[3.5] So... Simulacrum...

[Senshi Akai]

Hi there! First time poster, long time lurker here. I apologize in advance for any mistakes I might make.

So, I got a question about the simulacrum spell and... alignment issues. I will put the history behind this question in spoiler tags because it's real long, but I think the question in simple.

Ok, I got in an argument with my group and the DM last session. For the whole campaign the party was trying to survive the tricks and attacks of a big red dragon who was trying to eat us because of some threat we were to him. Apparently, some people in the world had some kind of "extreme magical link" that allowed them to advance skills a lot faster than normal people would (ie. level up to 20th level in just a few years), and, of course, our party was among these people.

While yes, we could turn into a threat for this red dragon, he had some kind of course that he HAD to devour people like us or he would die. So for the whole campaign we tried to survive and defeat said dragon.

Finally, at level 20 (last session) we managed to defeat him. However, we could not kill him, because another threat was revealed: atropus. For our surprise and shock, the red dragon was trying to stop this elder evil somehow, but he needed to devour spellcasters or "magical linked creatures" in order to do so (besides his curse, he would get more powerful).

Now the things will get interesting: my wizard, although he hated the red dragon, saw that he was a valuable asset. A weapon to stop the elder evil. So I agreed to help him as long he helps us.

I created a simulacrum of myself to feed the dragon. He needed a spellcaster, I gave him a duplicate of spellcaster. To my surprise, however, the DM looked at me in horror screaming "evil" with his eyes. The argument started at this point.

I pointed out that a simulacrum is just an artificial being that is "at my command at all times". If I order him to jump a cliff, he will. If I order him to not feel pain, he will do so. He is nothing but a tool, it's the same as if I had feed the dragon with cows.

My DM, in the other hand, said the simulacrum is a creature like any other, so I wasn't just giving food to the dragon, I was sacrificing a person. The party was divided in opinions, and it was late, so we called it a night.

While I don't agree with my DM, I recognize that I may be wrong. So I ask you guys this: was I sacrifing a person? Or is the simulacrum just a tool?

Now the short version: I needed to gain the trust of a dragon, so I made a simulacrum of myself and fed the dragon with it. My DM says it is evil, as the simulacrum is a person, while I say that it is not evil, as the simulacrum would suicide if I ordered it to do so, so it is just a tool for me to use.

So, is that a evil thing that I did?

[DMJeff]

Hi there! First time poster, long time lurker here. I apologize in advance for any mistakes I might make.

So, I got a question about the simulacrum spell and... alignment issues. I will put the history behind this question in spoiler tags because it's real long, but I think the question in simple.

Ok, I got in an argument with my group and the DM last session. For the whole campaign the party was trying to survive the tricks and attacks of a big red dragon who was trying to eat us because of some threat we were to him. Apparently, some people in the world had some kind of "extreme magical link" that allowed them to advance skills a lot faster than normal people would (ie. level up to 20th level in just a few years), and, of course, our party was among these people.

While yes, we could turn into a threat for this red dragon, he had some kind of course that he HAD to devour people like us or he would die. So for the whole campaign we tried to survive and defeat said dragon.

Finally, at level 20 (last session) we managed to defeat him. However, we could not kill him, because another threat was revealed: atropus. For our surprise and shock, the red dragon was trying to stop this elder evil somehow, but he needed to devour spellcasters or "magical linked creatures" in order to do so (besides his curse, he would get more powerful).

Now the things will get interesting: my wizard, although he hated the red dragon, saw that he was a valuable asset. A weapon to stop the elder evil. So I agreed to help him as long he helps us.

I created a simulacrum of myself to feed the dragon. He needed a spellcaster, I gave him a duplicate of spellcaster. To my surprise, however, the DM looked at me in horror screaming "evil" with his eyes. The argument started at this point.

I pointed out that a simulacrum is just an artificial being that is "at my command at all times". If I order him to jump a cliff, he will. If I order him to not feel pain, he will do so. He is nothing but a tool, it's the same as if I had feed the dragon with cows.

My DM, in the other hand, said the simulacrum is a creature like any other, so I wasn't just giving food to the dragon, I was sacrificing a person. The party was divided in opinions, and it was late, so we called it a night.

While I don't agree with my DM, I recognize that I may be wrong. So I ask you guys this: was I sacrifing a person? Or is the simulacrum just a tool?

Now the short version: I needed to gain the trust of a dragon, so I made a simulacrum of myself and fed the dragon with it. My DM says it is evil, as the simulacrum is a person, while I say that it is not evil, as the simulacrum would suicide if I ordered it to do so, so it is just a tool for me to use.

So, is that a evil thing that I did?

Of course the DM is always right. However if they are open to input Simulacrum Is just a washed out version of yourself considered a tool and a unique defense for those capable of casting it. It isn't alive but a magical version of a (Androidish) construct that does have limitations based on the caster or the one being simulacrum-ed. It is more a tool in an arsenal then something to apply morale's to. However I believe it is made of ice and snow when destroyed. Also if anything was ever going to prompt one of my character's to change their alignment it might very well be appeasing a dragon! And depending on class may not bo terribly bad.

At the very least I like the point system for alignment it rarley comes up but some how it help's define a lean. Not quite a full change in alignment but some actions start one perhaps on the road. We all have our "Inclination's."

[Dr. Cliché]

Now the short version: I needed to gain the trust of a dragon, so I made a simulacrum of myself and fed the dragon with it. My DM says it is evil, as the simulacrum is a person, while I say that it is not evil, as the simulacrum would suicide if I ordered it to do so, so it is just a tool for me to use.

So, is that a evil thing that I did?

Your DM is wrong.

"Simulacrum creates an illusory duplicate of any creature."

You're basically feeding the Dragon a semi-real illusion.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Your DM is wrong.

"Simulacrum creates an illusory duplicate of any creature."

You're basically feeding the Dragon a semi-real illusion.

This.

However, the same point also means that the dragon probably shouldn't gain anything from eating it either.

[DMJeff]

However the dragon might be happy you have fed it although snowy and as such 1,000 min xp. It might look at it as kind of softening you up after he is finished with his chilled appetizer?

[Jack_Simth]

Your DM is wrong.

"Simulacrum creates an illusory duplicate of any creature."

You're basically feeding the Dragon a semi-real illusion.
Trouble is.... as it's partially real, it has Int, Wis, and Cha scores just like you do. There are a couple of things it is incapable of doing - healing, true learning - but ultimately, this argument boils down to the nitty-gritty of 'how do you define "person"?' - and either that, or the rule used to derive that, makes for a fundamental token (also called fundamental assumption) in ethics. Arguing them is largely pointless, as there isn't any real basis for them in either direction beyond someone's personal feelings.

However, as the simulacrum can't grow more powerful (one of the symptoms of being magically linked), and "it reverts to snow and melts instantly into nothingness" when destroyed, I can't think that the red dragon would find it very satisfying.

