Quote Originally Posted by Malifice View Post
So much this. The spell creates a 'friendly creature that follows your orders'.

The DM determines how it interprets those orders, and if it stays friendly to you. nothing in the spell states the Simulacrum remains friendly to you, or states the simulacrum cant use initiative in determining how to carry out those orders. Nothing states the simulacrum cant come to resent the casters control over it either.

If the one cannonical example of a simulacrim (Iggwilvs simulacrum in return to Castle Greyhawk) is any guide, they most certainly can twist orders, seek to break free from their creators control, and resent their creator.
That argument is not being fair. Could be I'm mixing threads as they blend together to the same concepts, but this point is nagging me. If a player cannot use the excuse of "the rules don't say I can't" to justify some absurd way of doing something, then neither can the DM use it to punish a player for using a class ability as it's written. If we're to presume a DM is not being tyrannical then he shouldn't being using passive aggressive tactics like, say, preventing a player from acquiring ruby dust, and just state upfront he has a problem with the spell Simulacrum and wants to discuss the matter on what to do about it.