Summoning Cleric Alignment

[yoshi67]

I've recently come to really enjoy clerics and their many styles. I've always liked the idea of summoning monsters and minions and thought I'd give it a try. The problem is my group typically plays "good" games, where neutral is tolerated but evil is not. I want to build a cleric that acts like a skill monkey by summoning appropriate monsters for situations, both in combat and out of combat. The problem is some very useful monsters are evil aligned. Trithereon is the only deity I know that has the Summoner domain and is CG. Would it be against alignment to summon an evil creature, even if it is used for good? Or how would you react as a good character to a cleric summoning an evil monster? I can always create my own deity or choose a neutral one, but I'm wondering how the LG ranger might handle having a Fiendish Dire Wolf summoned during a fight.

As an aside, I know building a wizard/sorcerer/other arcane summoner negates most of the problems, but I want to play a cleric since my summon (summonee? summoned?) would take my place for most encounters, freeing me to heal and buff, and once DMM Persist starts I can focus more on utility spells as my summons last all day.

Another aside, I'm not trying to optimize as the group tends to not break into tier 3 classes and doesn't optimize much. As such, I'm just looking for a way to summon evil monsters and not be evil, not "Summon a bunch of X 'cause they're better than everything else".

[Vhaidara]

Malconvoker, from Complete Scoundrel. The prestige class is built around summoning Evil outsiders as a good guy, and using them to fight evil. You Bluff them when you summon them, and it buffs them. As in when a Malconvoker vs an evil demon summoner of equal levels fight, the Malconvoker wins.

[Chronos]

And to answer the question you actually asked, absent Malconvoker (which is exactly what you're looking for), summoning an evil creature is an evil act, and is completely impossible (not just a bad idea) for a divine spellcaster. It's still an evil act for an arcane spellcaster, but they can still do it if they consider an evil act for a greater good acceptable (note that this might eventually cause your alignment to shift).

[Tvtyrant]

Pretty sure the Hellborn have a clause that allows them to cast evil spells.

[yoshi67]

summoning an evil creature is an evil act, and is completely impossible (not just a bad idea) for a divine spellcaster.

I don't remember seeing anything saying a cleric can't commit an evil act or cast an evil spell, as long as they are of proper alignment. There are evil clerics serving evil deities. So yes, as a good cleric I cannot summon evil things (just read that on the spell's description). But I'm thinking about neutral too. We usually view neutral as a balance. So I can do evil things as long as I also do good. We don't keep a tally or anything, just as long as you don't lean one way too much too long. Summoning both good and evil, especially if I only used the evil for good purposes, should be fine, but can I summon evil as neutral, or is there some stipulation or special rule?

[Rebel7284]

As a neutral cleric, you can summon whatever you want.

[Vhaidara]

SRD Entry (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/cleric.htm#chaoticEvilGoodandLawfulSpells)
A cleric can’t cast spells of an alignment opposed to his own or his deity’s (if he has one). Spells associated with particular alignments are indicated by the chaos, evil, good, and law descriptors in their spell descriptions.

If you summon a creature with the Evil subtype, the spell becomes evil, as per the last line of Summon Monster I (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/summonMonsterI.htm)

As far as neutral, yes, you can do that, but that will require a custom god, since the restriction is based off of your god's alignment.

Seriously, check out Malconvoker (http://dndtools.eu/classes/malconvoker/). It is exactly what you are looking for.

[Jeraa]

As a neutral cleric, you can summon whatever you want.

Unless he is worshiping the deity from the OP. ("Trithereon is the only deity I know that has the Summoner domain and is CG.")

A cleric can't cast a spell that is opposed to his own or his deities alignment. So even a Neutral cleric of Trithereon can not cast an Evil spell.

However, by default clerics don't need to pick a deity to worship. They can just worship an ideal pr whatever and pick any two domains they want. Unless you are playing in a campaign setting that changes that (such as the Forgotten Realms). In that case, a neutral cleric can summon evil creatures.

[yoshi67]

Great, I'm considering a Cloistered Cleric who "worships" the link between this plane and others and devotes himself to the study of linking planes (summoning, gates, binding etc.) and is LN.


Seriously, check out Malconvoker. It is exactly what you are looking for.

