The back story:
The pc's in my campaign have been battling a cult of demon worshipers who have been causing all kinds of misery for them and there friends/family. Recently in there fight against these cultist, the pc's have encountered a high ranking erinyes who almost killed 1/2 the party in one round. The devil was being held captive by he same cultist, and the players accidentally released it. Rather than kill everyone, it decided to use the players for revenge. The deal was, the erinyes would spare the pc's lives. In exchange the pc's would hunt down the cultist responsible for imprisoning the erinyes. Most of the party agreed but they made a point that it was for there own reasons, not the devil's. There is a paladin in the party, but he acknowledged that the erinyes could/would probably kill everyone unless they agreed to talk rather than fight.
Here is where the problem starts.
The paladin of the party was originally a male dwarf, who after an unfortunate turn of events was reincarnated as a female gnome. The erinyes has found out about this, and has sent a Falxugon (Harvester devil) to attempt to corrupt the paladin. The opening deal was the paladins soul to become a male dwarf again, (pact certain) to which the paladin flat out refused. I'm sure he would have attempted to slay the harvester, but I think he's worried if he does the erinyes will return to kill them all in retaliation. The paladin is also the harvester's only target as of right now. I get the feeling that he's also trying to keep the devil focused on him, rather than his companions. Another problem to worry about, is the paladin is convinced they will end up facing off against a demon lord, and thinks they might need the extra help.
So my question is this: At what point, given the situation would the paladin lose his pallyhood?
Further more, would the paladin be able to sign a pact insidious (to help exterminate this demonic cult) without losing his pallyhood right away? Of course, he would not know what he is really signing, and would also lose all his abilities once he did something evil.
For those who don't know: A pact insidious is a pact in which a devil grants a mortal a string of benefits in exchange for favors. The mortal must continue to do these 'favors' to continue to gain more benefits, or all benefits are revoked. It does not bind a mortal's soul to baator, nore does it require any statement of allegiance to any archdevil. The purpose of this pact is to slowly corrupt the mortal before they realize it's happened.
|
An excellent position for a paladin to be in.
As long as he and the devils are working together to "defeat a greater evil" then the Paladin is relatively safe.
Accepting help from Devils is one thing, but a Paladin should definitely never sign anything written by a devil. It's a difficult situation, and it's up to the individual GM to define. Ultimately if anything he does isn't in direct conflict with his code then he's safe.
Once the cult is taken out though, it's open season on Devils, and the Paladin has a responsibility to see these guys tossed on their asses.
A paladin has more to gain by dying bravely in opposition than living in servitude. Faith in himself and his ideals must carry him forward with the belief that his personal weakness will be augmented by his cause and bring eventual victory. Even dying as a martyr is a partial victory.
A lot depends on the paladin's concept of afterlife and the judgment for his actions. If everything is seen nothing is hidden so dishonorable pacts are never private.
If you're the DM remember to have appropriate rewards and support for the Paly that trusts his faith. Don't _just_ test his faith. It is a part of the game that, like a cleric's spells, there really is something behind the Paly's beliefs.
It is reasonable that a limited deity would actually warn a Paladin about their limits. A dream with advanced warning about the big baddies plan would seem the most doable aid.
You don't want to overshadow the rest of the party but you have to make faith a real thing. It shouldn't just work to the paladin's destruction there should be a strategic benefit to the ability.
Sigurd
The back story:
The pc's in my campaign have been battling a cult of demon worshipers who have been causing all kinds of misery for them and there friends/family. Recently in there fight against these cultist, the pc's have encountered a high ranking erinyes who almost killed 1/2 the party in one round. The devil was being held captive by he same cultist, and the players accidentally released it. Rather than kill everyone, it decided to use the players for revenge. The deal was, the erinyes would spare the pc's lives. In exchange the pc's would hunt down the cultist responsible for imprisoning the erinyes. Most of the party agreed but they made a point that it was for there own reasons, not the devil's. There is a paladin in the party, but he acknowledged that the erinyes could/would probably kill everyone unless they agreed to talk rather than fight.Here is where the problem starts.
