If a wizard has an evil familiar (for example an imp), would the party paladin have to kill it?
The Wizard in question is not evil.
Just to be clear the intent of having the imp familiar is not to perform evil acts while staying neutral. It actually has to do with the characters history in the campaign, I just don't want to present my characters plot device only to have it murdered in the first session.
No. Paladins are not forced to kill every evil creature they come across. The actual risk is that he'd have to leave the party (or force the familiar out). It requires some good roleplaying to get a paladin to fight alongside a fiend. Of course, this assumes there's no major quest that needs to be completed.
@LazarX - Here's hoping his oath doesn't go that far. I'll just have to investigate ingame to get a good feel for it.
@Kobold - I think it could make for some really good roleplaying and want to stray away from any ultimatums.
That is for the paladin to decide. I would be inclined to say no, the paladin doesn't have to kill something merely because it is evil. As a famaliar the imp should likely be acting in its non-evil master's best intrests (provided they are not mutually exclusive from its own ends). If the imp isn't actively causing harm the paladin should be under no obligation to smite it; in fact, since it is accompanying a mage who is partied with a paladin, it might be forced to help with the greater good, which the paladin may find a suiting enough punishment for being a wicked embodiment of sin.
Alternatively;
Paladin: "Begone, vile creature! I won't allow you to taint our souls by following us so."
Imp: "Fine, sir knight, you'll not see me again!" *Rolls Bluff skill, activate invisibility.*
The paladin gets to think the imp is gone, the imp gets to defy the paladin's wishes- it's a win-win if the paladin doesn't have Knowledge (planes).
I don't understand. I'd think it much more likely that a paladin would want to redeem or convert the imp. Doesn't matter that it's inherently evil. If it can be manipulated into becoming a Good creature by actions and repentance, and perhaps an eventual atonement spell... that's exactly what a paladin would consider the best outcome.
Killing is for when you have no better option. Subverting is much better.
If I were the paladin, I'd make it a goal to convert the imp. I'd also keep a close eye on the wizard in case he/she started acting like the imp.
If it was some sort of creature that was usually evil but could learn and grow, eventually overcoming its base nature, then I would say that’s fine, but not a devil.
As a fiend, it is literally evil that has been distilled, refined and given physical form. If it does any good acts it was only because force was exerted over it, as a ruse to make others relax their guard or to spy for its diabolical overlords.
While it is true that the paladin doesn’t have to smite every single evil creature he sees, I don’t see any reason he would tolerate such an obvious agent of corruption, as small and harmless as they may appear to be.
|
If it were a society game (particularly at a convention), and I were a paladin, I wouldn't kill the creature, but that's mostly hand waving to fit two people's concepts into a group.
Now in a home game, I just don't see the paladin tolerating the imp's existence. I'd need some kind of story based justification for it. Not saying it doesn't exist, but it'd have to be pretty good imo. Of course this is why hopefully people make characters that work well together.
if paladins are forced to kill every single evil creature in the world, "Drizzt" and others will have to run, then.
For example:
I think there are paladins in Korvosa. And they don't enter into the Academy and start to slay everything there. Paladins have to obey law, not only goodness.
the point is evil is not openly embraced in Korvosa. It's not Cheliax, even if it has it origin there. The Sabre Company is not evil, the official church is Abadar, which is not evil, and the city alignment is Lawful Neutral itself. You don't really need to be evil to study in the Academae, and not every Paladin is a Crusading Zealot of "convert or die" attitude. Some might try to be diplomatic, to "correct" people to go to the right way. Not every paladin would burn Afghanistan into ashes and kill everyone who once talked to a Taliban either.
|
I don't think that outsiders with the evil subtype can be non-evil.
couple things on that. In 3.5, Savage Species introduced the idea that an alignment-based creature could undergo a complicated ritual to change its alignment type if it so chooses. It is considered extremely difficult, potentially fatal, and incalculably rare, but there you go...
up to the GM, technically, since they are still "souls" so to speak, and can be converted, but its nearly impossible. There's a higher chance the paladin'll be corrupted, since mortals are far more mutable. Then again, if any character has a chance, it'd be the paladin. Besides, he's already got one step down: the thing is serving a neutral wizard...
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the GM thinks that the conflict could lead to some fun roleplaying and player interaction, then there's no problem.
If the GM thinks that it's likely to turn the campaign into a train wreck of sorts, then he/she could just declare, "In my game, a familiar becomes same alignment as the spellcaster he's tied to".
Then both players could play the characters that they want to play without the need to knock heads.
Whatever makes the game more fun.
I would expect and endorse the paladin killing the imp, or at least trying. An imp isn't just an "evil creature," it's a devil, a physical manifestation of lawful evil.
It would be better off for the imp if it makes use of its ability to take the form of another creature. It will still detect as Evil if it gains enough hitdice (and outsiders ping strongly to Detect Evil) but its mundane form will throw the paladin off.
I would have a very hard time accepting good-aligned characters of any stripe with any ranks in Knowledge (the planes) openly accepting an imp, cacodaemon, or other fiendish familiar accompanying the party. It's not just about the paladin's code of conduct, but about good tolerating evil. It's one thing to tolerate an evil human, or even an evil demi-human such as a drow or a goblin, because all of those are creatures that can, by virtue of thought and action, become other than evil (yes, even the drow in Golarion), but fiends (particularly devils, daemons, and demons) are living embodiments of their alignments, and should be met with hostility as such. As to the lawfulness of attacking such a fiend, few places are going to protect the rights of fiends.
I've had the dilemma of what my character should do about a party member with a fiendish familiar before, and my character was a CG bard. So it's not just a dilemma for the paladin.
... but fiends (particularly devils, daemons, and demons) are living embodiments of their alignments, and should be met with hostility as such.
Just out of curiosity:
Why 'particularly devils, daemons and demons'? What makes you view qlippoth, asura and the like as 'less evil'?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, my wizards pursue Imp familiars with vigor: first available feat after caster level seven and I have one. No stretch, since I typically match the Imp's Lawful/Evil alignment precisely, not the 'one shift away' nonsense. I am unapologetically, if quietly, Lawful/Evil.
That said, it's likely that I, and my Imp, would be able to coexist easily with a Paladin. Here's why:
First, I issue a raft of general instructions to my Imp upon receipt of it; these include simple precautions like 'Maintain the form of [insert beast form here] unless I specifically grant you permission to assume your true form.' 'Speak to no one but me, and no louder than murmuring unless ambient noise would prevent me from hearing; in such a case, use the lowest possible volume for clear communication.' Etc., etc.
This is because I am aware of the mischievous nature of Imps; I am (typically) a rather serious wizard, who has no time for nonproductive antics from my familiar.
Second, long before I qualify for an Improved Familiar, I have added Misdirection to my spell list -- because I tire quickly of having to slay obnoxious paladins who object to my view of morality and ethics. It's much easier to simply cause them to fail at detecting me as evil; Share Spell allows me to grant a similar facility to my familiar. I also go to great lengths to procure Rings of Mind Shielding, so that I can stop casting spells to defend myself from my own party, should I be so unfortunate as to have a paladin in my little band of adventurers (hasn't happened often, I admit, but as Alastor Moody says, 'CONSTANT VIGILANCE!').
One of the joys of Lawful/Evil alignment: planning and discipline go hand-in-hand, and are 'typical' of the L/E persona.
Finally, while I do play an evil character, I play it with a strong emphasis on the "lawful" part of my alignment: group-oriented, helpful, reliable. And as affable as possible (given that I'm not the most charismatic wizard you've ever seen, in all likelihood). Friendly, even. I avoid discussions of religion, pitch in with camp chores (usually have ranks in profession/cook), and do my very best to contribute to the extracurricular goals of party members (as well as my role in adventuring).
The pursuit of power, from an evil perspective, does not have to be two-dimensional and littered with corpses. I classify my character as 'evil' because he is rather ruthless, and unconcerned with harm to strangers -- he avoids harming his friends because (a) they're friends and (b) they won't be as useful if he's crippled them...
TL;DR: A wizard who lets his Imp fly around in its natural form, spewing vitriol at random, kinda deserves what he gets. Those of us with an ounce of sense to go with our pounds of ambition KEEP OUR SECRETS, SECRET. Duh.
I don't understand. I'd think it much more likely that a paladin would want to redeem or convert the imp. Doesn't matter that it's inherently evil. If it can be manipulated into becoming a Good creature by actions and repentance, and perhaps an eventual atonement spell... that's exactly what a paladin would consider the best outcome.
Killing is for when you have no better option. Subverting is much better.
With fiends, there is generally no better option. Nonevil fiends are extraordinarily rare, and a simple detect evil should settle the matter. The weakest dretch is malice incarnate. Kill it or send it on its way if at all possible. But only in dire straits should you fight alongside it.
A nice house rule could be that fiends are less purely evil when bound to a wizard, of course. But by default, RAI and RAW both indicate that this imp is evil, evil, EVIL!
My only response to the several people saying "it can't be done" is that it's sort of a metagamey view. The paladin doesn't get a copy of the bestiary. They know fiends are evil but that doesn't preclude trying to convert a creature. Logically if angels can fall then devils can rise. More, a paladin should be looking for ways to not screw over his non-evil wizard friend. Redemption is the solution that fits best.
I suppose I could see the paladin trying to redeem his wizard friend. After all, neutral =/= good. I can also see an uninformed (or self-deluding) paladin trying to convert the imp. Those are perfectly good roleplaying reasons to stay in the party.
I'm usually not one to say a paladin has to slaughter everything that detects as evil. In fact usually thats a really bad idea.
But with a devil that's a different story.
People keep saying stuff along the lines of "Oh the paladin should find a way to get along with the nice, cute, little imp". Why does noone say "Why the hell does the wizard want to have an imp in a party with a paladin, and then complain that it might cause problems?"
The "respect your fellow players, try to get along and try not to screw them over" goes both ways in this. The wizard can't just do what he wants and expects the paladin to go along.
Noone would think it's a good idea to burn down an orphanage with the paladin watching either, and then say "Oh suck it up, I'm just RPing my character."
My suggestion: Sit down with the DM and the Paladin player (assuming you're the wizard), and discuss the issue before it actually comes up in game. If theres no way you see it working out, get another familiar not an imp.
Also an anternative: Get an item with a constant "Undetectable Alignment" spell on it, and have the imp shapechange into a raven or something. Voila, just a neutral animal now. Of course an anti-magic field might be awkward. :)
Well most responses were along the lines that the Paladin has to change his view on things and the wizard is totally in his right to have an Imp. It's a devil for christ's sake. They're made out of Evil. With a capital E.
Read the paragraph about associating with evil in the paladin class.
And that's about evil characters, thats already a huge problem. Creatures that are basicly the embodyment of evil should be way way worse.
And I agree, there may be a way, I mentioned one. I also said he should sit down with them, instead of asking us here for advice on how he can rules-lawyer his way into having the Imp and the paladin not being allowed to do anything about it.
Well most responses were along the lines that the Paladin has to change his view on things and the wizard is totally in his right to have an Imp. It's a devil for christ's sake. They're made out of Evil. With a capital E.
Not really. Most responses are that the Paladin player has as much right to force the other player what character he can play, as the other way around. Just because someone want's to have a shiny armor and lay on hands, it does not mean he auto-becomes the leader of the group and everyone else has to follow his ethos. PLAYERS have to find a compromise.
... but fiends (particularly devils, daemons, and demons) are living embodiments of their alignments, and should be met with hostility as such.Just out of curiosity:
Why 'particularly devils, daemons and demons'? What makes you view qlippoth, asura and the like as 'less evil'?
I singled out those three because they're the ones I'm most familiar with, and I can safely say they are living embodiments of their alignments. Specific and accurate is better than vague and questionable. That's not to say the others aren't living embodiments of evil too, just that I haven't read enough about them to have that conversation.
I would expect and endorse the paladin killing the imp...Except its not just your character which needs to be considered. The other player with the other PC needs to be considered as well. Everyone deserves to have a fun time. So, it comes down to how to play the 'good vs. evil' thing. That's why I recommended a cartoonish 'Spy vs. Spy' approach.
As far as the player fun at the table is concerned, the players should probably discuss the issue OOC before game start if they think it will be a problem with player fun. Adversarial relationships in-party aren't always bad for the game, they can make for some very cool roleplay. For my part, if I'm in a game with a paladin that doesn't act lawful enough, or good enough, it hurts my experience. I want my party paladin to be played as a hard-ass devout ready to give his all for his code and his faith. He doesn't have to be Judge Dredd (and I wouldn't expect him to be Judge Dredd and still be considered Lawful in most campaigns), but he should at least be Robocop. The distinction being Robocop makes arrests when he can, he doesn't dispense street justice, and he is strictly bound by the laws that were programmed into him when he was built. (This is not a perfect analogy but the best I could think of at the time.) The last campaign I was in had a paladin that had no explicitly stated deity and who seemed more NG or N than LG in his choices and actions. He fell below my expectations.
I don't think it does come down to a simple good vs. evil thing. This isn't PC versus PC alignment, but PC versus monster alignment. It only happens that the monster was brought in by another PC. I'm not saying a paladin and an evil wizard can't be in the same party (though that is it's own can of worms), but I am saying that a paladin and an imp can't be in the same party without some serious explanation. An imp isn't just a creature that does evil or has evil intent, it is a creature that is evil manifest. If the evil wizard doesn't want the paladin or other goody-good character to attack his fiendish familiar then he shouldn't have them in the same room together.
As evil-incarnate the imp is irredeemable, but the goody-good character might try convincing the wizard to take another familiar.
All of this IS dependent on the paladin knowing it is a fiend, of course. If the paladin doesn't know it's a fiend, he can only know it's evil and have to deal with the paladin code of conduct for partying with an evil creature, which can usually be skirted by "teaming up to fight a greater evil," much the same way teaming up with any other evil-aligned character or creature would be.
Well most responses were along the lines that the Paladin has to change his view on things and the wizard is totally in his right to have an Imp. It's a devil for christ's sake. They're made out of Evil. With a capital E.
Read the paragraph about associating with evil in the paladin class.
** spoiler omitted **
And that's about evil characters, thats already a huge problem. Creatures that are basicly the embodyment of evil should be way way worse.And I agree, there may be a way, I mentioned one. I also said he should sit down with them, instead of asking us here for advice on how he can rules-lawyer his way into having the Imp and the paladin not being allowed to do anything about it.
I agree entirely with Quatar. By the time the wizard can get an improved familiar (assuming the campaign begins prior to level 7), the paladin already is a staple member of the party. On the one hand, if a paladin can't coexist with players who aren't also lawful good, the paladin is probably either being played wrong or else is in a campaign unsuitable for a paladin. On the other hand, coexisting with the party goes for everyone equally. The guy who wants to play the monstrous race, the mentally unstable spell caster, the creator of undead, the kleptomaniac, and so on all need to make sure that their characters are going to fit with the group. If the Wizard wants an improved familiar and the imp wouldn't fit in the party, he aught to pick something else, like a mephit.
A couple points: getting an Imp familiar is likely going to upset somebody in a party with good-aligned characters, and not just paladins. Good clerics, oracles, and inquisitors, good druids and rangers (especially those with evil or lawful outsiders as a favored enemy), most cavaliers, and celestial bloodline sorcerers would also have especially have strong objections to a fiend.
There is an inherent difference between killing a devil (or a demon, or other evil outsider) on sight than a drow, an orc, or a goblin. Those races are "usually evil." An evil outsider is always evil--it is an inherent part of their nature. It is subject to a DMs interpretation whether they even could be redeemed.(And if so, by what means? A miracle or wish to even attempt it?)It would not be a high DC knowledge check to know that the "job" of an Imp is to corrupt mortals. Any paladin with a wisdom score of at least 10 would surely realize that attempting to redeem the Imp would be a difficult process, and the longer the Imp was around the wizard, the wizard would be subject to its corruption. To protect the party from the Imp's influence, its destruction would be necessary as a safety measure, from the perspective of any character acting within a good alignment who knew what an imp was.
*Edit: One additional note: most paladins, clerics, cavaliers and such would function within an order or other hierarchical organization in which they could seek counsel or information on the subject. Further, any number of NPCs would recognize an Imp for what it was. Even if disguised, sooner or later, it is logical they'll come across an NPC who inspects them with true seeing or similar magic, blowing the imp's cover. The wizard's secret would not likely stay secret forever.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
amusingly a quasit might be more likely to be redeemed that an imp.
Quasits are unusual in that they are one of the few demon types that do not form directly from larvae. Instead, they manifest when a spellcaster performs the ritual of acquiring one as a familiar, which he does by severing a tiny fragment
of his own soul to serve as the quasit’s genesis.
So while the Abyss is evil, the spark that creates the quasit isn't (always) evil, so it might be able to be redeemed.
Back to the familiar imp, an option might be to make the imp match the wizard's alignment.