Thanks, I looked at it and I'm also considering it. For some reason my group hates PrCs. Don't know why, they just do. But I need some way to make it to Malconvoker if I use it, and I think a neutral cleric is the way to go.

So the other thing I asked, how would you react as a Good character to a Neutral cleric summoning an Evil monster?

[Vhaidara]

Well, summoning celestial things isn't bad, and utility summons don't really come in until higher levels.

Another option that wins big time on flavor is the Hellbred Race from the Fiendish Codex II: Tyrants of the Nine Hells. Quick fluff summary
Your soul was damned to hell, but in that moment you repented. Your soul is now marked for damnation, but you have been reincarnated as a hellbred. Can you manage to redeem your soul before the forces of hell make good on their claim?

The race is like 95% paladins. By the flavor text.

The main ability you're interested in is this
Evil Exception (Ex): Regardless of alignment or class restrictions, a hellbred can cast spells with the evil descriptor and never gains negative levels while wielding evil magic items, such as unholy weapons or demon armor. This ability does not shield a hellbred from losing access to class features if he violates a class’s code of conduct. For example, using a +1 unholy longsword to slay orcs would not violate a hellbred paladin’s code of conduct, though using the weapon to kill another paladin would.

I can send you the full crunch if you need it.

EDIT: As far as reaction, badly at first. Not a good first impression. Eventually, it would be awesome. Using hell's minions against hell.

[Chronos]

Right, I forgot a word there. It's impossible for a good divine caster to summon evil creatures. Evil clerics, or neutral ones with neutral (or no) deities, can do it just fine. Playing a true neutral cleric of a cause is the simplest way to get what you want, though Malconvoker is probably better if your DM allows it.

Oh, and with the cause you describe, Travel would be a good choice for your second domain. It fits the theme, and it's pretty useful.

[Curmudgeon]

However, by default clerics don't need to pick a deity to worship. They can just worship an ideal pr whatever and pick any two domains they want. Unless you are playing in a campaign setting that changes that (such as the Forgotten Realms). In that case, a neutral cleric can summon evil creatures.
A neutral deityless Cleric isn't allowed by the rules.
A cleric may not be neutral unless his deity’s alignment is also neutral.

[Jeraa]

A neutral deityless Cleric isn't allowed by the rules.

That entire paragraph is written with the assumption the cleric actually has a deity. It wouldn't apply to deity-less clerics.

[Curmudgeon]

That entire paragraph is written with the assumption the cleric actually has a deity. It wouldn't apply to deity-less clerics.
The problem with that point of view is that you can't point at any rule which substantiates your claim. The neutral Cleric restriction is the very last line in the Alignment section of the class description; the very next section section (Religion) includes the deityless option, and there's no mention of any previous rules being invalidated when you select the deityless option. Essentially, that makes the bolded line your house rule rather something universally agreed upon.

[Devils_Advocate]

Curmudgeon, that section is part of the "fluff" half of the Cleric class description. It just, erm, "preiterates" the Alignment section from the "crunch" half (i.e. the part under the heading "GAME RULE INFORMATION"), which also states "A cleric’s alignment must be within one step of his deity’s". So deityless clerics of all alignments are equally disallowed.

And I don't know of a 3rd Edition setting in which they were allowed before Eberron. Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance, and, yes, Living Greyhawk all require clerics to serve deities. On the other hand, Eberron not only allows deityless clerics but removes the class's alignment restriction. Why most rulebooks were written for a weird slightly alternate Oerth isn't clear to me; it seems particularly odd when this quasi-setting differs from the norm, and discussing the possibility of godless clerics is one instance of that.

As it happens, the assumed relationship between summoning and alignment is another thing that could do with some clarification via worldbuilding, to put it mildly, because as written it makes no sense. If all summoning spells did was bring creatures to you and then they acted according to their natural inclinations, then it would be reasonable-ish to say that summoning a creature tends to be an act of that creature's alignment, I guess. But as written, a summoned creature "attacks your opponents to the best of its ability" regardless of its alignment, which makes the idea ass-backwards. How is yanking an evil creature out of its home and forcing it to fight for you more evil than doing the same thing to a good one? Wouldn't it if anything be less evil? And wouldn't a god of liberty who opposes oppression be against summoning, especially summoning non-evil creatures, instead of being big into summoning yet against summoning evil creatures? Given how summoning is described as working, good-aligned beings should find summoning evil creatures less objectionable than summoning non-evil ones for the same reason they find dominating evil creatures to be less objectionable than dominating non-evil ones.

