| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd think entering into a contract with a demon was an evil act myself.
"As demons are evil, entering into any contract therewith, is, in fact, evil. I recommend such people be removed, forcibly, from society" says my Inquisitor.
I, however, believe that there is probably some leeway in this area. Did the party know what the demon was going to do on it's way out?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, that's Evil. Maybe not enough to shift their Alignment on its own, but definitely Evil. Not all deals with Demons are Evil, but any that lets them go free to roam and do awful stuff is. Any Paladins should've fallen already.
I'd present the players with evidence of the devastation and horror they've allowed to occur. If they seem guilty and try to make amends, no Alignment shift, if they don't, shift them to Evil (or at least away from Good). Any Clerics of Good Deities may also be in trouble, as I'd say this is the kind of thing that could get their powers stripped.
Evil act for sure, although, I don't know if it's worth shifting the players directly to Evil, maybe Neutral.
To give you a bit of comparison, my group had recently killed a lizardfolk barbarian in front of his mate. The mate, helpless and heartbroken, kneeled over and hugged her fallen mate and sobbed over him. The NE necromancer of the group decided to have some fun, he used animate dead on the Lizardfolk to turn him into a zombie, put his arms around her to hug her, and then squeeze her to death.
The rest of the party, all chaotic neutral, laughed. I had a hard time deciding whether or not to shift them all to CE.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Evil act for sure, although, I don't know if it's worth shifting the players directly to Evil, maybe Neutral.
To give you a bit of comparison, my group had recently killed a lizardfolk barbarian in front of his mate. The mate, helpless and heartbroken, kneeled over and hugged her fallen mate and sobbed over him. The NE necromancer of the group decided to have some fun, he used animate dead on the Lizardfolk to turn him into a zombie, put his arms around her to hug her, and then squeeze her to death.
The rest of the party, all chaotic neutral, laughed. I had a hard time deciding whether or not to shift them all to CE.
This made laugh made my day lol
This made laugh made my day lolEvil act for sure, although, I don't know if it's worth shifting the players directly to Evil, maybe Neutral.
To give you a bit of comparison, my group had recently killed a lizardfolk barbarian in front of his mate. The mate, helpless and heartbroken, kneeled over and hugged her fallen mate and sobbed over him. The NE necromancer of the group decided to have some fun, he used animate dead on the Lizardfolk to turn him into a zombie, put his arms around her to hug her, and then squeeze her to death.
The rest of the party, all chaotic neutral, laughed. I had a hard time deciding whether or not to shift them all to CE.
Glad you got a good laugh out of it. Sadly enough, I did too, and immediately felt bad about myself. I now worry about my player's sanity.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not evil. Foolish, perhaps, but not evil.
Lol just the one? Or all the other players that laughed? Or yours? Or mine?... were all mad here lol
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What you describe is not an evil act, at all.
The simple act of bartering with a demon, or any creature whatsoever, is not an inherently aligned act. Nor is releasing the demon. Releasing a creature from captivity is at best a good act, and at worst a neutral.
The destruction that followed in the creatures wake was caused by the creature, not the party, and the creature reaps all the evil from it, not the party. The fact that they had the means to intercede but did not, is not an evil act either. It is a neutral act.
All in all, a big batch of neutrality, with not a trace of evil.
-Nearyn
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would certainly say that knowingly and willingly releasing a demon upon the material plane, especially in the vicinity of potential innocent victims, such as in/under a city, is a minor evil act. If you used the tiered alignment system described in Ultimate Campaign, it would probably shift the characters one point toward evil. This might be mitigated if the macguffin in question is needed to stop an even greater threat and the party felt it was simply too great a risk to fight the demon: a lesser of two evils thing, but still evil. If they did it simply for their own convenience, therefore putting innocent lives at great risk for their own personal gain, that is even more evil. Remember that evil is not always going out of one's way to harm others; blatant disregard for harm caused to others in the pursuit of personal gain is also quite evil, especially if done repeatedly.
I dont think it is Evil. Pehaps it was a bad decision and not too smart but that is it. What kind of demon was it? I suspect it was one of the middel ones and none to smart. Of cause if it is a powerfull demon and a village it could wipe it and enjoy the fun of that but else i would expect it to teleport away and get its berings before it startet somthing.
i kind of agree with the yes its small evil, but can be overlooked if they actively go after said demon.
blatant disregard for harm caused to others in the pursuit of personal gain is also quite evil.
This can also be described as "What happens when one animal attacks and hurts/kills another of its kind to take over its territory(such as with lions)" and is not evil, it is neutral.
-Nearyn
ADDITION: an exception to this would be actively and knowingly causing a scenario that would hurt others (like removing the magical crystal from its place to sell it, knowing full well that it will cause the volcano beneath the city to erupt and kill everyone). Enabling another creature to consciously decide to hurt other people(releasing a demon) is not evil, since the decision to do so lies with the demon.
blatant disregard for harm caused to others in the pursuit of personal gain is also quite evil.This can also be described as "What happens when one animal attacks and hurts/kills another of its kind to take over its territory(such as with lions)" and is not evil, it is neutral.
-Nearyn
Let's just point out here that anything an animal does is by definition neutral, because they don't have the intelligence to knowingly commit a good or evil act.
Let's just point out here that anything an animal does is by definition neutral, because they don't have the intelligence to knowingly commit a good or evil act.blatant disregard for harm caused to others in the pursuit of personal gain is also quite evil.This can also be described as "What happens when one animal attacks and hurts/kills another of its kind to take over its territory(such as with lions)" and is not evil, it is neutral.
-Nearyn
Incorrect. Animals are neutral because they are neutral. Stupidity has nothing to do with it. There are plenty of stupid, even mindless, evil creatures in the world. Animals are neutral because they do primarily neutral acts.
-Nearyn
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This can also be described as "What happens when one animal attacks and hurts/kills another of its kind to take over its territory(such as with lions)" and is not evil, it is neutral.
-Nearyn
Uh...animals aren't smart enough to be anything but neutral, as Thymus notes, but acts done in the animal kingdom can be Evil when performed by sapient beings. To continue your Lion example, they also kill all the previous male's cubs when they gain a pride...but a warlord killing the king, marrying his wife (likely against her will), and having the king's children killed, is still an Evil act. Male ducks commonly commit rape. Male bears often kill bear cubs they find so the female will be ready for new cubs (which might be his) sooner. And that's all just mating behavior.
All those acts, if performed by thinking beings on other thinking beings, are profoundly Evil. "Animals do it." is not a valid excuse (though a NE Druid might try to use it as one).
Incorrect. Animals are neutral because they are neutral. Stupidity has nothing to do with it. There are plenty of stupid, even mindless, evil creatures in the world. Animals are neutral because they do primarily neutral acts.
-Nearyn
I know I've got it from somewhere, but as I don't remember the exact source and my personal inclination would be to agree with you, I'm not going to argue the point.
EDIT: Deadmanwalking puts it quite nicely.
This can also be described as "What happens when one animal attacks and hurts/kills another of its kind to take over its territory(such as with lions)" and is not evil, it is neutral.
-Nearyn
Uh...animals aren't smart enough to be anything but neutral, as Thymus notes, but acts done in the animal kingdom can be Evil when performed by sapient beings. To continue your Lion example, they also kill all the previous male's cubs when they gain a pride...but a warlord killing the king, marrying his wife (likely against her will), and having the king's children killed, is still an Evil act. Male ducks commonly commit rape. Male bears often kill bear cubs they find so the female will be ready for new cubs (which might be his) sooner. And that's all just mating behavior.
All those acts, if performed by thinking beings on other thinking beings, are profoundly Evil. "Animals do it." is not a valid excuse (though a NE Druid might try to use it as one).
Your alignment is not determined by committing an aligned act, it is determined by what aligned acts you commit the most often. Animals are neutral because they primarily commit neutrally aligned acts. Yes they commit evil acts too, every now and again, as do most creatures, including some good-aligned outsiders. The fact that they commit that act does not magically turn them to a specific alignment, it is if they commit enough, and severe enough such acts, that their alignment change. Stupidity has nothing to do with alignment.
-Nearyn
|
|
Incorrect. Animals are neutral because they are neutral. Stupidity has nothing to do with it. There are plenty of stupid, even mindless, evil creatures in the world. Animals are neutral because they do primarily neutral acts.
-Nearyn
No. Creatures of the Animal type are listed as Always Neutral. You can argue that it's for reasons other than Intelligence if you like (it's a dumb argument, but I can't cite anything to prove you wrong)...but they definitionally cannot switch from Neutral no matter how many Chaotic, Lawful, Good, or Evil acts they perform.
Therefore, their behavior cannot be used as a guide to anything Alignment based.
Incorrect. Animals are neutral because they are neutral. Stupidity has nothing to do with it. There are plenty of stupid, even mindless, evil creatures in the world. Animals are neutral because they do primarily neutral acts.
-Nearyn
No. Creatures of the Animal type are listed as Always Neutral. You can argue that it's for reasons other than Intelligence if you like (it's a dumb argument, but I can't cite anything to prove you wrong)...but they definitionally cannot switch from Neutral no matter how many Chaotic, Lawful, Good, or Evil acts they perform.
Therefore, their behavior cannot be used as a guide to anything Alignment based.
Such a hypocritical argument. You've only just 1 post ago written that animals are not smart enough to be anything but neutral, but now they're suddenly not acceptable to guide anything alignment based? Tsch, please.
Even if we don't use animals as a way to determine if intelligence has anything to do with alignment there are low-int and mindless evil creatures in print.
-Nearyn
By that logic, I could go to a prison, find the most ruthless, sadistic, bloodthirsty inmate I can, open his cell, and tell him, "I'm setting you free... but don't hurt anyone after you're out." By the logic presented, this wouldn't be an inherently evil act, despite knowing that this will almost certainly go back to his evil ways, because the decision to act is on him
Absolutely correct. It is not evil. It is chaotic neutral.
Same goes for contracting an assassin to commit murder; it's just as evil to hire a murderer to go kill someone as it is to do it yourself.
Again, absolutely correct. Because you are actively and knowingly causing circumstance with the intention of hurting/killing other people.
an exception to this would be actively and knowingly causing a scenario that would hurt others (like removing the magical crystal from its place to sell it, knowing full well that it will cause the volcano beneath the city to erupt and kill everyone).
Hiring an assassin would be just like the example above. Actively causing circumstances that, if things go as you intend, will cause harm and death. Evil act.
Just setting a wild lion in a closed pit with a person in hopes of seeing some bloodshed and carnage is certainly evil. Setting that same wild lion in the closed pit in hopes that the powerful and brave person will be able to get it under control so it won't hurt anyone, however, is not evil.
You're really good at making me write "Absolutely correct"
Likewise, if they set the demon free hoping that the obvious result will come to pass, it's evil. If they set the demon free hoping he will leave without incident, it's neutral. Stupid, but neutral.
^ This
-Nearyn
|
|
Such a hypocritical argument. You've only just 1 post ago written that animals are not smart enough to be anything but neutral, but now they're suddenly not acceptable to guide anything alignment based? Tsch, please.
Okay, let me explain my point of view: Animals, like mindless Constructs, are not smart enough to have moral agency. They cannot make choices on any real moral basis, and are thus as close as the game generally gets to not having an alignment at all. This causes the game to define such creatures as Neutral, and makes them generally inappropriate as examples in Alignment discussions.
A golem that kills a mass-murderer (or saves an innocent child) because it was ordered to and a golem that kills an innocent child because it was ordered to are morally identical because they literally cannot disobey, they lack free will. Animals who kill are in the same boat: they don't have the capacity to understand that what they are doing is morally right or wrong.
So, yeah, not really inconsistent at all.
Even if we don't use animals as a way to determine if intelligence has anything to do with alignment there are low-int and mindless evil creatures in print.
-Nearyn
With Int 2 or less? The levels that are less than sapient creatures can have? Only undead. And there's a whole discussion of why that is here. It's an exception to the general rule about Int that low. Note, that at no point in this discussion does anyone dispute that constructs are neutral because they lack moral agency (and a lot of people mention that). I think the evidence supports animals being in the same boat.
Okay, let me explain my point of view: Animals, like mindless Constructs, are not smart enough to have moral agency. They cannot make choices on any real moral basis, and are thus as close as the game generally gets to not having an alignment at all. This causes the game to define such creatures as Neutral, and makes them generally inappropriate as examples in Alignment discussions.
I respect your viewpoint.
With Int 2 or less? The levels that are less than sapient creatures can have? Only undead.
I present to you, the Akaruzug
-Nearyn
|
|
By that logic, I could go to a prison, find the most ruthless, sadistic, bloodthirsty inmate I can, open his cell, and tell him, "I'm setting you free... but don't hurt anyone after you're out." By the logic presented, this wouldn't be an inherently evil act, despite knowing that this will almost certainly go back to his evil ways, because the decision to act is on himAbsolutely correct. It is not evil. It is chaotic neutral.
Same goes for contracting an assassin to commit murder; it's just as evil to hire a murderer to go kill someone as it is to do it yourself.Again, absolutely correct. Because you are actively and knowingly causing circumstance with the intention of hurting/killing other people.
an exception to this would be actively and knowingly causing a scenario that would hurt others (like removing the magical crystal from its place to sell it, knowing full well that it will cause the volcano beneath the city to erupt and kill everyone).Hiring an assassin would be just like the example above. Actively causing circumstances that, if things go as you intend, will cause harm and death. Evil act.
Just setting a wild lion in a closed pit with a person in hopes of seeing some bloodshed and carnage is certainly evil. Setting that same wild lion in the closed pit in hopes that the powerful and brave person will be able to get it under control so it won't hurt anyone, however, is not evil.You're really good at making me write "Absolutely correct"
Likewise, if they set the demon free hoping that the obvious result will come to pass, it's evil. If they set the demon free hoping he will leave without incident, it's neutral. Stupid, but neutral.^ This
-Nearyn
I actually don't completely disagree. I think all those actions are somewhat evil, but there are degrees. Which is why I suggested using their reactions to the carnage caused as a guide to whether to change their Alignments.
I mean, if you release a lion into a pit with a man hoping someone will save the man and then it kills him, you're probably gonna feel bad about it. If the PCs don't...well, that says something else about their motivations, doesn't it?
|
|
I respect your viewpoint.
Thanks. :)
I present to you, the Akaruzug
-Nearyn
Uh...considering it's powered by a crucified person, so I think that falls under the same justifications as Undead presented in the thread I linked.
Uh...considering it's powered by a crucified person, so I think that falls under the same justifications as Undead presented in the thread I linked.
Just because I don't have it in me to look through the entire bestiary right now, I'll not object to your justification, merely add that it -is- an evil construct. :)
This discussion of whether intelligence has anything to do with alignment is something I started, and it's taking away from the question the OP was asking, so let's leave it here. :)
-Nearyn
Somewhere between kicking a puppy and joining the Whig party.
|
|
I see nothing evil going on here. The party chose to release the creature in return for getting the macguffin without risking their own lives. Moreover, the demon was not (at that time) engaging in any particularly hostile action due to having been sealed. Demon proceeds to tear through the city before returning to the abyss and the party, probably thinking also of their own well being (a creature capable of causing such wide spread destruction was probably above their so-called pay grade) in addition to the favor, chooses to let it be for the time being. That's uh... not evil. What's more, agreeing to let it out in return for an item does not constitute entering into a contract.
Another thing I'd like to point out is that demons generally don't keep their owed "favors." If anything, I could see one perverting this favor into some terrible, unholy horror to lay upon the party at a later date. Beyond that, why do they believe it's indebted to them? Its debt should have been paid the second it gave them the macguffin in exchange for its release.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What you describe is not an evil act, at all.
The simple act of bartering with a demon, or any creature whatsoever, is not an inherently aligned act.
What if they're bartering with suspect pastries?
This is what I would do if I were running the OP's game.
No effect on alignment.Frankly,alignment is already such a crap-shot that I don't force a shift unless something truly personal would cause the change. Yeah the Paladin murdering drunks at the Inn would shift, the Paladin working with a evil wizard to stop a necromancer,not so much.
Mostly because what a person was thinking matters more than anything else.
So in the OP's place I would leave alignments be.
Now in his place I would also have had the demon kill tons of innocent people,all the while screaming about how (insert parties names here)was behind the deed! I would have the demon trash them in just about every way possible,even going so far as to hunt down loved ones(if close by) and kill them in sick and twisted ways.Err That's what Demons do!
I would have the King/whatever send his knights/whatever out after the party,churches across the area speaking out against them(and perhaps their whole religion if one of them was a cleric/druid).Mentors,loved ones heck just trusted magic item sellers...whatever..people are going down!
Adventuring bands hunting them down,good ones,evil ones trying to get better rep heck have them dodging that APL+8 adventurer who's mother just died(future big villain?).
I would turn that demon into a major villain and have him go on to do more and more things,very well known things,placed by the bards/whatever at the feet of the pc's!
It would be awesome! As a DM you use what the party gives you to make life interesting and this is a one of those times they gave you diamonds!
Whee! Let's do our best to abuse the PCs by having people illogically turn against them! Let's kill off the characters they like roleplaying with in a brutal, abrasive manner! I'm sure the players won't take this as the subtle-as-a-jackhammer way of guilting them that it is!
While we're at it, let's reveal that...that whole tribe of orcs that they killed? HAD BABY KITTENS. AND THEY ALL STARVED TO DEATH. AND IT'S ALL THEIR FAULT. AND NOW THE DRUID'S PANTHER COMPANION HATES HER. EIGHTEEN KITTENS DIED. THAT'S AS MANY AS ONE AND A HALF DOZENS. AND THAT'S TERRIBLE.
Whee! Let's do our best to abuse the PCs by having people illogically turn against them! Let's kill off the characters they like roleplaying with in a brutal, abrasive manner! I'm sure the players won't take this as the subtle-as-a-jackhammer way of guilting them that it is!
While we're at it, let's reveal that...that whole tribe of orcs that they killed? HAD BABY KITTENS. AND THEY ALL STARVED TO DEATH. AND IT'S ALL THEIR FAULT. AND NOW THE DRUID'S PANTHER COMPANION HATES HER. EIGHTEEN KITTENS DIED. THAT'S AS MANY AS ONE AND A HALF DOZENS. AND THAT'S TERRIBLE.
Bah! Bah again I say!
Illogically turn against them? They released a demon who's very nature is to sow discord and strife! So let it sow some strife!You're talking FUN time right up a Demon's ally! Also take a gander at ANY newspaper and see blame being set at the door of a LOT of people with a whole lot less than just made a deal and released a Demon!
Guiltily is just what they ARE.Consequences of the pc's actions is what most games lack!
To be honest if the party had been LG and released said Demon without even knowing he was evil(appeared to be a five year old with a lollypop) I might do the same thing!Heck it might even be better that way!
It's not about making anyone feel guilty,it's about making their lives interesting and building on consequences!
Had they killed the demon.....sigh,yawn boring!One dead Demon and a few exp's .....mostly a dead end.
They didn't though! They set him free! Holy Batman baby! You have interesting in spades!
Going only by the information presented in the OP:
Sorry, but there was most certainly evil done here. Evil by depraved indifference, actually.
There was clearly no evil done in dealing with the demon. Perhaps not the smartest of moves, but clearly acceptable. They should have pressed for it to leave in a harmless fashion or something similar, but hindsight is always 20/20. Even being owed a 'favor' by the demon, while incredibly shortsighted, isn't evil in and of itself (although the method in which the favor is done is likely to advance the cause of evil, so it's a Sword of Damocles for any paladins in the arrangement).
However, when the demon left and begin destroying things and people, that's where they hit the important part. Firstly, the OP notes that they had 'the choice' to kill it; this implies that they were capable of doing so. Furthermore, the OP notes that the reason they didn't want to was because the demon owed them a 'favor'. Ironically enough, the favor itself -did- advance the cause of evil as I previously noted it would.
So. We have Demon A destroying people's livelihoods for no reason other than that the people who were capable of stopping it wanted something from it for their own benefit. That's depraved indifference, and that is an antithesis of good. Now, if the party is neutral then there's some wiggle room for them (although it still advanced the cause of evil).
Now, for the second part -- if some wanted to but were unable to. They should well remember the avarice and betrayal of their 'friends' for one, and likely look for replacements who are more in line with their beliefs. Secondly, any paladins should likely need an atonement spell but shouldn't suffer permanent loss of paladinhood.
All my opinion, of course.
