*Crafts magic circle* italicus threadus dotus
*a creature appears in the circle. a round, black creature.*
I command you by the nine blades of Brian, Dot this thread!
*The creature flinches, an impressive feat for what amounts to a black sphere.*
I COMMAND YOU!
*the creature rasps* 'it is done' *then fades from existance.*
Thank you Ashiel for sharing the 101 on planar binding, the bestow curse thing might be a little problem due to the touch part but there are a few way to circumvent that, one of them being having your cleric buddy go into the circle and cast bestow curse.
Qustion:
There isn't anything preventing me from offering the following deal to a demon right? "Serve me loyally for 2 years" other than the demon getting a +4 or +6 to the charisma check right?
You would probably have to list what the serving will include.
You would probably have to list what the serving will include.
I don't think that it is neccesary but if the DM wants me to then sure, but i will be sure to include what to do when not doing anything of the listed things.
I did not know you had a list. I probably missed the post.
I did not know you had a list. I probably missed the post.
I don't understand you, you are the one who spoke of a list. Maybe it's my english but can you explain to me what you meant with this post?
no. sorry for the confusion.
Qustion:
There isn't anything preventing me from offering the following deal to a demon right? "Serve me loyally for 2 years" other than the demon getting a +4 or +6 to the charisma check right?
The fact that the spell does not last that long. After the spell ends, you've got a demon in the Material Plane with a possible grudge and no further reason to care about your deal.
Ask it to serve you for the duration of the spell, then go home. Reapply new iterations of the spell as necessary.
Qustion:
There isn't anything preventing me from offering the following deal to a demon right? "Serve me loyally for 2 years" other than the demon getting a +4 or +6 to the charisma check right?The fact that the spell does not last that long. After the spell ends, you've got a demon in the Material Plane with a possible grudge and no further reason to care about your deal.
Ask it to serve you for the duration of the spell, then go home. Reapply new iterations of the spell as necessary.
The planar binding has instantaneous as the listed duration, so i can't have a bound outsider serve me for more than a few moments.......
Something doesn't sit well with me with that.
Note that the spell states:
If you assign some open-ended task that the creature cannot complete through its own actions, the spell remains in effect for a maximum of 1 day per caster level
I am certain any GM is well within his rights to apply this rule when a player tries to get an unusually large amount of service time from the called being.
Note that the spell states:If you assign some open-ended task that the creature cannot complete through its own actions, the spell remains in effect for a maximum of 1 day per caster levelI am certain any GM is well within his rights to apply this rule when a player tries to get an unusually large amount of service time from the called being.
How exactly is serving loyally for a pre-determined defined amount of time counts as an open-ended task that the creature cannot complete through its own actions?
The task isn't open-ended and the creature certainly has the power to complete it, so why is this clause invoked?EDIT: And if the loyally part causes problem with a creature's chaotic nature (i don't believe it does but one could argue that), we could always go with a huge list of things for the creature to do and don't do (essentially creating an algorithm)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Angels appear pretty similar in all practical regards, and in fact better at most practical events. Planetars require secret information on the motions of evil. Ok, so most parties happen to fight
evil. "Hey, Angel. Here's this secret evil we found. Now kill it for us." RAW, this works for it. The angel is appeased by the information, which is information the party already has by just being the party, and does a job it wants to do anyway, for the party. Even if the Angel somehow refuses, it is a being of good and is very unlikely to become violent for no reason. If summoned and not offered the best sacrifice, it would likely just leave. It's good, after all. If a Paladin is offered 50 gold to get a macguffin, it doesn't kill the offerer. It probably does the task anyway. Buteat the very least, he just leaves.Now do this with a Glabrezu. First, Demons want to kill you. To simply get it to the state angels naturally are, of mild indifference, you need to feed it a huge secret about lawful or good society, something most adventuring parties probably don't have need to learn or investigate. It may come up, but it's less common that finding evil to vanquish. Ok, so your bargaining chip is already more rare. Then, you have to get it to agree to fight for you, yadda yadda. It still may be vengeful and whatever. It's late, I'm tired.
Point is, demons have HUGE drawbacks, high costs of labor, and always want to kill you.
Angels are generally NOT going to want to kill you, and ask for things as sacrifices you probably want to do anyway. Like, breaking the evil macguffin on telling them secrets you already know, that also benefit you.
So, why would anyone summon the less predictable, less useful, and more expensive demons in any practical situation? What about a neutral person? Why would even they be more inclined to summon an angel than have both options be just about even?