When you look at what the spells with alignment descriptors do, it quickly becomes plainly apparent that it's ridiculous to consider casting an "[alignment]" spell to be an [alignment] act as a rule. Creating a trap for a fiend (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/magicCircleAgainstEvil.htm) is good, but drawing it into the trap (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/planarBindingLesser.htm) is evil? Despite the fact that you're using the spells in conjunction to accomplish the same damn thing and casting one of them has exactly the same purpose as casting the other? Utterly preposterous. Seriously, you could murder a bunch of babies with a holy smite. And while people seem to be more okay with some actions being arbitrarily and nonsensically classified as "evil" than with some actions being arbitrarily and nonsensically classified as "good", that can't be because that makes any more sense, because it doesn't.

But so far as summoning spells are concerned, it's fairly necessary to make up some stuff about what they actually do, because the RAW are exceedingly unhelpful on the matter. "If you can communicate with the creature, you can direct it" to do other stuff. But it doesn't explicitly say that the creature follows your directions. So, is that supposed to happen automatically? Who knows? RAW is that it attacks your opponents and there's no exception given here, but clearly that isn't the intent. As written, these spells are implied to exert mental control, which they really don't even have any business doing since that's Enchantment's deal, not Conjuration's. On the other hand, if you assume that they instead call in allies, they start to make a lot more sense. But that would seem to require you to befriend the creatures you summon, for them to be your allies in the first place, at least in the case of an arcane spellcaster who isn't just bringing in her deity's minions...

Basically, summoning seems to me to be a heavily "gamist" thing with a bunch of stuff that you're just not supposed to think about very hard or even at all. If you want to at all seriously consider how it would interact with people's values, well, good luck with that, because at that point you do have to think about how it interacts with summoned creatures' values as well as observers'.

[Curmudgeon]

Curmudgeon, that section is part of the "fluff" half of the Cleric class description.
So? Can you show any rule which says "fluff" is any less RAW than "crunch"?

[Vhaidara]

Just commenting on the irony of Curmudgeon, who has a reputation for playing devil's advocate for RAW, playing devil's advocate for RAW against Devil's Advocate.

[VoxRationis]

Don't forget the really odd part about summoning and calling spells where they move a creature from other planes not once, but twice, many levels before a wizard could do the same to himself.

[bekeleven]

Just commenting on the irony of Curmudgeon, who has a reputation for playing devil's advocate for RAW, playing devil's advocate for RAW against Devil's Advocate.

...In a thread advocating for devils.

Note that malconvoker does have a disadvantage - it loses a caster level at 1st level, putting your spell access down to sorcerer levels. Still a fun class!

As for summoning being evil:

Summoning does NOT call an existing creature over to you to fight. Instead, it creates a copy of that type of creature and instantiates it. Basically, the universe contains a platonic form of "Bearded devil", and by casting Summon Monster you instantiated it more times. Hence, more evil.

[Crake]

since the restriction is based off of your god's alignment.

Actually, it's based off both yours and your god's alignment. An important distinction, since you could have a CG worshipper of a CN deity, which, due to his good alignment cant cast evil spells

[yoshi67]

When you look at what the spells with alignment descriptors do, it quickly becomes plainly apparent that it's ridiculous to consider casting an "[alignment]" spell to be an [alignment] act as a rule.

My thoughts exactly, but according to RAW summoning an army of Fiendish Octopi to grapple the Evil wizard on his island so you can kill him is evil. Seems counter-intuitive, but I get what the writers were thinking. I think any summoning spell should be neutral (honestly, ALL spells should be inherently neutral), but that's a DM decision. The best I can do is play neutral and not worry about what alignment the spell is.