And, of course, there's the kicker: non-insane, non-cartoonish villains are nearly always justified in their actions in their own eyes - whether that's the idiot version in that they're just not thinking about it, the 'I have the right' mentality, the 'it was necessary for [X]' mentality, or some perverted version of ethics they're running... non-insane, non-cartoonish villains do not think themselves the villain. It makes absolutely perfect sense for your character to be justified in his own eyes, irrespective of whether or not your character is correct.

That said, this is D&D. An intelligent creature is defined by having an Int score of 3 or higher, as well as Int and Wis scores (see Nonabilities (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#nonabilities) and the description of Intelligence (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/theBasics.htm#intelligenceInt)), and a simulacrum of yourself most definitely qualifies. Something slightly deeper is 'does the simulacrum have a soul?' - however, that is undefined in RAW. As your DM gets to define such things for his campaign world, your DM is correct at his table.

[Senshi Akai]

Thanks for the answers. :smallsmile:


Your DM is wrong.

"Simulacrum creates an illusory duplicate of any creature."

You're basically feeding the Dragon a semi-real illusion.


This.

However, the same point also means that the dragon probably shouldn't gain anything from eating it either.

That's what I thought, although I hadn't consider the "dragon gaining nothing" thing. I'll check it up with my DM about that (but as it is semi-real, maybe he will give me a break).



However the dragon might be happy you have fed it although snowy and as such 1,000 min xp. It might look at it as kind of softening you up after he is finished with his chilled appetizer?

Nah, I am not worried about that. I defeated him once (ok, the party was there), can do that again. :smalltongue:



-long post-

Hum... You do have a point, the simulacrum is intelligent. That is something that counts for sure, but I guess the "soul" is more important. Eh, I guess this will turn into a huge argument about ethics, but thank you for clarifying things up. (And I am not worried about my character, I was just curious... I sincerely thinks it is not wrong).

That brings up the question: does RAW say anything about souls for... well, monsters? Not humans, dwarves, drows, etc... But magical beasts or aberrations, for example?

As for the dragon, he doesn't have to like it, he just have to eat it.

[Kelb_Panthera]

All living creatures have souls. Most intelligent undead and deathless have or are souls as well. Warforged apparently have souls and some other constructs -may- as well.

[unseenmage]

All living creatures have souls. Most intelligent undead and deathless have or are souls as well. Warforged apparently have souls and some other constructs -may- as well.

Creating creatures from scratch that have souls is potentially Campaign Setting wrecking.

It's just 2 Diplomacy checks to convince someone to worship your deity. (Power of Faerun page 51, Spreading the Faith.)

In games where 'number of worshippers = godhood' just using a Diplomacy focused character and Spellclocks (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/cw/20070312a) of spells that make living sentient creatures makes anybody a god who can afford it.

Just a thought.

[Dr. Cliché]

And, of course, there's the kicker: non-insane, non-cartoonish villains are nearly always justified in their actions in their own eyes - whether that's the idiot version in that they're just not thinking about it, the 'I have the right' mentality, the 'it was necessary for [X]' mentality, or some perverted version of ethics they're running... non-insane, non-cartoonish villains do not think themselves the villain. It makes absolutely perfect sense for your character to be justified in his own eyes, irrespective of whether or not your character is correct.

That's certainly true. But, in D&D good and evil are present regardless of one's own views on their alignment.

So, it's stil worth arguing in case the DM wishes to change his alignment for being too evil.


Trouble is.... as it's partially real, it has Int, Wis, and Cha scores just like you do. There are a couple of things it is incapable of doing - healing, true learning - but ultimately, this argument boils down to the nitty-gritty of 'how do you define "person"?' - and either that, or the rule used to derive that, makes for a fundamental token (also called fundamental assumption) in ethics. Arguing them is largely pointless, as there isn't any real basis for them in either direction beyond someone's personal feelings.

...

That said, this is D&D. An intelligent creature is defined by having an Int score of 3 or higher, as well as Int and Wis scores (see Nonabilities (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#nonabilities) and the description of Intelligence (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/theBasics.htm#intelligenceInt)), and a simulacrum of yourself most definitely qualifies. Something slightly deeper is 'does the simulacrum have a soul?' - however, that is undefined in RAW. As your DM gets to define such things for his campaign world, your DM is correct at his table.

The thing for me is that, if you want to go the route that a simulacrum is an actual person with thoughts and a soul, then surely the evil act is casting the spell at all?

After all, you're creating a living, thinking being just so that it can be your slave. Forever. In that context, feeding it to a dragon might just qualify as putting it out of its misery. :smalltongue:

[Clistenes]

The thing for me is that, if you want to go the route that a simulacrum is an actual person with thoughts and a soul, then surely the evil act is casting the spell at all?

After all, you're creating a living, thinking being just so that it can be your slave. Forever. In that context, feeding it to a dragon might just qualify as putting it out of its misery. :smalltongue:

That's an issue I always had with Simulacrum. A lot of adventures show Simulacrum NPCs being basically normal people, but, if that's so, shouldn't the characters treat their Simulacra as alllies instead of mere spell effects?

I prefer to think of it as a mindless animated chunk of snow that is directed to act in a way that mimics intelligence by magic itself. Magic is shown to be able to act in a way that mimics intelligence, to understand instructions and give an intelligent response (for example, when you cast Discern Location you say what you want to find, and magic searches it and intelligibly explains to you where to find it).

So, when the Simulacrum is exposed to a stimulus, the spell divines what would be the response of the real creature and the Simulacrum acts that way.

[Fouredged Sword]

I think it's a Chinese room problem (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/chinese-room/), as in the AI problem. Simulacrums are like AI, and you must ask if they are real, or just LOOK real.

The fact that they cannot accrue EXP, and are illusions suggest to me that they ARE NOT really intelligent, but simply exist as a snapshot of a person. It looks intelligent, but only because it was modeled after something that truly has that characteristic.

[CIDE]

Rule 0: Dm is right. Very simple.

RAW: Your DM is wrong.

It's an illusionary copy that shouldn't have a soul. To be fair though it can still cast spells and should still qualify for the spell-casting epic mealtime for your red dragon. That said feeding this thing made of snow and ice with no RAW source for a soul and no true life of its own you're not doing anything more inherently evil than feeding a mindless undead or construct to the dragon.

Possible solution: If you have a Psion or Erudite in the party and if their psionics meet the criteria for this dragon's meal you have a very easy fix if the character willingly commits themself to it. Astral Seed+suicide. Dragon gets a meal, Psion's soul goes to astral seed. Pool resources to make it happen. It's only evil if you force the psion to do it.

[Gemini476]

I think it's a Chinese room problem (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/chinese-room/), as in the AI problem. Simulacrums are like AI, and you must ask if they are real, or just LOOK real.

The fact that they cannot accrue EXP, and are illusions suggest to me that they ARE NOT really intelligent, but simply exist as a snapshot of a person. It looks intelligent, but only because it was modeled after something that truly has that characteristic.

I'm surprised that it took so long for someone else to make that link.

If you delete an AI - say, for instance, that the creator of Cleverbot decided to upgrade his servers - would that be murder? Are you killing something, or can you not kill an AI? What characteristics does something need to have before it is considered "alive"? Is it just that you can fool someone into thinking that you're alive?
Come to think of it, a Simulacrum being a philosophical zombie seems oddly appropriate.

Also, a Simulacrum does not have the memories of the original, nor would it presumably have that magical spark the dragon was seeking. It's just a voodoo snowman that you cast an Illusion over to make it walk and talk like something else. Like, literally. Check the material components.

[Clistenes]

Also, a Simulacrum does not have the memories of the original, nor would it presumably have that magical spark the dragon was seeking. It's just a voodoo snowman that you cast an Illusion over to make it walk and talk like something else. Like, literally. Check the material components.

Waitwaitwaitwaitwaitwait!!! A Simulacrum does NOT have the memories of the original? Where is that written? I always assumed that they remember the original's life experiences, at least to a point.

[unseenmage]

Waitwaitwaitwaitwaitwait!!! A Simulacrum does NOT have the memories of the original? Where is that written? I always assumed that they remember the original's life experiences, at least to a point.

I thought one of the confusions about Simulacrum was that the spell doesn't say one way or another. Or is this another one of those PF and 3.5 are different scenarios?


I know that Mirror Duplicates created when one travels to the Plane of Mirrors via the Mirror Walking (MotP) spell are explicitly called out as having the original's memories. They're very similar to Simularcum in that they shatter when they die. Though they're dissimilar in that they are Outsiders.

It is another example of a living creature created with a spell though. And it retains the original's memories.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Waitwaitwaitwaitwaitwait!!! A Simulacrum does NOT have the memories of the original? Where is that written? I always assumed that they remember the original's life experiences, at least to a point.

It's not written anywhere. Whether this is true or false is a DM call. Amnesia tells us that skills and memories aren't necessarily intrinsically linked so it's not such a stretch either way.

[Gemini476]

Waitwaitwaitwaitwaitwait!!! A Simulacrum does NOT have the memories of the original? Where is that written? I always assumed that they remember the original's life experiences, at least to a point.

I figured that that was one of those "it doesn't say that you DON'T get it" scenarios, not to mention that Ice Assassin explicitly calls out that they have the memories. And since Ice Assassin is basically Simulacrum++...yeah.

[Segev]

Waitwaitwaitwaitwaitwait!!! A Simulacrum does NOT have the memories of the original? Where is that written? I always assumed that they remember the original's life experiences, at least to a point.

Yeah, it doesn't say anything about the original's memories, at all, in the spell's description (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/simulacrum.htm). It does say it has half the original's hit dice, which would mean lower skill ranks and possibly lower stats, which could impact knowledge. But since it acts like the real one in any way its master desires, I expect it WOULD remember what the original remembers, at least to detail equal to what is represented in its skill checks.

[Jack_Simth]

The thing for me is that, if you want to go the route that a simulacrum is an actual person with thoughts and a soul, then surely the evil act is casting the spell at all?
Is having children evil?
After all, you're creating a living, thinking being just so that it can be your slave. Forever. In that context, feeding it to a dragon might just qualify as putting it out of its misery. :smalltongue:
It's not forever. It lasts until you give it an order which amounts to the classic 'do as thou wilt' with or without riders (or until you cease to exist and any orders you have given it become obsolete).

Even with the soul bit (which is not explicitly defined in RAW, and thus is up to the DM), it's not more evil than any other spell that grants control over someone else. It's what you do with it / how you treat it that matters.

But yes, this is an issue I've had with Simulacrum. Good-aligned characters I run generally run it as "You owe me [X time] of service for your creation. After that, you are your own person". I'm particularly fond of 6 years, for reasons I'm not permitted to discuss on these forums.

RAW: Your DM is wrong.

It's an illusionary copy that shouldn't have a soul. To be fair though it can still cast spells and should still qualify for the spell-casting epic mealtime for your red dragon. That said feeding this thing made of snow and ice with no RAW source for a soul and no true life of its own you're not doing anything more inherently evil than feeding a mindless undead or construct to the dragon.
As you are claiming this stance is RAW: Can I get an explicit source on it NOT having a soul, or 'true life', please? My stance is that it is not clearly spelled out in RAW, either direction, and is up to the DM. The Simulacrum spell itself does not mention a soul at all. It says it's an "illusory duplicate", but also mentions that it is "partly real".



I think it's a Chinese room problem (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/chinese-room/), as in the AI problem. Simulacrums are like AI, and you must ask if they are real, or just LOOK real.

The fact that they cannot accrue EXP, and are illusions suggest to me that they ARE NOT really intelligent, but simply exist as a snapshot of a person. It looks intelligent, but only because it was modeled after something that truly has that characteristic.
This is part of why I pretty much started out with:

ultimately, this argument boils down to the nitty-gritty of 'how do you define "person"?' - and either that, or the rule used to derive that, makes for a fundamental token (also called fundamental assumption) in ethics. Arguing them is largely pointless, as there isn't any real basis for them in either direction beyond someone's personal feelings.

[Dr. Cliché]

Is having children evil?

No, but creating a duplicate of a child with thoughts and feelings, and magically binding it to your will is pretty evil. :smallwink:

[Jack_Simth]

No, but creating a duplicate of a child with thoughts and feelings, and magically binding it to your will is pretty evil. :smallwink:
As opposed to simply physically binding it to your will by way of giving it spankings when it does something you don't like, or doesn't do something you tell it to do?

[Dr. Cliché]

As opposed to simply physically binding it to your will by way of giving it spankings when it does something you don't like, or doesn't do something you tell it to do?

Thing is, even doing that the child has free will and can disobey. You might punish it for its disobedience, but it still has that option.

A Simulacrum child is under your absolute control and can never choose to disobey you. You could command it to kill itself in the most gruesome way possible, and it would have no choice but to do exactly that.

[The Insanity]

After all, you're creating a living, thinking being just so that it can be your slave. Forever.
That's called parenting.

[unseenmage]

Thanks a lot guys, now my next BBEG is going to have to be surrounded by Simulacrum children whose sole duty is to absorb attacks and throw themselves onto the PCs swords to keep the BBEG safe.

I can hear his malevolent silky voice now, "Now y'see what you did there? None of these dear little ones would be dead had you folk not barged in here and attempted to thwart me."

And then we'll reenact this alignment debate right there at the table for fun. :smallfrown:

[Captnq]

Here's how I've always seen it.

This is a GAME with cartoon MORALITY.

If it was a instantaneous effect, I'd say it was evil.
It's a permanent effect, therefore can be dispelled. This means that EVERYONE who uses the spell is "evil" by your DM's logic, because the spell has a built in kill switch. Wander into an AFM and you "die".

Is telling a summoned monster to go die "Evil"?
Is using nature's ally to create a wall of critters to soak up damage "evil"?

If your DM says "yes." Quit. He doesn't know how the game works.

Your Simulacrum is just like a summon monster spell. Except it has no time limit. Just like the Summoned monsters aren't "real" and just go back to the nothing from which they came, (or the outer planes, depending on your cosmology) so too does your simulacrum return to nothing when it dies.

Just chekc the spell and look for the "evil" descriptor. No evil descriptor, No evil.

Welcome to D&D, where dragons are color coded for your moral convenience. Seriously? He has no problem with THAT, but a simulacrum being fed to a dragon is too much. THAT's the deal breaker?

[Brookshw]

Multiple castings of prestidigitation to flavor it first, who's up for snowcones!

[Jack_Simth]

Thing is, even doing that the child has free will and can disobey. You might punish it for its disobedience, but it still has that option.

A Simulacrum child is under your absolute control and can never choose to disobey you. You could command it to kill itself in the most gruesome way possible, and it would have no choice but to do exactly that.
It is a difference of magnitude only. There are methods by which you can raise a child such that they will hurt, maim, or kill themselves and/or others in gruesome ways on command.

Here's how I've always seen it.

This is a GAME with cartoon MORALITY.

If it was a instantaneous effect, I'd say it was evil.
Check the duration on Simulacrum (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/simulacrum.htm) again. It is indeed Instant.

[Dr. Cliché]

It is a difference of magnitude only. There are methods by which you can raise a child such that they will hurt, maim, or kill themselves and/or others in gruesome ways on command.

Well, I'm pretty sure that would also qualify as evil.

[Rijan_Sai]

Thanks a lot guys, now my next BBEG is going to have to be surrounded by Simulacrum children whose sole duty is to absorb attacks and throw themselves onto the PCs swords to keep the BBEG safe.

I can hear his malevolent silky voice now, "Now y'see what you did there? None of these dear little ones would be dead had you folk not barged in here and attempted to thwart me."

And then we'll reenact this alignment debate right there at the table for fun. :smallfrown:

Except for the whole "melt into nothingness" part upon destruction...this could work as a deterent before the murder-hobos "good guys" get all kill-happy, though!

Also, didn't you mention that you are a 20th level wizard? Shouldn't they, you know, be able to smoke a bowl or two of Elder Evil before breakfast? Or something like that, anyway...what do you need a pet dragon for, anyway? :smalltongue:

[Jack_Simth]

Well, I'm pretty sure that would also qualify as evil.Yes, but that's just a matter of what you're doing with the control you have. It's also entirely possible to raise children in such a way that they'll help feed starving people on command. A parent is quite capable of going in many different directions with the control they have over their child. Yes, a Wizard has more control over a simulacrum than a parent has over a child, but that is primarily a matter of magnitude. I picked the example of things that can be done with a child based on your example of things that can be done with a simulacrum.

[Clistenes]

You have to wonder...what about Nimblewrights? Brass Golems? Guardian Ships? Soulbond dolls? Clockwork Eunuchs? Brass Men? All of those are intelligent beings. Of course, unlike Simulacrums, their minds aren't copies from humanoid minds, but crafted things that are custom made for servitude and have no need to feel unhappy or that they are losing anything.

What about Figurines of Wondrous Power? You turn a small figurine into a flesh and blood living being with the same mental stats as the real creature (and some have intelligence above 2, like for example, the Griffon) that afterwards go back to mere objects. What if somebody crafted a Figurine of Wondrous Power that turns into a person? A musician, a courtesan, a warrior, a thief, a cook, a butler, a maid, whatever?

[CIDE]

Also, didn't you mention that you are a 20th level wizard? Shouldn't they, you know, be able to smoke a bowl or two of Elder Evil before breakfast? Or something like that, anyway...what do you need a pet dragon for, anyway? :smalltongue:

Bolded for emphasis. Probably DM fiat. And once the DM made up their mind on something this big then it's going to stick.

[unseenmage]

You have to wonder...what about Nimblewrights? Brass Golems? Guardian Ships? Soulbond dolls? Clockwork Eunuchs? Brass Men? All of those are intelligent beings. Of course, unlike Simulacrums, their minds aren't copies from humanoid minds, but crafted things that are custom made for servitude and have no need to feel unhappy or like they are losing anything.

What about Figurines of Wondrous Power? You turn a small figurine into a flesh and blood living being with the same mental stats as the real creature (and some have intelligence above 2, like for example, the Griffon) that afterwards go back to mere objects. What if somebody crafted a Figurine of Wondrous Power that turns into a person? A musician, a courtesan, a warrior, a thief, a cook, a butler, a maid, whatever?

We ran into this problem in our own campaign recently. My character had put the spells Awaken Sand (Sa) and Minor Servitor (SS) into Spellclocks and made an obscene number of free-willed Constructs.

I got a visit with my deity telling me NOT TO Incarnate Construct (SS) the lot of them thereby making them real creatures with souls. Which i was going to do just to give my chosen god a power boost.

[CIDE]

We ran into this problem in our own campaign recently. My character had put the spells Awaken Sand (Sa) and Minor Servitor (SS) into Spellclocks and made an obscene number of free-willed Constructs.

I got a visit with my deity telling me NOT TO Incarnate Construct (SS) the lot of them thereby making them real creatures with souls. Which i was going to do just to give my chosen god a power boost.

Normally I'd be against it and auto-ban making people to worship but I never personally thought of doing it for the sole purpose of worshiping an already existing deity. Granted, that really does offset the balance of power. I could see deities NOT your's trying to stop you instead of your own deity. Technically there's no personal power gained unless the deity (DM fiat) awards it to you so it's mostly just story based stuff that potentially costs a decent chunk of change.

I think I'd allow it. Could be fun.

[Phelix-Mu]

I have hosted a number of simulacrum threads before, particularly on the matter of souls and the alignment implications.

First off, the RAW. It's abominably vague, but really does seem to create a complete copy of the creature (though it's also made of snow...whatever that means, it only seems to be relevant with respect to the true seeing and the healing). In all respects, the creature is a creature of the type copied. If I'm a humanoid and make a simulacrum of myself, it's a humanoid too.

This is obviously problematic. Making virtually real creatures with the casting of a single spell is a problem.

Moral Implications:
1.) Ordering it around: The creature is a copy of the creature copied. It must obey, but it doesn't have to like it. If its the kind of creature your character could normally push around, then you can probably Diplomacy it into a good mood, even as you use it for whatever. The creature's mind, emotions, all the aspects of sentience that matter...they are all copied. The only thing removed is the ability to resist the command of the spellcaster.

D&D has a problem with impossible commands, anyway. If you copy a person and order it to "love you," but the original person would not have been able to love you, then I don't think the simulacra can comply. Leaving aside that "love me" isn't an action, the creature can only do things inside it's capability, and if it isn't capable of emotional response x, then the command can't compel it. Any more than an order to a copied child to answer calculus questions will work.

2.) Finally, creating a copied sentient something and then compelling it to behave in a certain way is non-good. Good respects the nature of things, and to have a sentient being that is reduced to slavery (especially through a spell that specifically creates a purpose-built sentient tool from a sentient original). This is debatable, and has been debated before, but it's my position that a person determined to be good must respect his simulacra, ask them nicely, and generally treat them as individuals. There is just way too much moral hazard if you go the other way and start treating them like puppets.

[Duke of Urrel]

I side with those who say that there is no moral problem with sending a Simulacrum on a suicide mission.

A Simulacrum is a quasi-real Shadow creature. It isn't the natural offspring of a soul-endowed creature; it's an artificially manufactured creature, like a golem or a homunculus. If it has any creature type at all, it should belong to the Construct type. Moreover, unlike most Constructs, a Simulacrum is only 50% real. If you didn't have to kill anything to obtain the single minuscule organic component that you needed to create a Simulacrum, then I don't believe there is anything Evil about creating one. Nor do I believe there is anything Evil about destroying one.

Does a homunculus have a soul? If it does, I believe it shares the soul of its creator. The fact that a homunculus always has the same alignment as its creator strongly suggests that this is the case. It should be the same with a Simulacrum. I believe a Simulacrum shares not only its creator's ability scores (adjusted for its lower character level), but also its creator's moral and ethical outlook, because it is actually an extension or projection of the creator's own mind. If the Simulacrum has an alignment other than pure Neutrality, it should also have a detectable alignment aura. However, none of this proves that there is a unique, independent soul inside the Simulacrum, only that it shares the soul of its creator.

"At all times the simulacrum remains under your absolute command." I interpret this to mean that a Simulacrum is as much a part of you, physically and mentally, as your left hand. The only difference is that you actually have to tell your Simulacrum what you want it to do, because no neural pathway – or telepathic link, as with a homunculus – connects it directly to your own mind.

Even the Shadow double that you create when you cast the Project Image spell may have your alignment and share your soul. So it seems to me that "killing" a Simulacrum or causing it to "die" is no more Evil than dismissing the Project Image spell.

Yes, "The DM is always right." But this is how I'd argue if it were my DM.

Postscript: The Simulacrum spell is powerful, but be mindful of the restrictions. You can't just create any kind of creature you can imagine; you can only duplicate a real existing creature, and you must use some small trace of this creature's own body to create a Simulacrum of it. So yes, you can create Simulacra of any number of red dragons, but in order to do this, you must sneak into a red dragon's lair and collect at least one scale for each Simulacrum. A rules stickler might even say that the phrase "creates an illusory duplicate of any creature" means that you can create only one duplicate of any creature, because "an" means the same as "one." So your DM might (with my blessing) require you to sneak into the lairs of three different red dragons in order to create three Simulacra of red dragons.

Post-Postscript: On second thought, scratch that last argument; it's just a piece of word sophistry, and I shudder to think what would happen to the rules if we consistently interpreted "a" or "an" to mean the same as "one and only one." Still, if we think the Simulacrum spell is overpowered, a good house rule for nerfing it would be to allow it to create only one duplicate creature per original.

[Gamereaper]

Ok, there is one question about Simulacrums that confuses me.

When one gets amputated and survives, what happens?

Does it:

A) Get chopped off like a regular person?

B) Make the limb instantly turn to snow or water?

C) As scenario A, but then becomes scenario B after some time?

D) Some other thing unthought of.


If the answer is B or C, would that mean that dead tissue from scars and getting burned turn to snow or water as well?

Could said dragon be fed with parts of Simulacrum by lopping off limbs and using some quick means of healing the damage?

[CIDE]

Ok, there is one question about Simulacrums that confuses me.

When one gets amputated and survives, what happens?

Does it:

A) Get chopped off like a regular person?

B) Make the limb instantly turn to snow or water?

C) As scenario A, but then becomes scenario B after some time?

D) Some other thing unthought of.


If the answer is B or C, would that mean that dead tissue from scars and getting burned turn to snow or water as well?

Could said dragon be fed with parts of Simulacrum by lopping off limbs and using some quick means of healing the damage?


I don't think there's any "quick means" of healing a Simalcrum's damage.

[Telok]

I don't think there's any "quick means" of healing a Simalcrum's damage.

Interestingly a Simulacrum seems to have no defined creature type, which does odd things in strict RAW. If you rule it to have no type then a Simulacrum may be a spell effect rather than a creature, or perhaps it could be both. However I can think of several ways to heal it.

Dragon Shaman: Aura of Vitality. This should heal it up to half HP as it is an untyped sort of healing that does not require anything but proximity and alliance.

Crusader: Devoted Spirit Maneuvers. Again, healing without conditions beyond proximity and alliance.

Truenamer: Healing Utterances. See above, plus the thing has a lower CR so it's easier to affect.

Psion Egoist: Empathic Transfer.

[Senshi Akai]

Except for the whole "melt into nothingness" part upon destruction...this could work as a deterent before the murder-hobos "good guys" get all kill-happy, though!

Also, didn't you mention that you are a 20th level wizard? Shouldn't they, you know, be able to smoke a bowl or two of Elder Evil before breakfast? Or something like that, anyway...what do you need a pet dragon for, anyway? :smalltongue:


Yeah, I am a 20th level wizard, but the rest of the party is low-op, if I can say that (we have, besides me, a level 20 fighter who thinks "PrC and multi-class are weak", a rogue 10/assassin 10 in an undead campaign and a level 20 cleric of Kord :smallannoyed: ). I don't think just me and the cleric are capable of smoking an Elder Evil, so the dragon will be a good help. Also, to fight an Elder Evil while riding a dragon seems too awesome. :smallbiggrin:



If I'm a humanoid and make a simulacrum of myself, it's a humanoid too.


Wait, did I miss something? Where it says that the simulacrum have the same type as myself? I am AFB right now, but I am pretty sure that the spell description don't say anything about that. :smallconfused:



Moral Implications:
1.) Ordering it around: ... The creature's mind, emotions, all the aspects of sentience that matter...they are all copied. The only thing removed is the ability to resist the command of the spellcaster.

... :smalleek: So, it can kill me while I sleep if I upset it (and do not order it to NOT kill me)? This spell is getting too dangerous for my liking.



-long post-


Thanks, that's almost exactly what I thought, just didn't know how to express that in words. The only problem would be if the simulacra created are NOT constructs (or something like that), as Phelix-Mu pointed out. If it is (in my case) actually a humanoid, there might be a problem.

As for the nerf-simulacrum thing, my DM limited the number of simulacra I can control/create to be equal half my caster level. Don't know if it is fair, but he is happy and I am happy so far.

---

I appreciate all the answer. Helped me understand the DM side a lot better than before. Thanks! :smallsmile:

[Aharon]

According to this article (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20050809a) from the Wizards website, the simulacrum has the same creature type as the creature it mimics.

It's not RAW, but it's by one of the designers, so you'll have to decide for yourself how much this influences the dilemma.

[Segev]

It says it's an illusory, party real copy of the original.

I would assume, therefore, that everything true of the original is true of the copy, save where referenced, at least wrt defined game-rule effects. This means that it has the type (and subtypes) of its original.

As it is an illusory copy that is "partly" real, I imagine its soul, if any, is likewise illusory and "partly" real.

What that means is really up to interpretation. I choose to see no evil in it; it probably is aware of its condition if it's "self-aware" at all, but it is not a person. It shares its original's alignment and outlook and MO when left to its own devices, but it is an illusion spell that draws from the demi-plane of shadow for its real effects. It does what its creator tells it to because its creator is its source of motivating will.

When you create a simulacrum of yourself, at the very least, it doesn't mind suicidal orders because it is all but an extension of you and it's sense of continued existence is tied to you as the original. When you create a simulacrum of another, it has the outlook and alignment and habits of its original (to the limits of your Disguise or Craft check's ability to make it fool people), but its sense of "self-continuity," such as it is, is most likely still tied to its creator's designs. It doesn't "mind" being used up.

Now, where the more interesting questions arise is whether it cares when it follows orders against its original's nature wrt others. Does a blue dragon simulacrum resent being made to perform charitable deeds and give up its hoard? Does a simulacrum of a Solar weep tears as it slaughters innocents who trusted it when they thought they were relying on a real Solar for protection?

[Clistenes]

Wait, did I miss something? Where it says that the simulacrum have the same type as myself? I am AFB right now, but I am pretty sure that the spell description don't say anything about that. :smallconfused:

If you don't tell it "be loyal to me, serve me, protect me, give me only good advise, don' hurt me, don't endanger me, don't betray me, always tell me the truth" half a second after creating it, you are a fool and you deserve to die.

[DMJeff]

If you don't tell it "be loyal to me, serve me, protect me, give me only good advise, don' hurt me, don't endanger me, don't betray me, always tell me the truth" half a second after creating it, you are a fool and you deserve to die.


...... It's a magic tool that borders quasi real and ilusion. It has no master plan to kill you. Just a tool caster's can use no more alive then fireball.

[Rijan_Sai]

:smallbiggrin:
Yeah, I am a 20th level wizard, but the rest of the party is low-op, if I can say that (we have, besides me, a level 20 fighter who thinks "PrC and multi-class are weak", a rogue 10/assassin 10 in an undead campaign and a level 20 cleric of Kord :smallannoyed: ). I don't think just me and the cleric are capable of smoking an Elder Evil, so the dragon will be a good help. Also, to fight an Elder Evil while riding a dragon seems too awesome. :smallbiggrin:

Makes sense. Really, my comment was more in regards to the Playground's general expected power-level of a Wizard then anything that might actually apply in your game, hence the blue text and tounge smilie! :smallsmile:

And that bolded part of your quote quite nicely answers my last question! I agree!

[Clistenes]

...... It's a magic tool that borders quasi real and ilusion. It has no master plan to kill you. Just a tool caster's can use no more alive then fireball.

I know of at least two adventures in which Simulacra, start their own quest to get a soul and become real people after their masters die or forget them. It seems that, besides being forced to obey all commands, they think just like the originals (or the magic that animates them make them behave just like the originals would do if they were in their shoes).

As I said, I always assumed that they behave just like the originals, but what we don't know if it is just the spell divining how the original would react and making the Simulacra do the same, or there is really an humanlike mind in there.

[KorbeltheReader]

I know of at least two adventures in which Simulacra, start their own quest to get a soul and become real people after their masters die or forget them. It seems that, besides being forced to obey all commands, they think just like the originals (or the magic that animates them make them behave just like the originals would do if they were in their shoes).

As I said, I always assumed that they behave just like the originals, but what we don't know if it is just the spell divining how the original would react and making the Simulacra do the same, or there is really an humanlike mind in there.

I was just about to say that there's a seed for a nice little Aasimovian adventure here.

[Maginomicon]

Quesars (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/files/TheQuesarArticle.pdf) are constructs with a monster class. They were explicitly created by celestials and given free will.

The simulacrum explicitly DOESN'T have free will. You don't have the power over souls that those celestials have. Even the forges of Eberron are a mostly-lost technology.

Ergo, in the standard setting, it's not evil for you to destroy it.

[holywhippet]

What about, instead of simulacrum, you use the clone spell? The clone has no soul but it is an exact duplicate of you.

Also, how about letting the dragon bite off a limb and have the party healer use regenerate to restore it for you?

I suppose the question is, what is the dragon actually eating? Flesh or the soul?

[Bronk]

I tend to think that spells do what they say in the description and no more... It is very easy to read into a lot of them and give them abilities they don't state, which can either be fun and interesting or suck the fun right out of the game. The simulacrum spell seems like it's just meant to give a character some extra oomph, like a Naruto style shadow clone, not a secret method of raiding the Bastion of Unborn Souls.

As for constructs in general, I think the default is that they're mere automatons and creatures like the warforged are exceptions to the rule.


Clistenes: "I know of at least two adventures in which Simulacra, start their own quest to get a soul and become real people after their masters die or forget them."

That sounds cool... which adventures are these?

[unseenmage]

I tend to think that spells do what they say in the description and no more... It is very easy to read into a lot of them and give them abilities they don't state, which can either be fun and interesting or suck the fun right out of the game. The simulacrum spell seems like it's just meant to give a character some extra oomph, like a Naruto style shadow clone, not a secret method of raiding the Bastion of Unborn Souls.

As for constructs in general, I think the default is that they're mere automatons and creatures like the warforged are exceptions to the rule.



That sounds cool... which adventures are these?

Except that you just called a Simulacrum a Construct, which is reading more into the spell than it says.

Spells like Simulacrum are poorly detailed and sometimes extrapolations must be made. And it can be especially difficult to do so at the gametable in the moment. Which is why I, for one, enjoy and appreciate these types of threads where the vague rules get a good going over for those of us who like to have as precise an extrapolation as we can.

[Gabe]

I don't actually play 3.5 so feel free to disregard my opinion as uneducated in this field :P

But as long as the Simulacrum is not explicitly free-willed then its not really sentient and isn't entitled to any potential human rights. Its like a golem or even a dog or a familiar.

Its there purely to serve its masters wishes. And possibly until its master dies it remains as just a dimly aware copy of who or whatever it was created after.

Overall I'd say you were fine for sacrificing the similacrum. Maybe a bit shrewd but certainly not evil.

[Bronk]

Except that you just called a Simulacrum a Construct, which is reading more into the spell than it says.

I agree, that bit was commenting on the previous discussion, which had mentioned constructs.

I like these threads too... Simulacrum is in a weird position, since it was an original PHB spell that has a lot of weird implications if you consider all of the fluff that sprang up afterwards. That's why I'm interested in those simulacra involving adventures as well. Personally, I think that the dragon from the first post would have crunched into the simulacrum, gotten a mouthful of snow, and would have been offended at the trick.

How about bags of tricks? That creates real, living animals... they can run off after ten minutes, or you can put them back in the bag. Do they die then? Did that just create a wee animal soul?

[Clistenes]

That sounds cool... which adventures are these?

The main villain of the Castle Perilious adventure is a Simulacrum of the lich Acererack, who was employed as a sort of butler for his extradimensional castle and as a torturer (for when Acererack got bored of torturing an enemy himself).

Eventually Acererack left in search of greener pastures, leaving behind his Simulacrum as housekeeper. Acererack apparently forgot about his castle and his servant and never came back.

The Simulacrum got bored with his purposeless life as a "living" home appliance and started to meddle with Acererack's soul-sucking machines, and learned to suck bits of the souls of the prisioners into his own body, building a soul for himself and turning "real".

One of the villains of the adventure Expedition to The Ruins of Greyhawk was a Simulacrum of Iggwilv, created by a servant of Iuz. She wished to become "real", and devised a plan to use the Godtrap to suck a bit of the soul of Iuz and become a real person. She couldn't put her plan into motion until Iuz killed her master, however.

[Senshi Akai]

According to this article (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20050809a) from the Wizards website, the simulacrum has the same creature type as the creature it mimics.

It's not RAW, but it's by one of the designers, so you'll have to decide for yourself how much this influences the dilemma.

Nice! Thank you for the link, I will show at the game table and see what we will do about it.



If you don't tell it "be loyal to me, serve me, protect me, give me only good advise, don' hurt me, don't endanger me, don't betray me, always tell me the truth" half a second after creating it, you are a fool and you deserve to die.

Duly noted. From now on, these will be my first orders. You know, just in case.



:smallbiggrin:

Makes sense. Really, my comment was more in regards to the Playground's general expected power-level of a Wizard then anything that might actually apply in your game, hence the blue text and tounge smilie! :smallsmile:

And that bolded part of your quote quite nicely answers my last question! I agree!

Sorry, I still get confused by blue texts, sometimes. :smalltongue:



What about, instead of simulacrum, you use the clone spell? The clone has no soul but it is an exact duplicate of you.

Also, how about letting the dragon bite off a limb and have the party healer use regenerate to restore it for you?

I suppose the question is, what is the dragon actually eating? Flesh or the soul?

At the time I didn't have a way to cast clone (and didn't think about it too). It is worth a try I guess, so I will check with my DM next session. The limb, however, is out of question. The DM specified that the dragon has to eat a whole "portion" of the spellcaster in question, and I don't want to pay a visit to my gods again. :smalltongue:

And, as far as I can tell, the dragon is eating neither flesh nor soul, but the very magic imbued in the body (although I am not quite sure about that). Or at least the flesh of a spellcaster. He used to hunt clerics, wizards and paladins all over the continent, but never bothered about barbarians or fighters.

[Telok]

You know, if all you need is to feed the dragon magic users then you can abuse Planar Binding and get it several casters each day.

Rakshasa work well if you want to feed the dragon evil spell casters. Trumpet Archons are spell casters too.

[DMJeff]

I know of at least two adventures in which Simulacra, start their own quest to get a soul and become real people after their masters die or forget them. It seems that, besides being forced to obey all commands, they think just like the originals (or the magic that animates them make them behave just like the originals would do if they were in their shoes).

As I said, I always assumed that they behave just like the originals, but what we don't know if it is just the spell divining how the original would react and making the Simulacra do the same, or there is really an humanlike mind in there.

Quite possibly is and since to be quite honest Simulacrum's are not as defined as they should be, with out out sourcing there still an Illusion. If we jump to epic seed building you still wouldn't use the life seed to make them. When ever I have problems with spells I find it help's to use epic seed creation to better define 9- spell's. And the fact that there is at least two campaigns where simulacrum's are "soul" searching that kind of cover's it. They are and forgive the example's Data and Pinocchio both lacking soul/human emotion and in search for it. A good campaign hook which is simply there to provide a plot.

[Phelix-Mu]

My reading was always that it was an accurate copy. If it doesn't behave and act like the original, it's not a very good copy.

[Maginomicon]

Quite possibly is and since to be quite honest Simulacrum's are not as defined as they should be, with out out sourcing there still an Illusion.
It's an illusion, yes, but it's an illusion that fools the senses of sight, sound, and touch (fooling even reality itself into accepting its influence).

Even if you don't believe that's the case, realize that not all spells belong to just one school. Spells that are especially prominent in multiple schools (like taking a double-major in college) are dual-school spells. Simulacrum is like taking a major in illusion and a minor in conjuration.

[Clistenes]

Quite possibly is and since to be quite honest Simulacrum's are not as defined as they should be, with out out sourcing there still an Illusion. If we jump to epic seed building you still wouldn't use the life seed to make them. When ever I have problems with spells I find it help's to use epic seed creation to better define 9- spell's. And the fact that there is at least two campaigns where simulacrum's are "soul" searching that kind of cover's it. They are and forgive the example's Data and Pinocchio both lacking soul/human emotion and in search for it. A good campaign hook which is simply there to provide a plot.

What the Simulacrum in those adventures miss isn't so much human feelings as the ability to learn and grow, and they resent being mere tools and having to obey orders.

The Simulacra in Explore the Ruins of Castle Greyhawk, Castle Perilious and The Asylum Stone are like that: Basically normal people who can't take levels and resent their limits.

On the other hand, the Simulacra in Rise of the Runelords - Sins of the Saviours are basically stupid robots, and the Simulacra in Frostburn lack true personities until a crazy magical accident makes them absorb shreds of the mind of a real person.

I think it's interesting that all those Simulacra who behave like real people 1.-were entrusted complex duties that required a complex mind, and 2.-had masters who died or forgot about them.

The stupid Simulacra from Rise of the Runelords - Sins of the Saviours and Frostburn were employed basically as drones or menial workers...

Could it be that there are several grades among Simulacra? Like, if you need a Simulacrum to replace a person you can give it a copy of his/her mind, but if you need a bugger that eats everything that enters your castle you give it a more rudimentary mind? The Simulacrums created with Frostburn's Simulacrum Elixir are explicitly described as worse that the ones made casting the spell ("the resemblance to the original is crude at best"), and those created by Delzomen don't need to eat or sleep (and lacked free will, personality and knowledge until a freak accident transferred all those the them).

[holywhippet]

And, as far as I can tell, the dragon is eating neither flesh nor soul, but the very magic imbued in the body (although I am not quite sure about that). Or at least the flesh of a spellcaster. He used to hunt clerics, wizards and paladins all over the continent, but never bothered about barbarians or fighters.

So maybe you can feed the dragon magical items?

[Jack_Simth]

Could it be that there are several grades among Simulacra? Like, if you need a Simulacrum to replace a person you can give it a copy of his/her mind, but if you need a bugger that eats everything that enters your castle you give it a more rudimentary mind? The Simulacrums created with Frostburn's Simulacrum Elixir are explicitly described as worse that the ones made casting the spell ("the resemblance to the original is crude at best"), and those created by Delzomen don't need to eat or sleep (and lacked free will, personality and knowledge until a freak accident transferred all those the them).I'd be more inclined to think that the adventure writers didn't really worry too much about consistency with each other. As noted in this very thread, many different people see the spell in different lights, and make different assumptions and guesses about how it 'really works' and the consequences thereof.

[Phelix-Mu]

I'd be more inclined to think that the adventure writers didn't really worry too much about consistency with each other. As noted in this very thread, many different people see the spell in different lights, and make different assumptions and guesses about how it 'really works' and the consequences thereof.

Not only are these many guesses/opinions present, but they are all pretty much equally valid, because the RAW has some pretty glaring omissions. There is just so much that isn't clear that a DM's ruling (or an adventure module that fleshes out the matter) is necessary to really see how the spell works in play.

I kind of agree on the illusory soul. But because the illusion is quasi-real (more poorly defined terminology, there), we can't tell if it is meaningfully different or just superficially different.

I still believe that the simulacra shouldn't be treated as a tool by someone who is sticking to strictly good behavior. It's almost a real person, and blurring the line between real people and spell effects is dangerous for anyone making a real effort to be virtuous.

Note, 99% of the fun a wizard can have is problematic if the wizard is trying to be virtuous.

[Saidoro]

Your Simulacrum is just like a summon monster spell. Except it has no time limit. Just like the Summoned monsters aren't "real" and just go back to the nothing from which they came, (or the outer planes, depending on your cosmology) so too does your simulacrum return to nothing when it dies.
Wouldn't that make it more evil since you've just created one of the only beings in the universe that has to be faced with the reality of permanent nonexistence after death instead of getting to go off to some cushy afterlife somewhere?

[Maginomicon]

Wouldn't that make it more evil since you've just created one of the only beings in the universe that has to be faced with the reality of permanent nonexistence after death instead of getting to go off to some cushy afterlife somewhere?An interesting argument, considering outsiders behave the same way regarding death (with the exception of that spell that can resurrect an outsider).

Curiously, this means that it would make the most sense to have someone from our Earth be an outsider without the native subtype, and not a humanoid.

[Yukitsu]

Wouldn't that make it more evil since you've just created one of the only beings in the universe that has to be faced with the reality of permanent nonexistence after death instead of getting to go off to some cushy afterlife somewhere?

Hey, if my crazy illusionist is willing to make himself into a non-real, likely soulless entity, I don't know what they have to complain about.

[Bronk]

Thanks for the adventure names Clistenes!

[Clistenes]

Thanks for the adventure names Clistenes!

You're welcome. Check The Asylum Stone, Rise of the Runelords - Sins of the Saviours and Frostburn's Delzomen's Iceforge for more Simulacra NPCs.

[DMJeff]

Do people really think there is an over complicated spell that creates life that need's to be set free? Also nothing to do with the life seed, and or poly seed? Putting aside campaigns or Adventure hooks that are at times made to defy the normal system. I have a feeling the simply states what it is and doesn't over complicate things simply because it is a tool. The most important is opinion is separate from the ruling ( unless the DM of course think's otherwise.) The spell only states that it is an illusion and quasi real (has a physical make up snow and ice as its shape). The reason simply is that's all there is. Magic formulates the drained persona that can never evolve or earn XP. Change class or be resurrected. The most important being cant earn xp. It's safer to assume it's a magical Android that can never evolve.

It should also be noted that campaign's never count. They alter thing's to provide character hooks or good RP. Other wis the end of many a fantasy world would happen almost everyday. I would suggest only going by the rules however absent of detail they might appear. Which might be for good reason. Simply the spell only state's that they Are quasi real illusion. And if that is how they intended it, it would be why they have no need to add further detail's.

[Phelix-Mu]

Do people really think there is an over complicated spell that creates life that need's to be set free? Also nothing to do with the life seed, and or poly seed? Putting aside campaigns or Adventure hooks that are at times made to defy the normal system. I have a feeling the simply states what it is and doesn't over complicate things simply because it is a tool. The most important is opinion is separate from the ruling ( unless the DM of course think's otherwise.) The spell only states that it is an illusion and quasi real (has a physical make up snow and ice as its shape). The reason simply is that's all there is. Magic formulates the drained persona that can never evolve or earn XP. Change class or be resurrected. The most important being cant earn xp. It's safer to assume it's a magical Android that can never evolve.

It should also be noted that campaign's never count. They alter thing's to provide character hooks or good RP. Other wis the end of many a fantasy world would happen almost everyday. I would suggest only going by the rules however absent of detail they might appear. Which might be for good reason. Simply the spell only state's that they Are quasi real illusion. And if that is how they intended it, it would be why they have no need to add further detail's.

The rules fully and totally fail, to my knowledge, to ever state what "quasi-real" means. In what respects is it not real? The spell only tells us a few things that aren't real about it, namely that it can't earn experience, it can't heal, and it's actually made of snow (though what effect that has other than visual is totally unclear). If those bits are all that is different, then we should assume the rest is accurately copied (behavior, opinions, left-handedness, etc).

Your suggestion to just go by what the spell says is fine. The problem is that the spell leaves huge gaps open to broad interpretation, some of which will be necessary to figure out how it works and can be used. The copy is supposed to be useful; in my mind a robot that waits for orders is not a good copy and is not terribly useful. It's not clear what the copy copies, but going by the usual definition of copy, it could copy pretty much everything (it's magic). The copy is only an illusion, but while it exists, it is real (except for healing, experience, and the one or two other caveats).

Again, it has the original's mental stats. Unless you order it to do nothing unless ordered to do so, it conceivably will behave just like the original. Maybe the parameters are totally set by the commands given, but if this is the case, the spell should say so.

And this doesn't even touch on the mechanical failings of the description. Does the copy have exactly half of any levels in any class? So a rogue3/ranger2/wizard5 is copied. What levels does the simulacrum have? It clearly has only five levels. But which five? Does it work chronologically, based on the order the original earned the levels at? Does it just take each class in order, cut it in half, round down, until reaching the right amount? Can the caster determine which levels are copied?

Finally, the elephant in the room is ice assassin. The least-used assassination tool in the history of forever, this spell can be used to stupendous effect and is likewise poorly written (with no mechanical impact given for it's obsession with killing the original).

[DMJeff]

Thats why I think it's much simpler to only go with what they give you. Spell> ((and the appropriate hit points, feats, skill ranks, and special abilities for a creature of that level or HD)). Almost as if essentially you remake the character at that level. Although it doesn't state it feat's ect.. should be taken from the original.

Also once again to define it as an Quasi real Illusion Spell>((The duplicate creature is partially real and formed from ice or snow)). To exsplain the quasi.

Spell>(( At all times the simulacrum remains under your absolute command. No special telepathic link exists, so command must be exercised in some other manner. A simulacrum has no ability to become more powerful. It cannot increase its level or abilities. If reduced to 0 hit points or otherwise destroyed, it reverts to snow and melts instantly into nothingness.)) As to exsplain that it is just a tool. Along with other spells or construct's. Yes it has your saves power's and weakneses making this a powerful spell (or construct) Like a Nimle wright.

And agreed on to many broad terms thats why I say if it dose not state other wise just assume it's truly an Illusion with the quasi real part being the make of materials (Ice, snow) that's truly under the command of the caster. And half the level's ( what ever the DM seems fitting) still meeting the pre req's for prestige classes ect if it would apply.. All of this is generally only pulled from what the stats's are actually provided by the spell. And taken Not from outside source's.

[The Insanity]

The rules fully and totally fail, to my knowledge, to ever state what "quasi-real" means.
This (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhqblJCadEA) is real.
This (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGbrFmPBV0Y) is quasi-real.