Here's what I'm saying about this. The latter part is a story reason to justify a RAW presumption. And that's fine. But there's nothing in RAW to even come close to suggesting that.
There is the line Treasure: Standard. Which is a very relevant piece of RAW. There's a difference between adjusting the world to fit to the RAW and adjusting the rules to fit to the world. In a real game, I much prefer the latter, but if we're arguing a rules-based world, an individual efreet has about 3k of gold worth of treasure.
My explanation was just an "how would the story explain the RAW?", not "how can I make the RAW fit my argument?".
For some reason, according to RAW, efreeti can have access to almost unlimited wishes, but for some reason, according to RAW, they don't have much wealth. If you want to build a rules-based world it's your job as a DM to explain it - just like you have to explain why you can't see a monster tall as a skyscraper from a distance of 500 ft. What I'm doing is akin to saying "there's a constant impenetrable fog in this world" - not using the story to change how the rules work, but just fluffing up the rules that don't make sense.
I'm with you that I wouldn't build a world like that, because like many parts of following the RAW it would really mess up the world. I think the efreeti by RAW is a completely broken creature, and that one should either houserule it or build the world around the RAW, not handwave it's abilities and making it stupid enough to have the ability but not use it. I think it's bad to say that "well, efreeti can grant true wishes but regardless of the alignment they don't use it for their benefit" - it's broken in the same way as "they can have infinite wealth but doesn't", just that personally I think it's worse (and while "they don't have infinite wealth" is clearly stated in the rules, "they don't use their wishes" isn't).
I think saying "efreeti don't use wish slaves" should be paired with saying "because for some reason, efreeti can't grant true wishes" and then make the rules whatever you want them to be. I do think that a player that argues that she should be allowed to use planar binding to get cheap wishes from an efreeti, with the argument "the rules allow it", should not complain if she's killed by the efreeti's companions, "because the rules allow it". I might give a warning, supposing she's trained in knowledge (the planes), but then again characters aren't supposed to know the bestiary.
|
it's obvious to get a couple of slaves that you force to wish what you want (that's what's referred to as "wish-slaves")... which is pretty much what you ere talking about in LoF, Diego.
You should have played a different version of "The last wish" from the one I have. Willing collaborators are very different from slaves.
I think if an Efreet had Wish Slaves it would probably be like the Evil Genie from "Sins of the Precursors".
He treats the Slaves well and protects them. Then they will make wishes for him. Though he is a High Ranking member of his society.
Most of his wishes are for frivolous things. When he gets bored with them he gives them to the Humanoids he keeps.
Diego:
Ilja: than... have we been talking past each other this whole time?
Ilja: than... have we been talking past each other this whole time?
I think you two have been...
Heh. Fun times. :)
Heh. Fun times. :)
No Comment...
Diego:
** spoiler omitted **Ilja: than... have we been talking past each other this whole time?
Partly, maybe. You seemed (and seem) to be arguing that players should be allowed to do this because the rules do not prohibit it, and I'm saying that if that's the reason the DM has every ability to prevent it through following the rules. That's what I meant in my original post:
"The planar binding method is however VERY much open to DM interpretation and allowance, without any house rules needed, so it's an unsure bet."
Than yes, we are talking past each other. :)
EDIT: to be clear, I'm sorry about misinterpretation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But the Knowledge of the creatures in the bestiary exists in the world so technically the Character does have access to the Bestiary.
If a player expects something from the Bestiary and instead gets something much more powerful than the Bestiary, that's more or less a dirty trick on the GMs part.I will completely disagree here. If a player expects something from the bestiary, he is metagaming and should stop it. His character doesn't have access to the bestiary and won't know this.
Does this apply to class abilities, skills, spells, and weapons and armor too? Certainly not! If changes are going to be in the game, whatever they are, the player needs to know. I'm not saying you have to detail every little thing, but tell the players in advance that things are not like they would necessarily expect and give some broad strokes so they know what they're getting into.
Some amount of metagaming is to be expected. Gygax's style actually encouraged this style of metagaming (explaining it as player's being good at a game v. players being bad at a game; also he discouraged metagaming in other areas). While I oft disagree with the man, the fact that this is the style of play for the father of Roleplaying should indicate that metagaming isn't the worst sin possible in an TTRPG: making the game unfun and unplayable is.
Even if a player doesn't own a bestiary, there's d20pfsrd.com, there's the prd, and there's precedent from previous editions (which, despite the change in stats, are often nearly identical in CR) - any of which could 'accidentally' give a player metagame knowledge that they might unconsciously use in character. And what if they've been GMs themselves? They will naturally and unconsciously expect certain things!
In-character, there's no reason for something like Tomb of Horrors to have been defeated by nothing but an endless stream of henchmen (as it was in Gygax's game). Out of character, though, that makes excellent sense (and was considered a valid tactic).
Of course, all of this depends on the group. In any event, you'll want to tell your players, "Hey, guys, we're not playing by the normal rules" and/or "You're going to potentially run into things that you can't at all handle. Also, if you try munchkiny tricks, you'll have your head handed to you because there will be repricussions in the game world."
So, you know: talk with your players.
Also, Ilja, to clarify a bit more: players have every right to do what they want within the rules, but they need to understand the campaign setting they're in. A GM can do whatever they want anyway, so simply upping the difficulty without first informing the players is a dirty trick, and can completely derail any world rapidly. So you know, we're not entirely in disagreement - it just seems you tend to land on the 'punish players for impudence' and I tend to land on 'hey, that's clever, so sure why not?'.
More on-topic, while Diego posted the rules of Fabricate (which does, I admit, specify that it transmutes stuff), it's interesting that Wish can ignore up to 10k gold worth of material components to produce an effect (the material components being what's transmuted into the final product of Fabricate). How do people interpret this? I actually do interpret it as Wish being able to make 10k gold worth of stuff: that actually makes sense to me and seems to fit with the flavor and intention of Wish being - you know - a Wish. With anything more expensive than 10k, of course, Wish (the spell-like ability) wouldn't be cost-effective; and wish the spell requires 25k in any event, so you're basically just losing 15k for no reason that way. Seems to work in a fairly balanced manner to me (though, of course, there are exploits).
Also, how many people use the GMG variant of Wish, older 3.X variants of Wish, or other similar things?
GMG Variant?
johnlocke90: So you're saying that a player should be able to summon an efreeti (planar binding) and not know anything about it? I'm not actually trying to be unpleasant (though I know it can look that way), I'm really trying to understand what your position is.
Azaelas Fayth: the GMG (my colloquial way of referencing the Game Mastery Guide) suggests (but does not rule):
The monstrous four-armed demon spoke in a surprisingly pleasant tenor voice. “And what, pray tell, is it you so desire?” Setiyel paused, steeling his resolve. “I wish suffering for my family, tenfold for each wrong visited upon myself. I wish the lord mayor’s daughter and rank, and his head resting beneath my boot. I wish for such wealth that even a Qadiran merchant would weep with envy.” The demon’s laugh boomed throughout the cavern. “Is that all, little one? I expected ambition.”
More so than almost any other ability, wish and its cousin miracle have the potential to drastically change a campaign. When your players reach the upper echelons of the game at 15th level and beyond, you should consider whether or not you want to allow your players access to wishes, as even if they can’t buy them, they’ll soon enough be able to cast the wish spell themselves. The easiest way to control wish is to restrict it to those options listed in the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook. None of these uses are game-breaking. However, by expanding the boundaries of wish and miracle, you open up roleplaying and story opportunities that can keep your high-level game fresh and exciting for many adventures to come.
Types of Wishes: One of the first boundaries to set is whether or not all wishes are created equal, and have similar constraints. Treating all wishes the same has the virtues of consistency and simplicity, and helps keep your game under control. Having a hierarchy of wishes gives fodder for the story in your game, letting PCs alter their local reality with their wishes, but leaving the option of seeking out higher powers to grant the wishes spoken of in legends. A suggested hierarchy is wishes from spells or magic items, followed by miracle, wishes granted by artifacts and relics, wishes granted by powerful outsiders like the efreet and djinn, and finally those wishes bestowed directly by gods and other entities beyond mortal ken.
Making Good Wishes: The best wishes are short, unambiguous, related to matters immediately at hand, and usually aimed at a simple (if powerful) task. A wish for a sundered mirror of mental prowess to be made whole or a wish to reveal the identity of the thief of the crown jewels is unlikely to go awry.
Making Bad Wishes: Wishes born of greed or vengeance have a way of turning sour. Attempts to guard against mishap with a list of conditions and qualifiers are rarely successful, most often resulting in partial fulfillment of the wish. Wishes that stretch the limits of the power granting them are always ill advised. If the wish is from a spell or magic item, failure or backlash is likely, while if the wish is from an outside source, the granter of the wish may be angered by mortal temerity and twist the wish or otherwise seek retribution against the wisher. Twisting Wishes: Folklore is filled with tales of wishes gone awry, bringing heartbreak, misery, and perhaps eventually wisdom to the hapless wisher. The wishes most likely to be perverted away from the wisher’s intent are wishes granted by hostile outsiders, wishes from cursed objects, and bad wishes as described above. Evil outsiders in particular are loath to grant wishes that don’t serve evil ends, and take every opportunity to twist them toward harm and suffering. A wish for eternal life may leave the wisher imprisoned in a decrepit yet still undying body. A wish for a powerful magic item can be granted by stealing the item from a powerful and vengeful lord. Wishes are best turned awry by adhering closely to the letter of the wish, but violating the spirit.
Deferred Results: Rather than denying a particularly powerful wish, such as for the throne of a kingdom, the wish can be granted over an extended period. The wish subtly reshapes reality, guiding the wisher through seeming coincidence, good fortune, and the timely appearance of helpful NPCs. Success is not assured unless the PC takes advantage of her opportunities.
So, that's the GMG Variant. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I know what the GMG is. We have talked before. I just didn't realize it mentioned Wishes...
Setiyel really made a horrible wish...
He is technically a part of his own family.
So he wants to be the Lord Mayor's Daughter.
And whose head did he want?
And the Wealth has to come from somewhere.
If it had been a Reward Wish from a G outsider it might be granted (over time) as intended. Well except for the head part.
For a Good wish:
-I wish for my Masterwork Longsword to be enchanted with a +2 enhancement.
-I wish for enough raw Iron Ore to make 5 Masterwork Longswords.
Does that answer the request?
Yeah, Setiyel was not showing off a high wisdom score there.
As far as the "GMG means Game Mastery Guide", I just don't know what people know and don't with all the acronyms around this place, so, if there's any question, I try not to assume and tend to over-answer any potential point of query someone might have.
EDIT: I have no idea what "probably" was supposed to mean there.
To each their own.
I wouldn't personally enjoy playing in a game like you describe, as it unduly (in my view) punishes a player who does learn things either incidentally or on purpose. Since it seems like it would lessen the fun over-all (for me), it feels like a pretty dirty trick, if there was no warning.
Of course, you're warning me from the onset that I can't use those presumptions, so it might be fine nonetheless. :)
I might throw on a few class levels or a Template but only for some specific creature.
As I said, to each their own. It's possible that we've just been molded by our experiences inside (or even outside) of the game bringing us to different conclusions.
If, as a player, you simply sat me down, talked to me briefly like you're doing now, and explaining the things you are, I'd get the idea and go with it and consider it completely fine. I'd look forward to the surprises! Forewarned is forearmed and all that.
If, on the other hand, you said nothing and presumed that I would presume that this would be 'normal' and it's not, and my PC gets killed because of it... well, that just wouldn't be fun for me, whether or not I was purposefully metagaming (something I work on keeping to a minimum).
But more on topic: the GMG Variant: does anyone else use it?
Also: we've seen some great house rules for handling Wish spells and Wish economies. I'd love to see some expansion on that stuff, espcially Kevin Andrew Murphey's () and Set's. I linked it before, but another thread (containing a comparatively few Legacy of Fire spoilers) about wishes and ways of handling them is relevant to this conversation.
Also-also: Golarion apparently has some sort of weird reality-warping effect that occurs the more Wish is used, which is interesting. Anyone have any spoil-free easy-to-paste "rules" text for this thread?
EDIT:
Oh, yeah, I almost forgot in this post I mentioned:
In a home campaign setting I'm developing, fire giants, efreeti, and ifreeti are basically the same thing, are mandated to be sorcerers with the wish crafter bloodline, and live in a 'far place' of the material plane (well, one of them, anyway). The wishes most of them grant are based on their own abilities (allowing very different power levels, like the ring and lamp genies in the Arabian Nights version of Aladdin); those few who are like the bestiary ifreeti are either lords of their kind, or those who made bad bargains for rapid power and ended up enslaved themselves... They can be wished free, but this negates their excess power (like the Disney Aladdin instead).
But that's all house rules for a specific setting.
Specifically, this setting (where the fire giants are quasi-divine) or possibly this one. In the former, it's explained as their 'near-divine power' (and also blends them seemlessly with the deadly, awful fire giants that will one day raze the world). In the latter, they become one of the only race (along with kobolds) to progress as sorcerers (and kobolds have a very different ultimate result of that progression: they become dragons).
I might throw on a few class levels or a Template but only for some specific creature.
This is basically how I've handled it in the past, always rarely, and generally with ample warning that "There are things tougher than the Bestiary/Monster Manual that reside here."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thread-Ception 2: This Time It Is Personal.
Tacticslion--
My initials, KAM, are probably the quickest way to refer to me unambiguously, but any of them will do.
|
|
More on-topic, while Diego posted the rules of Fabricate (which does, I admit, specify that it transmutes stuff), it's interesting that Wish can ignore up to 10k gold worth of material components to produce an effect (the material components being what's transmuted into the final product of Fabricate). How do people interpret this? I actually do interpret it as Wish being able to make 10k gold worth of stuff: that actually makes sense to me and seems to fit with the flavor and intention of Wish being - you know - a Wish. With anything more expensive than 10k, of course, Wish (the spell-like ability) wouldn't be cost-effective; and wish the spell requires 25k in any event, so you're basically just losing 15k for no reason that way. Seems to work in a fairly balanced manner to me (though, of course, there are exploits).
I would surely allow wish to "create" (probably borrowing it from somewhere) 10.000 gp of materials or finished products.
A decently worded wish could even simulate the spell fabricate in conjunction with creating a lower quantity of raw materials (probably up to 5.000 gp, so that the final product is worth less than than the 25.000 gp used to fuel the spell [as the raw materials are worth 1/3 of the final product, this will produce 15.000 gp of finished stuff if the caster make his skill check])
Or, if you have the raw materials at hand, it could simulate a enhanced version of Fabricate. As wish can simulate a 8th level wizard spell I would probably allow a x10 multiplier of the affected volume. Maybe even x100, so that it would be capable to build small structures in one casting
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, Setiyel was not showing off a high wisdom score there.
Canon he has a wisdom of 8. :-)
As far as the "GMG means Game Mastery Guide", I just don't know what people know and don't with all the acronyms around this place, so, if there's any question, I try not to assume and tend to over-answer any potential point of query someone might have.EDIT: I have no idea what "probably" was supposed to mean there.
Generally assume people don't know the acronym unless it is really widely used or it has appeared a few time in the thread together with a extended version of it.
Americans have a passion from acronyms that isn't shared by the rest of the world and in other languages the product names often don't have the same acronym.
But more on topic: the GMG Variant: does anyone else use it?
Sometime.
Not really for "common" efreeti as they are relatively low CR creatures and the wish they grant shouldn't be stronger than that of a wizard.
Miracle: yes if the wish follow the interest of the good granting it.
From powerful outsiders or similar entities: generally yes..
Artifacts and relics: it depend on the item. A wish granting well would be fairly weak. A artifact requiring some great sacrifice will be fairly powerful.
Wishes granted directly by a god or his proxy are generally well above what the normal spell will accomplish.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All this overthinking/philosophising the genies is giving me a headache.
Unless the granter of the wish is evil or hostile I dont like the idea of subverting wishes. It is true that in one way they can be like casting a fireball at your own feet, be careful what you wish for you just might get it kind of thing, but after having to get to the point where you can even make a wish in the first place it seems cruel to turn such a wonderful gift into a horrible disaster.
If a person makes a wish i like to hear it out, decide if i think its going to be something i can roll with or if its ludicrous, and if it is, instead of just saying nope! wasted wish! or saying yes! look how much getting what you want sucks! I'll say sorry player, thats a little over the curve for my campaign but lets see how we can dial it down a notch so you're still getting what you want without shaking things up too much.
Thats not to say that the dozen ways a wish can be spoiled can't be fun, and certainly when the granter is evil or hostile its what the players should expect, but barring that, a wish should be an unqualified good thing, even if its not exactly what they wanted in the first place, otherwise whats the point.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's also a difference between 'screwing with wishes' and conservation of energy.
@Diego Rossi
I like the idea of a better prepared wish being able to do more. Wish for a castle from nothing, you get a small castle "Sorry, maximum entropy released. Wish aborted." Wish for the quarried stone, lumber, etc. to become a castle, you get a bigger castle, because the 9th level spell has something to work with.
In essense, the 'hierarchy of safe wishes' to me runs as follows.
Arcane wish or limited wish (and prestidigitation) drawing on pure raw arcane energy. Metagame it can be assumed that the wizard/sorcerer/witch/etc. knows the limits of the spell's power.
Items made with arcane wishes. A little less safe, because the creator knows the limits of the spell, the schmuck reading it, not so much. It also will work on providing the lowest powered effect for the wish. "I wish my friends and I were healed." will produce mass cure light wounds. "I wish my friend was back from the dead," will produce raise dead not ressurection, etc.
Miracle again, safer from a metagame sense, as the cleric is calling on his patron. Still going to be subject to the deity's influence. Asking a miracle to bring Bob back from the dead is likely going to be answered flat out by Cayden*. Urgotha though might bring Bob not all the way back. (especially if Bob was a follower of a good deity)
Wish from good outsiders. Well still subject to twisting, but not quite as detrimental. Though it could be amusing. "I wish my enemies to be consumed by fire!" *flame strike hits the wisher* "What the hell was that?"
The Djinn bowed in apology. "Until you give up this quest, you are your own worst enemy. Master."
Wish from evil outsiders. In additon to the conservation of energy part, the evil outsider is going to try to dig the hole deeper with every wish. "I am so sorry," the Glabrezu's chuckling showing he was anything but. "When you said you wanted her for the rest of her life, I figured enchanting her and then killing her before the spell wore off was exactly what you wanted. Now my wish is exhausted. Mayhaps you would like to summon my brother demon to let him wish her back to life?" *Idiot wizard summons secon Glabrezu who restores her to life, but doesn't fix her broken neck.* "Oh dear, you must be more specific, perhaps another summoning?"
*
Tacticslion--
My initials, KAM, are probably the quickest way to refer to me unambiguously, but any of them will do.
Sweet. :) Similarly, feel free to refer to me as TL, Tac, Tactics, Tactics-guy, or "that longwinded jerk that won't shut up", as I'll respond to most of those. Feel free to invent your own, too! :D
Diego:
a) I could definitely see a Wish/Fabricate working similarly.
b) Heh, yeah, Setiyel always kind of seemed like a bit of a doofus.
Generally assume people don't know the acronym unless it is really widely used or it has appeared a few time in the thread together with a extended version of it.
Americans have a passion from acronyms that isn't shared by the rest of the world and in other languages the product names often don't have the same acronym.
One of the reasons I clarify so often and so much when people seem at all confused. Although, from what I can tell, Acronyms that function as puns are far more the rage in Japanese culture. Otherwise, that's been my experience as well. Mostly I use the short-hand of things to save on what inevitably becomes extremely large posts anyway (as I talk way too much), and because it's generally (though not universally) culturally acceptable and even seems preferable on these boards. So, "When in Rome" and all that.
I think both Set and Matt have very interesting views on subverted wishes and fiends.
While Set points out that fiends are likely to be like Vegas ("Summon me and more of my friends for a great deal!"), Matt shows how a Glabrezu can (and likely will) manipulate a low-wisdom wizard.
Here's the thing: I think both of them are right... depending on the wizard in question.
Mr. Goofus (Setiyel) summoning Glabrezu? No reason at all that the Glabrezu would twist his wish unless there was something personal or he felt sure that he could get something more out of it personally. The guy has no hint of good about him or in his wish(es) (technically it's somewhere from three to five he requests), he's obviously a rube who can be counted on to make mistakes, and with a Glabrezu's comparatively enormous bluff and diplomacy checks and their rather-competent sense motive, they're likely to understand this. If I were mister 16 WIS Glabby in the business of handling wishes and mortal corruption, I'd make sure that Mr. 8 WIS had my name, my number, and knew precisely when I'd be available to grant his wishes next month, and oh my, what a lovely blade you've got there, and it might be a great idea to enhance it with more magic next month, which, by the way, I'd be delighted to do for a clever fellow such as yourself!
On the other hand, a good wizard who's equally dumb, well, I'd likely do something along the lines of Matt's "oops, my bad" (bluff) plus "please try again" (diplomacy). Heck, I'd even offer to summon the guy myself (though, of course, there's a 20% failure chance).
If there's a good wizard who's actually clever? Well, I'd certainly make sure not to twist his wishes at all, unless, as-written, they'd be detrimental to me. The reason: to make a lasting good impression (). If the guy is even remotely honest, they'll have to admit to themselves that their experience wasn't as bad or traumatic as they'd heard. Add in some good diplomacies and bluffs, and I might soon win them over. If I could, I'd even try to become their boon ally and companion! Genuinely and honestly help them out of all sorts of sticky situations! For free, even! And, slowly, get them to rely upon me and upon my evil powers. That's how corruption works. Ain't no lie half so potent as honesty. I'd also make sure that all knew (either before or after the mortal's pathetically short lifespan, it doesn't matter) that the great hero relied upon an honest Glabrezu. Oh, and here's my name and number.
Speaking of, one other thing that I, as a Glabrezu, would do: lie. Lie like there is no tomorrow and everything I could ever want counted on my lies. Because it does. I'd stall for time, speak soothing words, and try to make sure that my bluff and diplomacy rolls went off without a hitch.
And all of this brings me back to Set's suggestion: this is basically Vegas in a nut-shell. This is what the entire structure of that city/culture/<insert appropriate here> is about: cheating rubes who'd otherwise not be interested and highly publicizing the successes. And it's not like granting wishes costs anything but time which, for a Glabrezu, isn't exactly limited.
Also: ew, thinking like a Glabrezu is icky.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dear Lion,
After that last pun. You shall From now on be known as Donovan Deegan.
Sincerly,
AF.
On-Topic:
Simply Put:
-Wishes are horribly risky.
-Miracle is the Safer Bet.
So Clerics > Wizards?
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On-Topic:
Simply Put:
-Wishes are horribly risky.
-Miracle is the Safer Bet.So Clerics > Wizards?
Wishes from somewhere else are horribly risky. Casting your own wish shouldn't be (again, IMC).
Miracle's are still influenced/fufilled by the deity in question. Normally the cleric casting it won't have an issue, since they and their deity are compatible. But there will still be divine colouration of the effect. Especially if the miracle goes against the deity's tennants. (Miracling someone back to life if you're a follower of Urgotha, for example.)
Miracling someone back to life if you are a Cleric of Pharasma... That kinda scares me...
What about a Miracle from somewhere else.
Because isn't there an Angel or Archon that can cast it?
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Miracling someone back to life if you are a Cleric of Pharasma... That kinda scares me...
What about a Miracle from somewhere else.
Because isn't there an Angel or Archon that can cast it?
I don't know off the top of my head. But logically, the miracle from the good outsider is as subject to twisting as the evil outsider.
"What? I asked for a miracle of them under a foot of water!"
*Archon points to the forcecube full of water hovering complacently over the hero's head.* "Granted."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Glabrezu, as you describe him, is reasonable. Unfortunately, there's the trope of the demon with ADHD which can't wait to get the most immediate soul to drag to Hell, even if it would cause a PR nightmare for the other denizens of Hell.
There was even a recent episode of Supernatural that dealt with exactly this: A demon was buying people's souls in exchange for their heart's desire, then arranging for their untimely demise so he could collect their soul early. The King of Hell personally stepped in, crushed that demon to paste, and explained for those slow on the uptake that this was bad for business. You let people have their ten years or even lifetime of their heart's desire then collect their soul afterward. Time is on Hell's side.
To that end, it's also in Hell's interest to let a few of the little fish go. If only the thoroughly wise and scholarly have a hope of winning against Hell, well, word will get out, and even the foolish and ignorant who have even half a clue won't even dare. But if a demon fails to twist even an incredibly foolish wish? Well, that's more customers. And if they're willing to pay something as valuable as a soul, might as well let them have their fun. It will make the torture more awful if they have something to compare it to.
"What? I asked for a miracle of them under a foot of water!"
*Archon points to the forcecube full of water hovering complacently over the hero's head.* "Granted."
I love it!