The paladin of the party was originally a male dwarf, who after an unfortunate turn of events was reincarnated as a female gnome. The erinyes has found out about this, and has sent a Falxugon (Harvester devil) to attempt to corrupt the paladin. The opening deal was the paladins soul to become a male dwarf again, (pact certain) to which the paladin flat out refused. I'm sure he would have attempted to slay the harvester, but I think he's worried if he does the erinyes will return to kill them all in retaliation. The paladin is also the harvester's only target as of right now. I get the feeling that he's also trying to keep the devil focused on him, rather than his companions. Another problem to worry about, is the paladin is convinced they will end up facing off against a demon lord, and thinks they might need the extra help.So my question is this: At what point, given the situation would the paladin lose his pallyhood?
Further more, would the paladin be able to sign a pact insidious (to help exterminate this demonic cult) without losing his pallyhood right away? Of course, he would not know what he is really signing, and...
As long as the paladin works with the devil for the greater good he should be ok, but he should not take anything from the devil that he does not need. There should be no "this for that". The party should take care of the demons, and that would seal the deal. Another point with devils is that you have to enter the agreement willing, not be forced into it, IIRC.
|
The back story:
The pc's in my campaign have been battling a cult of demon worshipers who have been causing all kinds of misery for them and there friends/family. Recently in there fight against these cultist, the pc's have encountered a high ranking erinyes who almost killed 1/2 the party in one round. The devil was being held captive by he same cultist, and the players accidentally released it. Rather than kill everyone, it decided to use the players for revenge. The deal was, the erinyes would spare the pc's lives. In exchange the pc's would hunt down the cultist responsible for imprisoning the erinyes.
I'm a bit confused. Were the high ranking Erinyes also fighting the cultists to release the Devil? Why were they fighting against the party who was battling their demon worshipping enemies?
Also remember that the road goes both ways. It is possible, but highly unlikely for the paladin to turn the demons to good by showing them a better less selfish way of living. You know the joy of helping others and all that rot....
The paladin should be trying to do this. Constantly trying to show them the error of their ways, etc. Converting a evil to good is an act of good greater than slaying evil.
|
The original deal sounds fine -- so long as the folks who imprisoned the Erinyes were as evil as the devil (demons, for example).
Keep in mind, though, that the only reason the Erinyes escaped was PC-accident -- so you can only hold that against them if they did something stupid to accidently free her. If she was gonna be "accidently" freed no matter what the PCs did, sure, they can feel bad about it but you can't hold it against them.
Also, since the PCs let her live after she was freed ONLY because she was a CR waaay too much for them, you Certainly can't hold that against them. That's just bad DMing. In fact, according to the Pact Primeval, one can't be forced into a contract. If you have a Pit Fiend go to the Material Plane and find some peasant farmers and say, Either you sign your name in my Black Book or I'm gonna eat your children, the peasant farmers aren't going to Hell when they die. Just like your Erinyes who says, "I'll let you live but you have to do something for me."
.
.
.
As far as the Pact Insidious goes, it seems as if the Paladin is doing everything she should be doing to keep her Pallyhood. As DM, I would always question the Paladin's decisions. I would always make the Player think about what's going on and be able to justify the PC's decisions. And I'd make those choices tough (so long as the Player is having fun with it and the other Players aren't getting left out of the game because everything revolves around one PC).
As DM, you aren't the one that needs to come up with the line a Paladin can't cross in these morally "gray" areas. You're the DM: you come up with the challenge; the PCs come up with the solutions.
While she may adventure with good or neutral allies, a paladin avoids working with evil characters or with anyone who consistently offends her moral code. Under exceptional circumstances, a paladin can ally with evil associates, but only to defeat what she believes to be a greater evil. A paladin should seek an atonement spell periodically during such an unusual alliance, and should end the alliance immediately should she feel it is doing more harm than good. A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good.
So, under normal circumstances, while working towards the greater good, the Paladin will hold his/her nose and move on with things, but feel bad about it and want to purify himself later (or during, depending on the events..)
In this specific case, there are some mitigating factors: Namely, the paladin is actually keeping the devil's attention on herself rather than the rest of the party. That's noble and good and while the paladin will still want post-purification, I think you can say that they're ok for now.
[Having said that, the paladin will *not* tolerate any devilish allies feeding, torturing, etc, on things with souls along the way (nor killing the helpless, etc, etc.]
In terms of the pact, here we have to look at the situation and the idea of free will.
In the simplest case, evil devil says "Sign the pact or I'll kill you", the paladin code is pretty clear. You say "No." and die nobly. Not doing so is evil.
However, if, instead, it's "Sign the pact of I'll kill these innocents", then things change (and it depends on the pact). Realistically, it is 100% ok for there to be no "clean" way out of a situation for a paladin (as long as there is the potential for redemption, etc.) I would say that it's not an evil act to sacrifice your *soul* to save others (quite the opposite - which is why the earlier post about the Black Book holds in my view), and so the paladin will be protected, although the corruption now begins while the paladin coasts on the razor's edge.
However, while simply signing for the sake of saving others isn't evil, the paladin should now resist the pact, and any "gifts" from the pact should be rejected (where possible) -- accepting and using a spell-like ability given by an evil source would (to me) signify an acceptance of the evil, which is counter to the code and bye-bye pallyhood.
Assuming the pally doesn't do anything evil or allow evil to happen, and casts off the pact when the deed is done, I would say that some form of purification is all they'd need. Giving into temptation, however, is a break of the code, loss of abilities, and that's all folks.
But that's me.
|
|
The SRD on Paladin Code of Conduct says....
Hmmm, I really don't like the idea of going to RAW for anything that has to do with alignment. No publisher has ever been able do a complete, absolutely valid description of the alignments.
I love the alignment system -- as I've said before, it's my absolute favorite dynamic of D&D, the only truly dynamic aspect of D&D. And I accept the fact that we need to write out a Code of Conduct for Paladins, Druids and Clerics.
But to use that as an absolute, RAW, to determine DM decisions, nope, don't like it at all.
Let me use one of your examples.
"Devil says 'Sign the pact or I'll kill you'; the paladin code is pretty clear. You say "No." and die nobly. Not doing so is evil."
This is horrible; it couldn't work at the gaming table. Telling a Player his choices are to "die nobly" and come up with a new character OR lose all his character abilities and be, essentially, no PC at all, is NOT a good way to handle a situation, SRD be damned (pun intended).
Now, I know you wouldn't actually do this in your game, who would?!, but it does show why one can't use the RAW for the Alignment system.
The original deal sounds fine -- so long as the folks who imprisoned the Erinyes were as evil as the devil (demons, for example).
The key point to me is this: "Most of the party agreed but they made a point that it was for [their] own reasons, not the devil's." That's not really making a deal with the devil, it's just moving in the same direction, so to speak.
Making an actual pact with a devil would be breaking the paladin's code, IMO.
I'm well aware of the Pact Insidious/Pact Certain from the Fiendish Codex II, and have the following ideas to promote in this unusual situation...
- The Paladin doesnt have to accept the Devils bargain, doing so would be evil. While they may not be in their original body (that could be later rectified without the Devils help) they dont have to sign anything (nor should they, anything written by a Devil is a legal contractual nightmare). They cant be forced to sign the pact whatever the Devil tries, it has to be of free will. This brings me onto Point 2...
- If the Devil was to threaten others or them with Death, the Paladin might have moral issues with allowing mortals to die if it meant he signed his soul away to the Harvester Devil...If those poor souls died they wouldnt go to Hell, nor would the Paladin if they fought best they could to stop it from happening. This brings me onto Point 3...
- If the Paladin didnt infact sign away their soul and the Devil made good on their promise to slay innocents, the Paladin could simply go through an Atonement later...but remember this, the Paladin would endeavor to kill this Devil the first chance they get. And while the Paladin advenutures and gains strength, nothings to stop them into looking into ways to kill the Devil or finding new allies to aid them (such as any Celestials they might encounter later). The Devils grasp of the characters 'lives' is slippery at best, and while outside of their CR range for now, it wont be so later...once the PC's are strong enough the Atoned Paladin could seek revenge on the spiteful Eyrines.
- Another flip side, if the Paladin DID Sign the Contact...its not neccisarily evil, they just refuse any 'gifts' or 'aid' the Devil offers and hold off on their damnnation. The Fiend Folio II does explain that pacts made under torture or manipulation can be argued against in the courts of Hell (a place a Paladin would not like to find themselves in, but for the right price, the Lawful Paladin and other Devils (who may be enemies to the Eyrines or belong to a rival Lord) would be able to strike some kind of deal to see their common enemy thrown down and humiliated by having this court case quashed and the pact sundered) but that of course is not an ideal situation...this brings me onto another point...
- Devils are deceptive, manipulative and sinister...but you CAN outsmart them. If the Paladin was to 'trick' the devil, it wouldnt be breaking their code. An example of this would be as follows...
We had a situation much like this, and the victim in question angered a Brachina devil who hounded them through the campaign mercilessly trying to force them into a Pact. Well they 'tricked her' by having already signed a contract of sorts that saw the party coming into possession of the victims soul upon death BEFORE the devils pact would be signed. To accomplish this, the character utilised a Wish spell granted by a Noble Djinn they helped (which is rare I know)) to create an unbreakable contract without the Devils knowledge. Then when the Devil showed up again, they reluctantly signed the devils pact and gladly took offered gifts and bribes from them. Believing they won the Devil tried to claim the characters soul upon death, and wound up soul-less after the highly Lawful Baatezu courts ruled that the original, 100 page contract signed by the character stood first (which caused the Devil to be so badly humiliated before their peers, lessers and rivals and so on), causing the Devil to be 'demoted' in rank (to a Rutterkin) by their angry patron for this humiliation and degredation suffered upon them in turn...
End of the story, the Devils own tools and society were its downfall.
Devils are as fractured individually as any other race, because they work for different Lords and have rivals, underlings vying for their position and so on. A Paladin could use that if it meant 'stopping a greater evil' such as losing their soul AND beating their enemy in the process.
|
|
Hogarth, right, that's why I said it sounds fine.
It's funny, a few weeks ago, in a campaign that a friend of mine runs, a PC Paladin in the party promised we wouldn't kill a MEDUSA! who was being held prisoner in a dungeon we were clearing out. The medusa had been prisoner for a while, I guess, and was pretty weakened. After we killed the BBEG and found this medusa in a prison cell the paladin just said something like, "if we free you you have to promise not to attack us and we promise to let you go"!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I couldn't believe it. We couldn't go back on the Paladin's promise, of course, so we had to stand by while the medusa made her escape, presumably back to the wilderness where she can kill innocent passersby. I hope that at some point in the adventure we can go off "script" and into the wilderness, track this medusa down and kill her.
|
BOED
That a paladin that is in the choice scenario described, ie sign or die might indeed die a good death.....
And return as a saint for the next game!
Whatever you do, don't write the paladin character out of the game because he's painted into a corner. The only option should not be sacrifice unless the player wants to go that route. Give him a way out without losing his powers/soul. It shouldn't be an easy choice and there should be consequances, but if someone choses to play a paladin or any character with a restrictive alignment, it shouldn't be an auto-fail.
Let me use one of your examples.
"Devil says 'Sign the pact or I'll kill you'; the paladin code is pretty clear. You say "No." and die nobly. Not doing so is evil."This is horrible; it couldn't work at the gaming table. Telling a Player his choices are to "die nobly" and come up with a new character OR lose all his character abilities and be, essentially, no PC at all, is NOT a good way to handle a situation, SRD be damned (pun intended).
Now, I know you wouldn't actually do this in your game, who would?!, but it does show why one can't use the RAW for the Alignment system.
I wouldn't, but then, I assume that evil things that deal in souls are smarter than that. Something big and powerful enough to take out a Paladin and who could therefore threaten "Sign or I'll kill you" would know that the paladin would choose death, and that would be that. The real power (and value) comes in making the paladin *fall* and corrupting them.
The fluff for Erinyes and Succubi from past editions basically said that the souls of the virtuous were more valuable (probably because they were going to get the evil souls anyway...), and so that's what I'd have them do. And, because I'm a nasty GM, I'd have the devil keep putting forward temptation until the paladin undid himself. (Does the paladin accept a bit of smut on his soul in order to save someone else, for instance. Think of it as sacrifice by inches...)
Having said all that, however, if such a case came up (and I don't know how it would), I wouldn't tell the paladin what to do, but if he accepted the deal only to save his own neck, then yes, I *would* strip him of his powers.
Thanks for the replys everyone. Outside opinions almost always help when hitting 'gray' areas such as this. Also, I hate to admit it but lately I have been becoming less sure of myself as a DM.
As far as the "Sign away your soul or people die" thing, I'm not gonna put my players in that position. Well, not unless they've earned it anyhow, and I don't see that as too likely.
What's probably going to happen, is a number of possible contracts will be offered to the pally, from request to kill evil people, 'retrieval' of powerful items that will help slay these demons, to a number of other deeds that in and of themselves will not appear evil. However in the long run, these seemingly trivial acts will result in the future corruption of souls, or something you would expect from devils.
The deal with the erinyes letting them live if they go after those responsible for her imprisonment was a verbal agreement, so I don't see any threat to there souls or alignment on that one.
Also I would like to note, this paladin is currently seeking guidance from a cleric of Moradin. (we still use 3.5 deities)
Another side note: if the pally does indeed fall, my group is re-working the blackguard to be pathfinder compatible, so that option will be open. However if that were to happen and the party doesn't turn against them, I'll have to make some npc 'heros' to come after them from time to time.
I'm a bit confused. Were the high ranking Erinyes also fighting the cultists to release the Devil? Why were they fighting against the party who was battling their demon worshipping enemies?
That is a good question, and I apologize for forgetting to put the reasoning in.
A very high level sorcerer (one of the cult leader's personal minions or something, haven't gotten into much detail yet) had called the erinyes in a magic circle against law. He added dimensional anchor, as well as a few other things to keep the whole thing in place over a long period of time. Why you ask? Well, I haven't worked out the details yet but it will have something to do with the blood war and the fact this guy is pretty much insane.After a time the sorcerer had decided to move on leaving a simulacrum of himself, some minions, and hordes of zombies to look over the place.
The PC's had destroyed all the zombies, simulacrum and minions while on a quest to find why people were disappearing in or around these sewers, when they came across a hidden room. This was the room that held the devil, as well as the most recent kidnapping.
|
|
I'm a bit confused. Were the high ranking Erinyes also fighting the cultists to release the Devil? Why were they fighting against the party who was battling their demon worshipping enemies?That is a good question, and I apologize for forgetting to put the reasoning in.
A very high level sorcerer (one of the cult leader's personal minions or something, haven't gotten into much detail yet) had called the erinyes in a magic circle against law. He added dimensional anchor, as well as a few other things to keep the whole thing in place over a long period of time. Why you ask? Well, I haven't...
Wow, that's a lot of devil prisoner power there. I probably would have played it that the devils seemed grateful and offerred a boon to kill off the demon cultists...something that had strings attached that only became apparent later or cursed items that gave the characters a lot of power and the downside only showed up after some use.
Sounds like the player with the Paladin is sticking to type. I wouldn't look to punish the Paladin by removing his/her powers unless they deliberately stepped outside the code. I'd try and target the more weak-willed characters (greedy Dwarf, morally ambiguous Rogue) or tempt the power gamer so the devils can worm their way into the party's affairs. I always like having the players do the will of evil without knowing it. The Paladin should take this hard and need to atone will really drive your campaign.
For me a Paladin is a symbol of goodness, chivalry and simply the pure good.
As long as there is any other possible solution, and if it's a very small one (like fighting again a army of demons with only 5 Friends) the paladin should take this instead of working together with anything evil. If he choose the "easy way" by working with an evil, he will loose his power if I am DM.
Someone brings the example with the "sign this or I kill these innocent", in this case I wouldn't punish him, regardless which way he choose, but I will remember him that he have to clean his soul from this (by finding a way to destroy the signing or revenge the victims).
My players hate me for this zealot view of a paladin, but I think this is what the paladin differs from other classes.
One Quote from the, I think, Sword & Fist fits very well, I think
"Death before dishonor (doing evil)"
I'd say Second Base.
I’m not going to revert to rules for my comments, but will relay a situation I had with my first and favorite character (a paladin) during his D&D 2nd Edition incarnation.
My party consisted of me, a human paladin, an elf ranger/cleric, a halfling rogue, and a human wizard. Our mission was to destroy the council of a drow city, and if possible, the city itself. The council and the city’s houses were in league with powerful entities seeking to destroy the good kingdoms of the world, and plunge the world into everlasting darkness.
At some point, we encountered a female githyanki Commander of a legion (500) of her warriors and her personal guard. She had come to the Prime Material Plane to find a city to raze for treasure and therefore advance her lichqueen’s power. However, she and many of her legion were seeking some way to escape the tyranny of and their eventual destruction by their lichqueen.
As the appointed leader, and needing extra swords to fulfill our mission to destroy the city, I personally entered a pact with the githyanki commander. She swore to use her legions to destroy the drow city, once we took care of the high council, and I promised to aid her and her men (those wishing to escape their lichqueen’s control) to find a way to do so and find a safe haven from her.
She was LE in alignment, and I LG (of course). I swore to fulfill my part in the name of my god, and she swore on her life. We shook to seal the pact and we were both struck by a powerful bolt of divine energy. Our grasped hands burned momentarily, and we were thrown back from each other. Looking at our hands, the symbol of my god was burned into our palms, a sign that my god had consented to our pact.
Needless to say, both of us fulfilled our part of the pact. We destroyed the council, they took care of the city and the drow house’s forces. In the end, the githyanki maintained her word, and even was redeemed, along with a number of her legionnaires. Eventually she transported her fortress to the Prime Plane and founded a knighthood that protected the innocent in the surrounding lands.
A paladin’s main purpose is to bring about the greatest good through lawful means, without resorting to evil methods himself. It seemed to be the only and right thing to do. At the time, it may have seemed very unpaladin-like to pact with evil githyanki’s, but it was to destroy an even greater evil, and he himself never stooped to evil acts. The pact was between him and the one githyanki alone. He maintained his honor, kept his word, and in the end it all resulted in the destruction of evil drow bent of world domination, the redemption of many evil githyanki’s, and the founding of a new and powerful knighthood who upheld the edicts of law and good. If she would have renigged on the pact, I could have hunted her down and destroyed her without repercussions to maintain my honor. If I would have renigged, I would have lost my paladinhood. Sometimes, playing a paladin isn’t always making decisions that are black and white, but living by the light of his divine call, and walking into the brighter shades of grey to fulfill his quests or the commands of his god.
My own interpretation of what the OP mentioned would be that, the paladin should refuse all the pacts offered. While i agree that it would be realistic to punish someone who follows such a restrictive moral code with death or forced atonement, it perhaps would have been better for the devil to thank them for letting him free (while laughing internally that they didn't get the chance to squeeze him/her for stuff), assure them that the cultists are definetly evil (bait for the pally-hound), hint that there may be a reward (rest of party bait), point out where the cultists are, possibly leaving a pregnant pause to leave space for a pc to inquire about a reward, then leave quietly. This encourages the party to hunt the cultists down without infringing on the pally's code.
This IMO fits with what a Erinyes would conceivably do, as it has the two fold advantage of a: revenge against the cultist, B: establishs contact with the party, C: establishs the do stuff with devils for $$$ mentality which is easy to exploit.
Also IMO, the "sign your soul away or people die" thing should not come up with one exception; something is going to kill said people and the contract-maker offers as a third party to intervene in exchange.
I would agree, Blackwing, that the best way to play the corruption of your characters is to start small, thing they were going to do anyway then things which are small and on the way then small favours and so on grdually getting bigger...
Also If you finish them blackguard workings could you send them my way, I would love to see them.