I feel this should be strongly fixed, to make binding demons more practical, or making binding angels more...
Well back to the original question for a moment, just because it's an angel and is flagged as lawful good DOES NOT mean there is anything nice, cuddly or even friendly about it. They are living embodiments of their alignment and totally devoted to exercising the tasks given to them by their deity.
Going only by the biblical history of their actions they are well known for blatantly murdering entire cities of people, raping and murdering virgins, delivering curses on devout followers, and slaughtering any innocent party that gets in the way of them completing their mission.The best quotes I've seen regarding what angels really are like came from the movie Prophecy
Did you ever notice how in the Bible, when ever God needed to punish someone, or make an example, or whenever God needed a killing, he sent an angel? Did you ever wonder what a creature like that must be like? A whole existence spent praising your God, but always with one wing dipped in blood. Would you ever really want to see an angel?
or from Gabriel (Christopher Walken doing his best scene-chewing role in a while)
I'm an angel. I kill firstborns while their mamas watch. I turn cities into salt. I even, when I feel like it, rip the souls from little girls, and from now till kingdom come, the only thing you can count on in your existence is never understanding why.
Interfering with an Angel in the middle of completing a task he's been assigned is like playing chicken with a rabid bull hopped up on PCP while wearing a red cape and eating a steak.
Wish you luck./edit: oh and as we learned in the Dexter Morgan Paladin? thread, Lawful Good doesn't mean you're not a ravening madman content to kill everything that makes it onto your list.
How exactly is serving loyally for a pre-determined defined amount of time counts as an open-ended task that the creature cannot complete through its own actions?
The task isn't open-ended and the creature certainly has the power to complete it, so why is this clause invoked?EDIT: And if the loyally part causes problem with a creature's chaotic nature (i don't believe it does but one could argue that), we could always go with a huge list of things for the creature to do and don't do (essentially creating an algorithm)
Because one, the terms of service are open-ended as to what the creature will have to wind up doing. Two, the creature can't complete time constraints with their own actions, time just goes on its own. And finally three, "I am the GM, and that is how long it lasts."
@Lincon Hills
I can understand that (although i don't agree), that's why i said to make a list of things to do and not do.
@Malfus
For the first one, that's what a list is made for (again i see how that can be viewed as open ended, i even checked the definition of open-ended task but i still don't agree with the definition*).
For the second, are you saying that a creature can't complete time constraints with their own actions and powers right? they can't complete time constraints with their existance (literally passing his time**)?
Then surely you can't have a bound creature go steal something for you if it takes more time to do so than your caster level right? after all being able to steal something is the inability of the owener to hold onto it right?
For the third, so you make a house rule for the spell, understandable and acceptable, even if i wasn't aware of that rule before the game starts***, i excpect of course to be able to replay my last actions or, if that's can't be done, at the very least for this spell to work like that for every one else in the game world and not just for me (the player) and of course made the required changes for the rest of the world and the game, because i am sure that you can understand that such a house rule on that line of spells is going to bring quite a few changes to the campaign world as a setting and in the case of a pre-written adventure it might require the re-writing of whole encounters or even dungeons and even bring a few changes to home game if the DM has planned long ahead in the game.
*it's probably a translation thing, open-ended translates differently in my laguage than it's definitation in english.
**i am not sure i got the translation right on this one, i mean spending his time doing something, anything
***i know that things might pop up that the DM either hasn't though of or hasn't enountered in the past and needs to make a house rule after the game has started
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
The reason you bind evil outsiders instead of good outsiders is because binding is slavery. Enslaving demons seems a lot more morally palatable than enslaving angels. Either one is dangerous, however, especially since trying to enslave an angel would probably cause it to consider you part of the other team.
The reason you bind evil outsiders instead of good outsiders is because binding is slavery. Enslaving demons seems a lot more morally palatable than enslaving angels. Either one is dangerous, however, especially since trying to enslave an angel would probably cause it to consider you part of the other team.
You could always use planar binding without magic circle against good when summoning angels and not cast dimensional anchor on them if you win initiative. That way they aren't enlsaved, they are free to go anytime they wish, you just ask them nicely to help you. Sure it's not very safe but it can be done.
To add to Lincoln Hill's example someone told a demon to bring them some food to cook, and was basically treating it like an errand boy. The demon kill a local farmer's cow and brought it back.
PS:I think the above situation was hypothetical, but it came up in another thread similar to this one a while back.
RD I am confused. What are you trying to say? I am being serious.
