then you are not going to enjoy playing the game if you use that spell or ability.   But this doesn't mean that if you are only sitting back trying to work out  the problem in an abstract way that you must abide by the morals of the society you actually live in.  Unless the spell description says, "only castable by evil characters" or "will do something terrible to a good character that casts it" then you should be okay.  Implements are restricted by alignment in Faerun, so why wouldn't spells also be restricted, regardless of what needs to be done to cast them?  Right now my good-aligned character is wearing the Ring of Gaxx, of which the item description says it took a huge amount of concentrated evil to make.  But it's not restricted, so he wears it, using the effects it gives to further the cause of good.  As someone else said, in Faerun, morality can best be described as "the ends justify the means."

edited: I can't type.

Modifié par Carinna, 17 juillet 2011 - 01:26 .

[morbidest2]

Couldn't agree more  

[BelgarathMTH]

However, I don't use "Faerunian" or any fictional morality. I use my own moral compass, since the whole point of playing for me is to do self-contemplation. Who would I be if I had magic powers? What if I could fight like a Jedi knight (or Sith)?

I usually go with the magic, since I think I'd be terrible with a "lightsaber"/sword.

Given the world of Faerun to live and play in, I would not, under any circumstance, use undead creatures to fight for me. I have used regular summons in the past, but this thread has actually made me rethink having done that - I think maybe I have to stop doing it in future games.

[morbidest2]

May the (bright side) of the Force be with you!

You have opened up an interesting question about what is an "ethical" use of magic. Unless one belongs to a fundamentalist school that believes that both magic (and science) are an attack on nature, then everyone has to decide for themselves what constitutes white, black and grey magic. My personal view is that the manipulation of unthinking energy (magic missiles, MMMs, fireballs, lightening, etc., etc), is fine, as is the use of healing and protection spells. When it comes to summoning, I would use the dumb (spiders, insects, crawlers, skeletons, etc.) and the very smart (djinns, demons, devas, planetars, etc) without a twinge of guilt; the latter know what they're getting into and seem to enjoy interplanar adventures, and the former have nervous systems too primitive for real thought. To me, battle magic (breach, pierce, etc.) is white with just a twinge of grey - after all that lich is out to kill you (or worse). Summoning the smart - but not brilliant - such as elementals, aerial servants, nishruu, nymphs, etc. is definitely a gray area. But summoning a wild dog or a dire wolf is definitely black magic. It would be one thing if you took the time to play with it, pet it, give it treat biscuits, and inspire a little love and loyality to your cause, but spell duration forbids this. Instead you yank it from its astral pursuit of 20 fluffy bunny rabbits and direct it to suicidally  charge at a dragon, archlich, red wizard, etc., while you unfeelingly make use of its unwilling sacrifice to cast a spell or make a sneak attack. Shame on you! In fact, a good deal of druidic  magic looks much blacker than anything that Viconia would dabble in. Take that, Greenpeace!

Or, as the child of the Murder god, you could take the attitude that it's kill or be killed. And anyway, the souls will be recycled from the Abyss in a 1,000 years, or so.

Perhaps the biggest moral problem is involved in the assembly of Crom Fayr, which requires an animal sacrifice to Demigorgon. Fortunately, an old thread from the previous forums explains how to sacrifice Anomen instead, and surely no one could object to that  

[Seagloom]

morbidest2 wrote...

Summoning the smart - but not brilliant - such as elementals, aerial servants, nishruu, nymphs, etc. is definitely a gray area.

Hey now!  Nymphs are noted as having 16 (exceptional) intelligence in the Monstrous Manual. Smart is understatement. They are just shy of genius level intellect and have high wisdom and charisma scores to boot. That puts them on par, or makes them superior to many fiends and celestials. Sorry for being nitpicky. I just refuse to see nymphs lumped in with the likes of nishruu. Nymphs are one of my favorite "monsters". I am beholden to leap to their defense.

BelgarathMTH wrote...

I have used regular summons in the past, but this thread has actually made me rethink having done that - I think maybe I have to stop doing it in future games.

It depends on the summon cast, what a mage plans to do with the creature or person, and how they are treated. Summon deva or summon planetar is a-okay in my opinion because there is no spell that forcibly extracts service from a powerful archon. If an archon answers the call of your good mage's spell it is because they want to. The opposite of this is gate; which requires protection from evil to prevent the pit fiend from ripping out their summoner's entrails. Some fiends enjoy being called, as it is an opportunity for them to corrupt a mortal or spread evil on the Material Plane. Others despise it and will do anything within their power to get back at the caster.

Summoning an elemental prince, or princess in the case of Chan, should also be okay for similar reasons to planetars. They are unique entities that do not answer anyone's summon just because.

Where you might have cause to worry is the monster and plain elemental summoning spells. However, I think a good mage could pull it off depending on how their summons are treated. Does your mage summon monsters to act as cannon fodder for powerful enemies? Does he enhance them to improve their chances of survival? Does he ever heal them if they are precariously close to death, or not care since reinforcements are a summon spell away?

D&D lore allows a great deal of wiggle room when it comes to how summon magic is used. That said, not every mage will be keen about what feels like forcibly sending in others to fight their battles for them. At least with the lower level summonings.

Modifié par Seagloom, 18 juillet 2011 - 12:19 .

[morbidest2]

Personally I always feel guilty about summoning nymphs, since they usually wind up as attractive corpses - even though I always have them cast barkskin on themselves.   

[HoonDing]

I wish there was a Summon Marilith spell...

[BelgarathMTH]

@Morbidest and Seagloom, hey, thanks, you both give very thoughtful answers to help me decide my own position.

I also was thinking that celestials were okay to summon - for one thing, they're so strong that they usually survive until the summon time expires, and one imagines that they agree to the service because the mage or priest has reached a high level of advancing the cause of Good.

I like that idea that if you summon it, you should treat it as a friend and party member, including watching its health status, retreating it if it's in over it's head, and using healing spells on it.

I can't see that I would ever feel right forcing something to come and fight for me against its will. There's no reason an ogre or a gnoll would volutarilty help me, and I would never make an animal higher than an arthropod fight for me. (But I can't stand spiders, so I wouldn't control one of those, either.) That pretty much leaves out the whole Monster Summoning line of spells, as well as Spider Spawn and Carrion Summons (ewww.)

I think a Dryad or Nymph might agree to help me, but, as Morbidest pointed out, they usually cannot survive most encounters, and it would be wrong for me to ask one to fight, knowing full well that she would probably be going to her death.

I agree wholeheartedly that the entire Animal Summoning line is just wrong, on so many levels.

I just can't see myself using undead. My gut feelings about it just do not allow it.

I'm not sure elementals are that much different than automatons; perhaps they are extensions or manifestations of an elemental lord. The elemental lords themselves, who sometimes agree to help higher level clerics and mages, are powerful enough to usually survive the service. So I think it may be okay for me to summon elementals.

The fact that elementals try to turn on you could be seen, not as a case of sentient will, but rather as a case of raw elemental energy being chaotic, wild, and difficult to control.

That leaves me with elementals and celestials for BG, although I wouldn't use the lower level elemental summoning spells for practical reasons - too dangerous.

The thought of summoning infernals seems so clearly evil, I almost forgot to mention them. As for the various species of djinn, do they ever willingly help mortals? It seems like the djinn resent having to have anything to do with mortals and do everything they can within their own legal system to screw you.

I'm also still thinking about animal companions in third edition versions of D&D. So far, I tell myself that my animal companion is really a spirit animal like the Totemic Druids use, that it is my best friend in the world and we love each other, and that it has the ability to teleport away if it takes a bad hit. My ability to "resummon" it after it "dies" works like a Raise Dead spell that I would give to any party member.

Thanks for this very engaging discussion of magical summoning ethics - there's a lot to think about being presented here.

Modifié par BelgarathMTH, 18 juillet 2011 - 06:08 .

[morbidest2]

The only nit I would pick with you involves Djinns. They seem to regard being summoned for short periods as a game of wits and just return to their plane if killed. Obviously if you are planning to use a lot of Area magic, you don't want a hyper touchy  Djinn around, but otherwise (assuming your party is well protected from fire damage) they can be a very useful summons, particularly if you ' land" them behind your opponents.

I don't know if I would use a mod that allowed me to summon Marileths (the ultimate anti-Deva?). Incidently back in the  floppy disc stone ages, Lolth had the form of a Marileth! But a Spectator Beholder might make an interesting level 9 summons. The one we meet in Shark City and Sendai's realm seems to have a neutral or even chaotic good orientation. Why should drow mages have all the fun?  

[Carinna]

Regarding the summoning of djinns, there is a summoned efreet (? or something like it) in the drow city - one of a good PC's quests is to free it by killing it, as the drow are keeping it alive to repeatedly harm it. In fact, it asks the PC to kill it so it can return to its plane.

In the end, we do what we're comfortable doing. Personally, I can't be comfortable role-playing an evil character. I've tried and it just bothers me. Doesn't mean I think it should bother everyone - I simply can't divorce myself from the choices enough to comfortably try it out (though I've thought it would be interesting to play a sociopath, just in practice, I can't do it). I think this (summoning) falls into the same category. When I use animal summoning, and a "war dog" appears (for instance), I don't see Rover or Spot. I don't even see a real dog (within the game parameters), just a magical construct that walks and talks like a dog. If, as in the case of Gate, they could break free of the spell and make their own decisions, then I would see them as individual beings. That said, when I set up the rules for a no-kill (actually minimal kill) game, no summoning monsters/animals/other beings was allowed to kill in lieu of the PC or companions doing so, either.

But now, to throw oil on this fire: How do you deal with the figurines (or horns) that summon beings once per day? Do you see someone's consciousness as being forever trapped to give the figurine its power? Or a magical semblance in the shape of a being that just takes shape on demand once a day? Or something else?

[morbidest2]

Carinna wrote...

But now, to throw oil on this fire: How do you deal with the figurines (or horns) that summon beings once per day? Do you see someone's consciousness as being forever trapped to give the figurine its power? Or a magical semblance in the shape of a being that just takes shape on demand once a day? Or something else?

According to Salvatore's books about Drizzt, his black panther (the most famous example) lives on another plane - where he rests and heals between battles - and regards being summoned as a fun adventure. I guess this would be typical of the figurine summoned critters. Like a totemic druids summoned spirit animals, there's a long term relationship and they presumably like each other.
Certainly any bottle/lamp trapped djinn must be glad to get out on the town - although they certainly would rather be permanently freed. Since in Valhalla you feast, f*** and fight, And Die every day, being called down to Toril for a brief skirmish is probably just regarded as a welcome break in routine. I would say the real enslavement issue involves weapons, mostly evil, that seem to have some type of soul or spirit trapped in them. I guess you have to decide on them as you come across them. But if you see a PC wearing a nymph skin cloak and wielding black razor I think you can assume that you don't want to buy him/her a beer.
  

[Seagloom]

Carinna wrote...

But now, to throw oil on this fire: How do you deal with the figurines (or horns) that summon beings once per day? Do you see someone's consciousness as being forever trapped to give the figurine its power? Or a magical semblance in the shape of a being that just takes shape on demand once a day? Or something else?

On a case by case basis. morbidest nailed the Drizzt example. Figurines of wondrous power vary wildly in function. Some of them summon animals from elsewhere. Others grow into life-sized animated statues or project a magical construct that assumes the shape and behavior of a given animal but is not actually real.

morbidest also covered the horn example and mentioned sentient weapons. Again, I think it depends on what an item does and where it draws its powers from. There are sentient weapons that were forcibly bound and others that choose to be. The result can vary widely as well. Take Myrkul, the former god of the dead. He came to prefer an existence bound to the crown of horns over godhood. In Myrkul's eyes, godhood was more confining. As the crown of horns he is free to spread misery in his name and convert mortals to fanatical devotion without the red tape of divine politics.

So yeah, way too varied for a straight answer.

[Zaxares]

I think in some settings, "Summon" spells do not even call a real creature. What it does is it actually creates a quasi-real version of the creature via the magic of the spell, which is why it always does your bidding loyally and unfailingly. I think one author (though sadly I forget who) said that Summon spells draw "dream versions" of the creature; the spell reaches into the Demiplane of Dreams, where it takes the mental imprint of a creature or person that has been dreaming there, and pulls it to the Material Plane to do the summoner's bidding. In essence, every time somebody has a dream where they're fighting people or monsters they don't recognise, in a place they've never been to, it's because their dream self was summoned to a battle somewhere in the Multiverse. If these dream selves are killed, the dreamer awakens entirely unharmed, and often swiftly forget the contents of the dream.

This is the interpretation I use for my own personal campaign, incidentally.

Modifié par Zaxares, 19 juillet 2011 - 07:45 .

[HoonDing]

I've been thinking more on this, and I just realized that a "good" mage would/should technically eschew using any Necromany spell, meaning one would miss out on Horrid Wilting; and indeed, according to its description it has quite cruel and devastating effects that it could be considered "evil". But a mage without Horrid wilting could be considered severely gimped.

Luckily I always roll my arcane casters as Chaotic Neutral.

Modifié par virumor, 19 juillet 2011 - 09:24 .

[Seagloom]

I disagree with that next to last bit. My last sorceress eschewed horrid wilting. She had no trouble laying the smack down. Horrid wilting is very effective, but skipping it would not severely gimp a mage that took other useful damage spells.

Spell sequencer and spell trigger make many lower level evocations eminently lethal. 3x cone of cold should be considered a war crime.

Modifié par Seagloom, 19 juillet 2011 - 10:49 .

[BelgarathMTH]

Lots of good points are being made.

I tend to eschew Necromancy on principle, but then I remember that all healing and raising spells are classified as Necromancy in D&D. So I think it depends on how you use it.

I can stomach Horrid Wilting if I imagine that it instantly turns the enemy into a dried out pile of dust, before they feel any pain. There was an original Star Trek episode where aliens were doing that to Enterprise crew members with a button on their belts, and they could also "Raise Dead" and reform the creature if they chose.

[polytope]

virumor wrote...

I've been thinking more on this, and I just realized that a "good" mage would/should technically eschew using any Necromany spell, meaning one would miss out on Horrid Wilting; and indeed, according to its description it has quite cruel and devastating effects that it could be considered "evil". But a mage without Horrid wilting could be considered severely gimped.

Luckily I always roll my arcane casters as Chaotic Neutral.

Not all necro spells are evil, or even harmful, Spirit Armor for instance.

Horrid Wilting sounds quite painful, but it is no more so - I guess - than the dozen spells (or more) that use fire to cause damage. Not to mention corrosive agents (acid arrow, death fog...), which work even more slowly.

morbidest2 wrote...

When it comes to summoning, I would use the dumb (spiders, insects, crawlers, skeletons, etc.) and the very smart (djinns, demons, devas, planetars, etc) without a twinge of guilt; the latter know what they're getting into and seem to enjoy interplanar adventures, and the former have nervous systems too primitive for real thought. To me, battle magic (breach, pierce, etc.) is white with just a twinge of grey - after all that lich is out to kill you (or worse). Summoning the smart - but not brilliant - such as elementals, aerial servants, nishruu, nymphs, etc. is definitely a gray area. But summoning a wild dog or a dire wolf is definitely black magic. It would be one thing if you took the time to play with it, pet it, give it treat biscuits, and inspire a little love and loyality to your cause, but spell duration forbids this.

Agreed, as a happy coincidence, the "smart" and "mindless" summons are more useful to the cause anyway than the poor summoned mammals, even the spiders are a better choice than MSII.

[Krazy Solo]

Glad i'm chaotic/true Neutral in the way I act and behave. You could say I'm a radical idealist that everything a person does is driven on their own ego. By principal I act how I feel rather than how I should.

So Roleplaying an Evil character is not hard for me so long I rationalize the motive behind everything to lead to a greater good. As they say sometimes to advance on a principal you have take a backward step to truely understand.

I never like many of the summon spells as they are fairly weak vs tougher opponents.

Ultimately each person live and die by their own philosophy.

[Satyricon331]

@Belgarath: You know, I've played through ToB 2 or 3 times and I've never seen that scene!  I might be overdue to go back...

@Zaxares: Thanks for the info on Animate Dead's use of the negative energy plane.  There aren't any other surprise spells that tap that plane, are there?  Particularly other necromancy spells... Horrid WIlting's never bothered me since I'd rather die by instantaneous/near-instantaneous dehydration than by fireball, but if there's damage to the area akin to radiation then I might stop for most characters.  (I have tried a character who avoided fire and acid spells and it's surprisingly frustrating, although very doable.)

@Seagloom: Thanks for the mechanics on summoning vs. calling/gating.  

I appreciate all this info especially because I always roleplay good characters, but I vary what type of ethical theory I use.  Lately it's felt pretty arbitrary so I've wanted to add more structure, and this DnD info helps  Like for morbidest's example of mind control, it can vary a lot.  My consequentialist PCs would be fine with it depending on the goals/expected outcomes, but would always object to summonings (perhaps not callings) if there are tactical alternatives since it adds unnecessary suffering.  A virtue ethicist would view the mind control as a breach of personal discipline and an impediment to another's flourishing, but might vary about summonings (it'd depend on the theory of mind).  There aren't many that would object to both... the biggest type of theory that would is something you couldn't roleplay at all since it would leave Imoen in Spellhold as she actually did break the law.

-- About Drizzt's figurine summon - I seem to remember a scene from the first book where the panther refused to come just once after Drizzt broke his lawful good alignment once, or at least there was a threat of it happening, and that was the wakeup call he needed to get himself back together after wandering the Underdark for so long all alone.  Am I off?  If not, then that figurine seems unusual in that the panther could choose whether to come, which would be pretty significant for most good-aligned characters, I'd imagine.

@morbidest: It's an interesting point that a bottled djinni would be happy to get out of the bottle.  I've wondered what they do in there.  I usually don't use that bottle but if it's the djinni's only ticket out of imprisonment then you might think it's an act of mercy:lol:

[Zaxares]

Other than the obvious spells like Enervation, Energy Drain, Finger of Death, Wail of the Banshee etc... no, I can't think of any other spells off the top of my head that explicitly channel Negative energy in such a fashion.

My wizard is always Lawful Neutral. He learns every single spell he can find because of his desire to master (and catalogue) all kinds of magic; whether it comes from celestials or fiends is irrelevant to him, although he does avoid using overtly cruel or vindictive spells unless sorely pressed. (I remember one battle in Mask of the Betrayer where a Pit Fiend gated in to fight me and I promptly killed it in the first round with a Finger of Death spell.)

[BelgarathMTH]

@Zax, well, if I were ever going to justify using "the Dark Side of the Force", I guess it would be against a Pit Fiend! I think the Jedi in the movies (my inspiration) are too rigid, moving toward "Lawful Stupid" sometimes.

"Hmm, I can blast this demon from another dimension with my Force powers, or fight it feebly with my lightsaber that barely tickles it. Well, can't use the Force to attack, it would dominate my destiny and make me evil forever the first time I used it to attack anything. 'Guess I just throw myself against the demon and commit suicide. Maybe I'll get to be a blue-glowing Force ghost.<shrug>."

<Lawful Stupid Jedi throws himself against Pit Fiend, dies instantly when the thing grabs him with two pincher claws and bites him in half; Pit Fiend goes on a rampage throughout the galaxy and kills millions of innocent people. But the LS Jedi didn't turn to the Dark Side! Yay for him.>

Modifié par BelgarathMTH, 23 juillet 2011 - 11:38 .

[Satyricon331]

This info's from a later edition than the one BG2 uses, but if it's of any interest:

Tome of Necromancy (3.5e) commentary...
By trying to cater to two very different play styles as regards to the moral quandaries of the use of negative energy, the game ends up catering to neither – and this has been the cause of a great many arguments for which there actually are no possible resolutions. Ultimately therefore, it falls to every DM to determine whether in their game the powers of Necromancy are inherently evil, or merely extremely dangerous... Fortunately, we have collated those changes for you right here.

Necromancy Morality...
["The Crawling Darkness"] Many DMs will choose to have Negative Energy in general, and undead in particular, be inherently Evil....  ["Playing With Fire"] Many DMs will choose to have Negative Energy be a base physical property of the magical universe that the D&D characters live in – like extremes of Cold or Fire it is inimical to life, and it is ultimately no more mysterious than that.