Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

Is selling your soul to a Devil an evil act?


Rules Questions

101 to 114 of 114 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Cards, Maps Subscriber

I would say yes...selling your soul is an evil act.

Perhaps i have misread the thread...the player is playing a CN character and he sold his soul to pay off a debt he incurred by raping?

I dont think that guy was playing a CN character, but it sounds like a CE character.

Every so often i hear people talk about Lawful good as being Lawful Stupid.....sounds like this is the converse Chaotic stupid.

as a previous poster mentioned Luster of Dorkness rising.....yep sounds like Luster.

I better stop now before i start ranting.


Mogart wrote:

I know this seems like a no brainer, but I was curious as to what the majority of people would say.

Another DM and I got into an argument as to whether a particular character was evil, here is what happened.

The chaotic neutral character sold his soul to a devil to get the devil to pay off his debts. The character in question sold his soul and turned on (attacking the party as he would an enemy) the party for the duration of a "Boss fight" which nearly killed the party. The character was later subdued.

When the spell "Detect Evil" was later cast upon the soulless person, he was not detected as evil.

Would other DMs consider this character Evil, or is it just my opinion that he is?

Generally I go by the rule that if you think it could be an evil act it probably is

That said, sellings ones soul would most certainly be evil and probably a lawful act as well

Qadira

Paxon wrote:
I think the biggest concern is to make sure you get a good price.

From a completely meta-game point of view, there's not much reason for a player to not have his character exchange his soul for three wishes... at level 1, if possible. Unless you're planning on having your character die a lot (being Resurrected becomes a pain if you've sold your soul to a devil), or your DM is keen to run an 'afterlife' based campaign, it's an option made of pure win. Only wishy-washy role-play fluff can stop you taking that leap! :)


One act isn't enough to make you evil, and selling your soul because of monetary debt is pretty dumb rather than diabolical. On the other hand, anyone who would seriously consider selling their soul for any reason is already a person of questionable morals and someone doing it to avoid punishment for multiple evil acts (to rehash, sexual abuses are evil no matter who or what the target is) then it's not "a single action". It's the culmination of a series of evil acts that absolutely should end in an alignment shift.

This guy gives CN characters a bad name by pretending to be one of them.

After his first non-charmed, non-confused assault on any group of PCs I've ever been a part of he would have been dealt with on the spot. Enjoy your contractual time in hell, jerk.


In my opinion, it all depends on why they sold their soul. What did they want to gain from it.

Taldor

the act of selling your soul to a devil is an evil act regardless of intent, it is not an alignmet changing one, regardless of circumstance.

The character described by the OP was evil before he ever talked to the devil and I'd love for you to invite your DM here to explain what type of idiotic rationalization he uses to say that rape isn't an evil act. (Your DM may be a nice bright guy, but to say that rape isn't evil is just stupid, no matter how otherwise brilliant you are)


By the way, this question has not sense without a contest.


Mogart wrote:
So by this logic, when a player slaughters a city of innocents he is doing the work of good?

If that's the only way of letting them escape the Soul Eating Abominations from Beyond, it could be...


it's an evil act I believe, but if the character is evil depends on more than just one thing he has done.

I mean a paladin is not forbidden by his special restrictions to sell his soul to a devil, but do you really believe he can do that without loosing his powers? So it must either be unlawful or evil, and a contract is hardly unlawful.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

i say that the act is means to an end, and should be judged accordingly.
say we have two people selling their souls, both for an artifact-teir sword.
Guy number 1 is a mercenary, who's goal is to use the sword to make a name for himself, while at the same time searching for the fountain of youth/other form of immortality. he's not planning on paying up, so his act isn't technically empowering the forces of hell if he succeeds. i'd suggest that the act is neutral with evil overtones and chaotic sprinkles.
Guy number two is planning to pay up, and is expecting to die within the week. he needs the sword to save the world from a tempest behemoth that will otherwise wipe out his nation/continent/world, and is fairly confident he'll die in the battle or if not then of his wounds afterwards. i'd say that we're talking about an act of heroic sacrifice for the greater good here, which is almost a difinatively good act. the devil would go along with it because by saving the world mr hero is ensuring that sinners will keep sinning, which is worth more to hell in the long term and ropes them in this guy as a bonus.

as far as the OP, the creed is greed and the act is evil.


In the example above we have a character making a deal for erasing his monetary debt in exchange for his soul. Disregarding how the character had acted before then, what mattered is the full spectrum of the deal itself. If the simple act of selling his soul after he died so the Devil would erase his debt, that in and of itself is not evil as no one is being harmed outside of the character losing his soul.
If the Devil said the character must turn against his party as well as sell his soul then the Devil is offering an evil act for the character to do and the character must make the choice between actively attacking his allies or simply finding another alternative to solving his problem.
Now if the Devil made the deal of exchanging the soul for erasing the debt and then afterward said it would only do it if the character attacked the party then the Devil was bullying the character into thinking he had no other options and therefor tricking him into an evil act.

Having just finished watching season 2 of Supernatural this question is an interesting one.

Towards the end of the season the older brother in the show arrives just in time to watch his younger brother be killed right in front of him. After some time thinking on it he decides that he's willing to do whatever it takes to bring his brother back to life. Having no other options he then summons up a Devil they had dealt with earlier in the show and makes a deal to sell his soul in exchange for his brothers life.

Is that an evil act or a desperate one?

In my philosophy of evil there are two types. Those who are inherently evil such as Devils, Demons, and such which is just in their nature. Then there are those who choose to commit evil acts whether they feel they're justified in their reasoning or not. Those who decide that because they can and/or want to, decide to harm others whether it is through blatant acts of violence or show of force (most typical fantasy villains support this claim) or more subtle acts through clever use of deceit, lies, actively praying on others weaknesses or natures and blackmail. Iago from the Shakespeare play Othello Moore of Venice and Lord Petyr Baelish from Game of Thrones are some of my favorites in this regard.


@the OP:

Not evil in the least, it's just a deal between equals. Just like buying drugs, or sex, a perfectly legitimate exchange of goods that benefit all involved. Hey you look like a smart fellow. Why don't you step into my office here and we have a discussion on what I can do for you.


It absolutely is evil (IMHO). The devil wants the soul because he can perform greater acts of evil with it. The deal actively increases the power of an infernal being.

Just my two cents.


The Devil: [about souls] It's like your appendix. You'll never even miss it.
Elliot Richards: Yeah? Well, if it's so useless, then how come you want it so much?
The Devil: Oh, aren't you a clever one?


Azten wrote:

The Devil: [about souls] It's like your appendix. You'll never even miss it.

Elliot Richards: Yeah? Well, if it's so useless, then how come you want it so much?
The Devil: Oh, aren't you a clever one?

Think of it as Caviar to us.

101 to 114 of 114 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / Rules Questions / Is selling your soul to a Devil an evil act? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.