That is not lose/lose. You just can't have opened ended statements. Now if the GM twist the intent of what you are trying to convey that is different.
As an example "serve me loyally" would get you in trouble. That is not the GM screwing you over. That is the player trying to be nonspecific when the spell wants to be specific and having to deal with it.
"Server me loyally" is so non-specific that I would think the player was trying to game the system.
That is not lose/lose. You just can't have opened ended statements. Now if the GM twist the intent of what you are trying to convey that is different.
As an example "serve me loyally" would get you in trouble. That is not the GM screwing you over. That is the player trying to be nonspecific when the spell wants to be specific and having to deal with it.
"Server me loyally" is so non-specific that I would think the player was trying to game the system.
Meh. I don't see much point. I mean, if you just keep screwing over players by forcing all planar bindings to be carefully constructed worded contracts, well...first you're eliminating the powerful Chaotic Evil badass NPCs/PCs who use their wills to break stuff; which is essentially what the entire thing is - a test of wills; and secondly, you're just asking them to go about it a different way.
Ok, binding a succubus just doesn't work. Sure, it was flavorful, thematic, and really cool, but for some reason my GM keeps biting me on the ass for not having a 7 page contract signed in blood or something. Screw succubi, I'm done with them. Instead, I shall simulacrum a terrasque who obeys me without question.
To be fair, look at it from the demon’s point of view. Suppose you’re hanging out in the Abyss, gleefully ripping the innards out of Dretches, when you suddenly get caught by a Planer Binding spell.
Next thing you know, you’re stuck in a magic circle and some shrimpy mortal, with the same CR as you, is demanding that “you” serve “him.” If that's not bad enough, you’re not allowed to twist the heads off any annoying villagers, you can’t keep anything you stole and the lousy cheapskate wants you to work for free. All of this because you flubbed one lousy Charisma check.
At least when you go for one of those Planer Ally spells, you get something back in return. I’m telling you, not many demons (or PCs) could resist the urge twist the terms of the deal a deal like that murder the sniveling little twerp first chance they got.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Outside the game, as a GM, I prefer that the game be about the PCs themselves and not about the creatures that they summon. If a PC wants to play someone who summons stuff, I don't want to nerf them -- but I want to keep the focus on the character and not on the bound creature.
In-game, the trick with summoning is to summon creatures to do things they want to do anyway. They're still dangerous and nasty, but they're less likely to resist and less determined to totally screw you over. Predicting what they want, and having it available, helps greatly. (Generally I prefer that people roleplay the more powerful encounters, or the smarter creatures -- if you're just summoning elementals, or stupid-brute types, it's more a matter of beating down their will, but a Captain of the Legions of Hell is probably open to negotiating -- and if you just try to beat down his will, you're implying he's nothing more than a brute. This is an insult in itself... And of course the Captain's General or Duke may take offense at the removal of one of his more important servitors at a critical moment...)
With greater power comes greater danger. And smarter creatures are more likely to outsmart the summoner. So _be careful_ and don't call anything you can't put down.
Sixty-six page contracts signed in blood are more the devil thing than the demon thing.
Note that betrayal may not be immediate. A devil in particular will be willing to play the long game in hopes of eventually getting the summoner to keep calling him, keep relying on his advice, keep influencing him, and eventually grabbing the mortal's soul (either directly or by corrupting them.) Of course, if they get sufficiently irritated they may forget the whole long-term thing and go for avenging their offended pride.
And, yes, open-ended service ("do whatever I say for X days") doesn't work in my campaign. It's like meta-wishes: you're not allowed to wish for more wishes, and your one service per summoning can't be "give me lots of services". You could do something like "be my bodyguard for X days" or "kill the orcs attacking my town, bring me all their stuff, and chase any fleeing ones beyond the horizon." A reasonably coherent task grouping would work.
Meh. I don't see much point. I mean, if you just keep screwing over players by forcing all planar bindings to be carefully constructed worded contracts, well...first you're eliminating the powerful Chaotic Evil badass NPCs/PCs who use their wills to break stuff; .....That is not lose/lose. You just can't have opened ended statements. Now if the GM twist the intent of what you are trying to convey that is different.
As an example "serve me loyally" would get you in trouble. That is not the GM screwing you over. That is the player trying to be nonspecific when the spell wants to be specific and having to deal with it.
"Server me loyally" is so non-specific that I would think the player was trying to game the system.
That is not what I mean.
The spell is not in from of me, but from what I remember you have to say what you want, and setExamples:
1. I want you to help me fight my enemies for X amount of time is good enough for me that no GM should try to pretend the demon is assuming everyone is an enemy. Specific enough.
2. Do my bidding for the next 10 days might get you in trouble depending on how you treat the demon in question during those 10 days. probably.
edit: Of course then again if you treat the demon badly while it is supposed to fight for you I guess it might "misinterpret" your intentions also.
I guess for the sake of simplicity not being a jerk to the demon should keep you safe, as long as it is still bound.
You need to be more specific. I always specify that it is the SUCCUBUS that is to bite me on my ass.
And she will make sure you enjoy the experience.
*ducks for cover*
Step 1) Bind the biggest nasties demon you can.
Step 2) Trap the soul (gem) with a trigger of "until anyone else opens this (lead lined) box."
Step 3) Giftwrap and place under Nemesis's Christmas tree marked "Do not open till Christmas."
Step 4) Christmas morning get some popcorn and your crystal ball.
Step 5) Enjoy the show.
A soul bind being broken does not bring the demon back to life
That is not lose/lose. You just can't have opened ended statements. Now if the GM twist the intent of what you are trying to convey that is different.
As an example "serve me loyally" would get you in trouble. That is not the GM screwing you over. That is the player trying to be nonspecific when the spell wants to be specific and having to deal with it.
"Server me loyally" is so non-specific that I would think the player was trying to game the system.
Meh. I don't see much point. I mean, if you just keep screwing over players by forcing all planar bindings to be carefully constructed worded contracts, well...first you're eliminating the powerful Chaotic Evil badass NPCs/PCs who use their wills to break stuff; which is essentially what the entire thing is - a test of wills; and secondly, you're just asking them to go about it a different way.
The point is not to screw over the players, as you put it, but a reminder that binding outsiders is something that should never devolve into a casual activity. What you're looking for is a full naildown of what is essentially an open-ended set of activities. For an NPC this is no issue it will work however the GM has scripted it to work.
For PC's it will depend much on a lot of things... the personality and relationships of the summoner and summonee... (The Damiano series of novels comes to mind.) In many ways binding an outsider is like securing any other kind of powerful hireling. Much of it isn't something that the player can confidently nail down for predictable results.
The bolded part emphasizes why I have no desire to screw with PCs, and think it's lame to do so.
For my NPC's I hold them to the same standards as the player. The difference is that my NPC's know what not to do. I think that calling for a knowledge planes check in order to suggest to the PC that his course of action is not a bad idea. None of my casters without ranges in knowledge planes has ever been silly enough to use calling or gating spells. I am not saying it is necessary, but it gives you an idea of what you are dealing with.
PC:I got a pet glabrezu. I am going to make it do tricks for me. <decides to construct giant hoop> <-----exaggeration but the main point is the next sentence
DM:I am going to highly suggest you don't do that. <explains why>
If the player does not know how such things work it becomes just like the paladin issues because of differences in what is expected/allowed.
edit:clarification
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Step 1) Bind the biggest nasties demon you can.
Step 2) Trap the soul (gem) with a trigger of "until anyone else opens this (lead lined) box."
Step 3) Giftwrap and place under Nemesis's Christmas tree marked "Do not open till Christmas."
Step 4) Christmas morning get some popcorn and your crystal ball.
Step 5) Enjoy the show.
I am almost certain that your nemesis would really enjoy his powerful new ally who now hates you almost as much as he does.
I am almost certain that your nemesis would really enjoy his powerful new ally who now hates you almost as much as he does.
Illustrates another annoying point in some games with some DM's.
"YOU OPEN THE DOOR AND THERE IS A DEMON IN THE ROOM AND IT ATTACKS YOU!" is pretty typical, but honestly, why is it attacking me? Did I offend it? Do I have nothing to offer it? Shouldn't it at least try to corrupt me?
Reminds me of the time my party encountered a succubus and cohorts, and was able to uncover her true nature; revealing we knew she was not as she appeared, she mindlessly attacked, never mind we were fully willing to talk exchange of services with her.
Just because you summoned a demon with a binding spell doesn't mean it should immediately try and break free and kill you; its immortal. It can bide its time, talk it out, and if it still feels like, break free and kill you then. There's no reason it should necessarily be rude about it.
Demons(most of them) are smart and should at least try to figure out how strong you are before trying to kill you.
Demons(most of them) are smart and should at least try to figure out how strong you are before trying to kill you.
And if they determine they are at a disadvantage in strength, they should definately talk. I mean, they're immortal if they can avoid a violent death right? Why would they risk combat unless absolutely necessary?
Especially since if they fail, the wizard in question can summon them back expressly to snuff out the previously mentioned immortality.
|
Most of our games treat good and evil as stronger forces than free will in most creatures. It doesn't matter if a goblin, red dragon, or demon has done anything evil or not. All that has to do with is opportunity. They are evil waiting to happen so killing them is always good. If you can make it funny, even better.
This... is a truly disturbing way to view the universe. It does, IMO, change the whole alignment thing from anything truly recognizable as "good" or "evil", to "blue" or "orange". Or, to "Team A" vs. "Team B"-- since both sides prejudge everyone else by which "side" they're on, neither is really good (although they both might be really evil).
|
|
Enchantments spells are also really bad. Charm person can be used to force people to do anything that's not suicidal. "Kill your children." - "B-But my love..." *opposed Charisma check* "Let me get my knife..."
From the description of 'Charm Person' (via the PRD):
This charm makes a humanoid creature regard you as its trusted friend and ally (treat the target's attitude as friendly). If the creature is currently being threatened or attacked by you or your allies, however, it receives a +5 bonus on its saving throw.
The spell does not enable you to control the charmed person as if it were an automaton, but it perceives your words and actions in the most favorable way. You can try to give the subject orders, but you must win an opposed Charisma check to convince it to do anything it wouldn't ordinarily do. (Retries are not allowed.) An affected creature never obeys suicidal or obviously harmful orders, but it might be convinced that something very dangerous is worth doing. Any act by you or your apparent allies that threatens the charmed person breaks the spell. You must speak the person's language to communicate your commands, or else be good at pantomiming.
Depending on the person you've charmed, their alignment and goals... doesn't matter how much of a "trusted friend" you are... There are things you just aren't going to get them to do, at least not as a simple request, opposed Charisma check or not.
The way I'd run it-- unless you gave a truly wonderful explanation for why her children are suddenly a threat to all of humanity and have to be put down for everyone's good (including their own) as part of the request (and made it convincing), telling a mother who loves her kids to kill her own children is an obviously harmful order. I don't care what your charisma check is, you're not going to get her to do it straight up, just because you asked. Now, the order isn't suicidal, and might not be physically harmful, but that kind of order, carried out, is overwhelmingly harmful to the subject's mental and emotional well-being, and I would consider that enough to rule it impossible to achieve with a charm spell.
BTW-- a PC charmed by an NPC (enemy or otherwise) is going to have the same protections against actions that are so far outside the PC's 'moral' code that it becomes overtly harmful to the PC-- if a good PC, who lives his life by his loyalty and support of his companions, is charmed and then told-- "kill your associates for me" (without other explanation why it's necessary and doesn't totally violate every standard he holds dear)-- it ain't gonna fly.
Now, if you dominate someone, that's another matter... but that's also a different spell.
Let's say you have an someone who is willing to kill, but is to afraid to get caught. One day they are presented with an almost foolproof plan so they commit the act. I don't think they became evil at the point they committed the act. They were dedicated to it long before, but were just not confident of the risk/reward ratio until the plan was presented. That is why CW is saying they were already evil.
|
|
For the third, so you make a house rule for the spell, understandable and acceptable, even if i wasn't aware of that rule before the game starts***, i excpect of course to be able to replay my last actions or, if that's can't be done, at the very least for this spell to work like that for every one else in the game world and not just for me (the player) and of course made the required changes for the rest of the world and the game, because i am sure that you can understand that such a house rule on that line of spells is going to bring quite a few changes to the campaign world as a setting and in the case of a pre-written adventure it might require the re-writing of whole encounters or even dungeons and even bring a few changes to home game if the DM has planned long ahead in the game.
I think, after reading this thread, that I'd clarify that bit about "open-ended orders" not lasting more than 1 day per caster level before the binding wears off, into a house-rule stating that that's the time limit on the spell and the contracts you can impose. But, I would make sure players are aware of that and that it does apply to NPCs as well.
However, it would still be possible to negotiate other, longer contracts with summoned outsiders... it just wouldn't be something you can force on them by sheer dominance in a binding spell.
|
|
Let's say you have an someone who is willing to kill, but is to afraid to get caught. One day they are presented with an almost foolproof plan so they commit the act. I don't think they became evil at the point they committed the act. They were dedicated to it long before, but were just not confident of the risk/reward ratio until the plan was presented. That is why CW is saying they were already evil.
That's not the way CW's post reads to me, although I do buy your explanation of why the individual in your example is evil...
On the other hand, using that (he's "evil", without actually having committed a crime) as an excuse to kill someone-- could probably be used as an excuse to wipe out over 50% of the human population... or make any laws applied in the game-world useless, because after all-- if they show up evil on 'detect alignment', kill them... if they don't, we don't need laws to control them because they're good, right?
Being evil is not a crime, so until you commit a crime you can not be killed, at least in most people's games anyway.
I could see a faction of a religion that kills in order to be proactive though.
|
|
Why whould one ever bind a demon?Poor understanding of magic.
Umm... yeah. Basically, what TOZ said.
Or... as others have pointed out:
The problem with summoning/binding good outsiders:
If your group is good and as pure as the wind-driven snow, and is trying to achieve a really good cause... by all means, summon a good outsider and request its assistance.
Otherwise... yeah, good outsiders are only going to willingly assist good parties in the achievement of good causes. Anything flaky, shady, less than totally good in what you want to accomplish-- that good outsider will not willingly help you.
Forcing a good outsider to assist you, is, well, evil, almost by definition (and not just with outsiders-- you're not supposed to forcibly enslave others and make them do your bidding, just because you say so... yes, there's some grey areas and situational issues that can make forcing someone to do something okay under certain circumstances-- but doing it to a summoned good outsider will almost certainly not meet any of the reasonable exceptions to considering this evil). Good outsiders are team-players, have friends, usually have higher powers who have their backs-- means, you do that to a good outsider, and sooner or later (not quite absolutely certain, but almost) you will pay a heavy price for your misdeeds. Maybe the forces of good will exact from you in some sort of atonement instead of killing you, if you've generally lived a good life... but yeah, you're never getting off the hook for it. Evil outsiders may resent you for binding them, but their friends don't have their backs, and if you're enough of a bada** to bind them in the first place, they may decide to let it go out of fear of what you may do to them if they try to get revenge on you (do NOT count on their 'good will', aka fear of you, if they ever get a chance to slip a figurative knife in your back, somewhere down the years after the binding/forced service incident).
The up-sides of summoning/binding Evil Outsiders:
Evil outsiders, as others have pointed out, are mercenaries. So long as they're getting paid and they get to do "evil", and you don't expose them to certain death, it may not be such a bad deal for them. You're probably already evil if you're dealing with them in the first place, so you don't care that subverting something's free will is usually an evil act. It's easier to intimidate them into not seeking vengeance on their against you afterward.
And (although it's not ultimately a benefit to you), a lot of Demons and Devils (being immortal so long as something doesn't kill them in a 'final' way) take the long view... if you're doing things like summoning and receiving nasty services from demons and devils, why, you're probably evil and you're mortal, which means sooner or later you're going to die, and guess where you're going when that happens?
So there are probably more than a few demons and devils who will help you willingly, because while they're "loyally" serving you, they're also subtly ensuring the continued and deepening corruption of your soul, and getting to corrupt the souls of others in your service while they're at it. Ultimately, considering that the demon is planning to eat your soul when you die... it's long-range, but the demon thinks it's a "win/win" for it all the way around.
Means, while you're in this life (if you're short-sighted and just not thinking about what comes next), it's possible to make a contract with a demon or devil that will reliably meet your needs (although you still have to be very careful about the terms)...
(This is why those NPCs who have summoned demons doing their dirty work, have solid working relationships with their demonic servants-- at least, that's the way I'd run it...)
|
|
Being evil is not a crime, so until you commit a crime you can be killed, at least in most people's games anyway.
I could see a faction of a religion that kills in order to be proactive though.
I think you mean "Until you commit a crime you cannot be killed..."
If so, you and I agree on that. However, CW's post that I was replying to gave the impression that (in the games CW is in) you can kill someone just for being of a nominally-evil race, and possibly just for popping up "evil" on a detect alignment check (no crimes necessary)-- and it's automatically considered a good act because they're "evil". That's what I was calling a disturbing view of the universe.
lol. I meant can not. I will edit that.
I just reread CW's post. Nevermind I don't agree with the way he games if being creature X can over rule free will. The only exception in my games are things with evil or good subtypes.
Hmm... I can think of ONE reason....
Lamashtu Delivery Service!
Of course, the business-savvy wizards will be running TWO companies. The above, and my previously mentioned Asmodean Delivery Service.
In either case, PLEASE REMEMBER TO TIP THE DELIVERY CREATURE!