[Vhaidara]

My thoughts exactly, but according to RAW summoning an army of Fiendish Octopi to grapple the Evil wizard on his island so you can kill him is evil. Seems counter-intuitive, but I get what the writers were thinking. I think any summoning spell should be neutral (honestly, ALL spells should be inherently neutral), but that's a DM decision. The best I can do is play neutral and not worry about what alignment the spell is.

Well, not quite all. Consecrate/Desecrate, Protection from [Alignment], Holy Word and kin are all pretty specific.

[VoxRationis]

Part of the reasons that clerics are more restricted with these things is that they are by their nature given to doctrinal restrictions and to paying more attention to the metaphysical. A cleric's magic stems from how they relate to a multiverse of gods and angels and demons running about trying to influence the world. By calling on the forces of darkness, they could strengthen them in some way, or if nothing else create a clash with the piety of spirit which allows the cleric to gain their spells in the first place. A wizard, by contrast, is more utilitarian. His magic has nothing to do with anything but his own skill. Your "the tool is irrelevant; the purpose is key" mindset works for someone whose magic is merely a set of tools. But the mechanics of a spell don't necessarily say everything important about it. Perhaps tying into such a thing requires a more personal connection than the summon lists let on.

[Vhaidara]

Another point on why you can't summon opposing your god's alignment:
You have a good god. You attempt to use their power to summon an evil creature. Your god, being good, has no power over evil creatures, and therefore cannot send one to help you.

Enter Malconvoker, using arts learned from a special celestial treatise that trains you to deceive the fiends into believing they are being summoned by the forces of evil.

[Devils_Advocate]

So? Can you show any rule which says "fluff" is any less RAW than "crunch"?
Possibly I could find such a rule if I searched for one, but I see no reason to do so. I made no claim that the statement from the "fluff" section isn't part of the rules. Yes, there was an insinuation that "Hey, the actual rules can be found under the 'GAME RULES INFORMATION' heading", but it doesn't follow from that that the mention of a restriction in the first half of a class description is inaccurate. It's just that the full rules are given in the second half, so you might want to mosey on over there in order to get the whole picture. In this particular case, the relevant bit is

"A cleric’s alignment must be within one step of his deity’s (that is, it may be one step away on either the lawful-chaotic axis or the good-evil axis, but not both). A cleric may not be neutral unless his deity’s alignment is also neutral." (Emphasis mine.)

The first sentence implicitly disallows clerics in general from lacking deities in precisely the same fashion in which the second sentence implicitly disallows neutral clerics from lacking deities. (Implicitly because neither actually says "A [neutral] cleric must have a deity".)

Seriously, did you see the first sentence of my post and then just type out a knee-jerk response without bothering to read the rest? Yeesh!


Don't forget the really odd part about summoning and calling spells where they move a creature from other planes not once, but twice, many levels before a wizard could do the same to himself.
Believe me, I haven't. I didn't mention it because my post was long enough already and that's not directly relevant here. But yes, it very much is yet another part of "Summoning spells are are very gamist and don't make simulationist sense".

You know how invisibility does more than the higher-level greater invisibility, detecting and responding to complicatedly-defined "attacks", even though a more complex effect intuitively should be harder to produce? But it's more complex in a way that's disadvantageous for the spellcaster, and thus invisibility being lower level makes sense from a purely game balance perspective?

Summoning spells are that times roughly a million. :P


Summoning does NOT call an existing creature over to you to fight. Instead, it creates a copy of that type of creature and instantiates it.
This is a popular house rule. It is also not RAW. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#summoning)

[bekeleven]

This is a popular house rule. It is also not RAW. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#summoning)


Each conjuration spell belongs to one of five subschools. Conjurations bring manifestations of objects, creatures, or some form of energy to you (the summoning subschool), actually transport creatures from another plane of existence to your plane (calling)

The RAW is, at best, contentious. I view your quote as meaning, "The creature exists as a concept inside akasha (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akashic_records). When you summon it, the concept is instantiated and given form in front of you. If you kill it, it's (obviously) not really dead, but the universe must shape it back into its platonic form."

[Psyren]

Just commenting on the irony of Curmudgeon, who has a reputation for playing devil's advocate for RAW, playing devil's advocate for RAW against Devil's Advocate.


...In a thread advocating for devils.

You two made my morning :smallbiggrin: