
DM Klumz |

A character in my campaign has committed a mortal sin and I am wondering which kind of fiend would be taking an interest in his soul?
In my game, unless allied to planar powers, character alignment is more an outlook/perspective rather than an absolute. One of the few things that may change this are mortal sins.
The character in question is an elven ranger rogue whose favoured enemy is gnolls, who has the gnoll killer trait, the all gnolls must die feat, is a worshipped of Calistria (vengeance aspect) and whose back story involves his family being wiped out by gnolls. Did I mention that he does not like gnolls? Although his sheet says CN, when push comes to shove he is fairly solidly CG, or even NG.
Whilst on a solo scouting mission I deliberately had him come across a small group of gnolls that, when the fight started, protected one of their number who was holding a small sack. A swift combat later, he found the sack had two gnoll pups.
YMMV, but I decided that slaughtering innocents is a mortal sin and so he is now evil on the ping-o-meter. (The player is ok with this turn of events and his character plays exactly as before.)
The set up was an off the cuff thing and now I want to explore the situation a bit more.
Obviously a mortal soul tainted by such a sin will attract some form of fiendish attention, which can only lead to some good rp. But I am not too sure if it should be a devil or daemon (I have discounted demon but would change my mind if someone came up with a good reason it should be one).
So good people of the boards, which fiend would you introduce?

OmegaZ |

There are many varieties of devil, daemon, and demon that could be interested in such a soul. You could certainly make one up, have him contacted by a purrodaemon loyal to the Horseman of War, a night hag who likes infanticide, or even attacked by yeth hounds belonging to Lamashtu (who wouldn't be at all happy with this). Your call, really.

![]() |

Considering his character background and you saying he mostly plays NG/CG, his actions may be considered evil by an observer, and would definitely make his character CN.
Why is it a mortal sin? That is a Catholic concept and not a fantasy RPG concept. Sounds like you are just punishing him for roleplaying his character consistently with his background.
I do not believe his actions would not be rare enough to warrant the attention of a fiend. Many similar occurrences happen in most fantasy settings. If you persist in making it a mortal sin, he would be punished in the afterlife. But I wouldn't have that happen either due to his god's portfolio including vengeance.

DM Klumz |

Thomas
The attention of the fiend will not be a 'punishment', in actual fact, the creation of a whole sub-plot involving the fiend and starring this PC is a 'reward' for his play. I certainly will not be using the fiend to smite the PC in any way.
The whole 'mortal' sin thing is my label for actions that will get noticed by the powers that be, and the cold hearted killing of two innocents will do that, although I respect that YMMV. (I probably used that term as I am a lapsed catholic and it was burned into my psyche.)
The player now flashes corruptible/claimable to any fiends out there, he registers evil until he redeems himself. Lots of story potential and something that will enable me as DM to really explore the characters around the table.
OmegaZ
You see Lamashtu as caring about the gnoll pups? I always had her figured as a survival of the fittest/luckiest kind of a god. (Not that I would attack the PC as I did set him up in the first place) I like the night hag idea. Have you got a good name?

![]() |

The whole 'mortal' sin thing is my label for actions that will get noticed by the powers that be, and the cold hearted killing of two innocents will do that, although I respect that YMMV. (I probably used that term as I am a lapsed catholic and it was burned into my psyche.)
I guess next time he can horribly disfigure the pups so they will be unable to hurt others. Or leave them alone and defenseless to starve slowly or be eaten by wild beasts. Death is more of a mercy. If he killed them quickly, it is alot less evil than abandoning them, disfiguring them, or something else more sinister.

![]() |

Lamashtu
Lamashtu all the way, for the roleplay aspect of it. And ESPECIALLY if you still use Yeenoghu as the Demon-Lord of Gnolls.
Or you could create an Fiend Lord, arch-enemy of Gnolls, maybe a LE Fiend with an affinity for dogs and so hates gnolls -- or a LE Fiend that hates dogs and so hates gnolls, depending on your perspective. Alocer, for example is the Infernal Duke of beasts.

DM Klumz |

I guess next time he can horribly disfigure the pups so they will be unable to hurt others. Or leave them alone and defenseless to starve slowly or be eaten by wild beasts. Death is more of a mercy. If he killed them quickly, it is alot less evil than abandoning them, disfiguring them, or something else more sinister.
Or perhaps he could have taken them with him? IMHO death would only be a mercy if he had found the pups already maimed in some way. I do not think you can claim as a humane killing, gnoll pups you had already maimed.
Ray
I like your idea of a demon Lord of Canidae who is miffed with Lamashtu having lost hyenas and their ilk to the goddess.
Astral
Some good names and I loved the last.
So far we have a night hag in pole position, closely followed by Rover/Rex/whatever the demon Lord of Canidae.
Anyone got suggestions for diabolic fiend?

Heaven's Agent |

Or perhaps he could have taken them with him? IMHO death would only be a mercy if he had found the pups already maimed in some way. I do not think you can claim as a humane killing, gnoll pups you had already maimed.
But if you say the only good or neutral path would have been to spare the pups, then you are not allowing your character to play his or her concept. You as a GM allowed your player to create this character, so you should not be putting the character into situations that could potentially punish the player for those choices.
Now, as to the question, you've posted it in the wrong forum. Golarion's powers that be do not recognize any sort of "mortal sin" concept. As such, you are no longer playing in the Pathfinder Campaign Setting. In Golarion, there would likely be no retribution or reaction from divine entities for this action. The character is an established gnoll killer, and even follows a deity that wouldn't disapprove of such behavior. To have a fiend take an interest in the character due to this one action is unlikely; consider the number of creatures and humanoids that perform similar or even more atrocious actions, many of them much, much more frequently. Most of these individuals do not garner the attention of darker-aligned powers, so there's no reason for these powers to be interested in this single incident.
Additionally, a neutral character that normally performs good actions should be able to undertake the occasional evil action without having that action impact his or her alignment. Further, in Golarion a player character does not "ping" evil as a result of an action unless it actually results in the character's alignment shifting on that axis.

DM Klumz |

Icyshadow
Long story short: I set up a situation for the party gnoll killer that led him to slaughter two gnoll pups. In my opinion (and pretty much that of the whole table) this act was not justifiable and so there shall be consequences. However, because it WAS a set up, these consequences shall not take the form of 'punishment' but a side story where a fiend of somekind takes an interest in the character. I posted here for ideas about which type of fiend it may be.
Heaven's Agent
Let me make something clear - rest assured the player in question is not going to be 'punished'. That would be a dick move on my part as a DM, and I like to think I stopped being that kind of a DM a long time ago (my players may beg to differ). Becoming the centre of attention for a side story would probably be viewed as a 'reward' in some circles.
You make the assertion that Golarion's powers do not recognise mortal sin. Really? I fully admit that I have hardy even brushed the surface of Golarion as far as reading goes (my two kids have killed any free time I used to have), but nothing I have read gave me that impression. IMHO it would be such a shame if what your are saying is true. My interpretation of Calistria would not have her claim credit for the killing of the gnoll pups. Gnolls that can 'bark' back are fair game, new born pups, no. She is CN, not CE.
And yes, of course Jo Average would not draw attention for performing one such action, but hey, the PCs ARE the story, they are embarked on a course of action whose failure will have significant consequences (Legacy of Fire), so I do think it justifiable their actions will draw attention.
Fully agree with your occasional evil action comment (even the good can do it sometimes), however, this was infanticide.

Icyshadow |

Aaah, an interesting situation and clearly a good twist to the usual "kick the player in the balls" approach.
I'd reccomend a demon of some sort, since most Gnolls venerate Lamashtu and the goddess herself seems to consider the little buggers to be her favourite race. However, since this was a murder scenario, I can somehow see it attracting the attention of the demon lord Shax, who's portfolio is murder. Lastly, some gnolls do venerate Rovagug instead, this being the case at least with one tribe in Katapesh if I recall right.
So if you ask me, depending on which being's servants gain interest, consider these options I picked up from the Pathfinder Wiki.
Shax: An unusually powerful Babau demon, a general of the demon lord maybe? Just add Rogue levels and a name.
Rovagug: Any strong demon would do, I think. Same idea as the above, just pick one, give it a name and go to town with it.
Lamashtu: Maybe Bloodmaw (an advanced yeth hound) or one of the Yaenit (basically chaotic evil Hound Archons with hyena heads)

DM Klumz |

Icy Shadow
So you are thinking that QQ (I am really pants with names so any help would be good) a general of Lamashtu has taken notice of poor old 'Lone Death'. (This is how the PC is known among the gnoll tribes of the Brazen Peaks as he does most of his gnoll hunting away from the party.)
What would QQ want?
Any further ideas (and a name?)

Icyshadow |

The demon might not necessarily be that high in rank, though I think the main thing is that this demon might be curious about the severity of the sin committed, and of course Lamashtu is a maternal deity and would be pretty ticked off seeing "her babies" getting killed, though I think Rovagug might feel the same way about his spawn (somehow I doubt that). I also just looked it up that Yeth Hounds are a mere CR 3 (Bloodmaw would thus be CR 4 in that case unless given some extra Hit Dice or more templates than just the Advanced template, like the Giant template) while Hound Archons are CR 4 (and the Yaenit can be made easily by twisting the alignment to Chaotic Evil and replacing all the Holy spells with Unholy ones)
As for a name, how about Balruga? I could get a better one given time, though some of the names Astral gave earlier look good too.

DM Klumz |

The demon does not have to be that high rank to do Lamashtu's bidding. As a matter of fact, making it matched to just above the power of 'Lone Death' presents a rather interesting situation.
The rest of the party do not know what 'Lone Death' has done. If the demon is pitched just right it could lead to a situation where 'Lone Death' may enlist their aid to deal with said demon. He will of course then have to explain why he is being pestered in the first place...

Icyshadow |

Well, at least we agree that they don't need to be very high-ranked servants. Then again, I have no idea how high-level (or how famous) "Lone Death" is. I'm also not sure of how high-ranked Bloodmaw or the Yaenit are either (they've only been mentioned a few times, so I think they want the DM to fill in the needed details judging from their relative power in-game).
What I do know is that Lamashtu's herald is the Yethazmari, and he's CR 15. However, I couldn't imagine her sending her herald just for this one guy unless he's a really big shot. In that case, he should be prepared for a pretty horrific attack...

Heaven's Agent |

You make the assertion that Golarion's powers do not recognise mortal sin. Really? I fully admit that I have hardy even brushed the surface of Golarion as far as reading goes (my two kids have killed any free time I used to have), but nothing I have read gave me that impression. IMHO it would be such a shame if what your are saying is true. My interpretation of Calistria would not have her claim credit for the killing of the gnoll pups. Gnolls that can 'bark' back are fair game, new born pups, no. She is CN, not CE.
You would need to look for instances where Golarion's deities do recognize some form of "mortal sin" concept, instances that are absent from the setting except for truly heinous acts usually perpetrated against deities directly. You have to realize that Golarion's greater powers try not to take a direct role in mortal affairs. That's how Aroden got killed.
Though Calistria wouldn't care to claim credit for the pups' death, she wouldn't be likely to disapprove of it, either. She is a neutral deity, and as such supports evil individuals joining her clergy as well as the good; she's not CE, but she welcomes clerics that are. She's not going to bat an eye at such an act, especially if its in keeping with her portfolio.
And yes, of course Jo Average would not draw attention for performing one such action, but hey, the PCs ARE the story, they are embarked on a course of action whose failure will have significant consequences (Legacy of Fire), so I do think it justifiable their actions will draw attention.
It doesn't matter. The PCs may be the story, but the setting does not freely give that importance. PCs become the focus of the story because their action place them in that role, not on the basis of being PCs alone. If the character makes a habit of killing babies, then you might have something to work with. If the babies had been promised to a demon or devil, then that being may decide may take the attack personally (though the act could then have been argued as a mercy killing). But unless a PC does something that would clearly throw up a red flag to the powers that be, there should be no action taken. That is not the case here as you've described. Unless every baby killer warrants fiendish attention, then your PC should not either.
Fully agree with your occasional evil action comment (even the good can do it sometimes), however, this was infanticide.
Unless the act pushed the character into an evil alignment, it doesn't matter. You're the only one that can determine if the act was sufficient to do so, but unless a character's alignment is actually evil, he does not detect as evil. This is true not only within the setting, but in the core game itself; the system you're utilizing is a house rule, and as such not really a topic that should be debated here.