I would certainly say that knowingly and willingly releasing a demon upon the material plane, especially in the vicinity of potential innocent victims, such as in/under a city, is a minor evil act. If you used the tiered alignment system described in Ultimate Campaign, it would probably shift the characters one point toward evil. This might be mitigated if the macguffin in question is needed to stop an even greater threat and the party felt it was simply too great a risk to fight the demon: a lesser of two evils thing, but still evil. If they did it simply for their own convenience, therefore putting innocent lives at great risk for their own personal gain, that is even more evil. Remember that evil is not always going out of one's way to harm others; blatant disregard for harm caused to others in the pursuit of personal gain is also quite evil, especially if done repeatedly.
The tiered alignment system (including the resurrection of the old alignment change penalty system we all knew and loathed) is the one thing in Ultimate Campaign (an otherwise fantastic book) that makes me wonder whether one of the designers took up drinking bleach. It's a travesty. I've considered removing those pages from my book.
Disclaimer:
Ask A Succubus expresses the viewpoint of a CE inclined Abyssal Lady of non-negotiable affection. Ask A Succubus resents any intimations of flexibility either of morals or of physique, whilst not at all resenting politely phrased (though that seems somewhat unlikely on such a sensitive matter) compliments on said same subject. Ask A Succubus does not give refunds on questions answered, no matter how haphazardly, nor irrespective whether the asker (Or should that be 'askee'? 'Askee' sounds so much better...) wanted any so answered questions answered in the first place.
Party bumps into sealed demon with macguffin. They have two choices : Kill it and take it, or let it go whereupon the demon will give them the macguffin and leave without a fight.
Party chooses B, demon leaves and wrecks a good part of the city on its way out.
Party has the choice to chase after it and stop it, but chooses not to because the demon owes them a favor which they plan to collect at some point.
Also what if the decision wasnt unanimious and some members of the party wanted to stop the demon but couldnt do it on their own, so had to go with the majority?
But to answer the original question, releasing any demon is an exceptionally *GOOD* act, unless said demon owes me money or an apology and was being kept pent in, until it coughed up. (Or unless, of course, it owes ORCUS money or an apology.)
Also, creative urban redevelopment (especially of slum districts or of ones with temples to Asmodeus) could be considered the demon in question doing the city a favour. And think of all the work that builders will have, in the aftermath, and all the good that that will do for the local economy. Just so long as nobody who mattered important (hairdressers, dress-makers, dinner-party catering outfits and so forth) was actually killed in the process...Disclaimer:
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, one thing that has to be understood in any discussion of alignment is that within the game system's world alignment is objective. This demon is a being composed of the pure metaphysical essence of what it is to be chaotic and evil, a being with no greater impulse than hedonistic pleasure at the expense of all other beings. Releasing it was like releasing a sadistic, armed, psychopathic killer in the middle of a grade school. If the party knew it was a demon, then claiming to not have known what it would do or to not be responsible for its subsequent actions is nothing more than selfish abdication of responsibility. They knowingly released a bit of pure evil on the world, which is definitely an evil act. Furthermore they then became in part responsible for each and every act of depravity said demon committed once it was released, and if they refuse to acknowledge this responsibility and rectify the damage, that is furthering the cause of evil.
To those claiming the act was foolish, not evil, I would say that is an acceptable explanation only if the characters honestly did not comprehend what a demon really is. If they had even the slightest inkling of the pure malice the creature embodies, then the act was both evil and foolish. Further, even if they did not know, once they become aware of the destruction caused by the creature then ignorance is no longer a defense of any sort. If, at that point, they do not take responsibility for their actions and seek to put things right then they are guilty of negligence and evil.
To those claiming the act was chaotic, not evil, I would say read the previous paragraph replacing the word foolish with chaotic. Few things in gaming annoy me more than players claiming that seemingly any action is justified for their character because they are chaotic neutral. "I'm just random, it's my alignment!" Chaotic indicates a penchant for spontaneity, improvisation, and personal freedom, not a free pass to do whatever they please without responsibility. Such actions are not chaotic, but selfish, immature, and, if the crime is heinous enough, evil.
Finally I would like to touch on the subject of neutrality. As mentioned previously in this thread, some creatures, such as constructs, animals, infants, and even mindless undead if the world did not specifically call out their source of animation as inherently evil, are true neutral because that is the best way they fit into the rules. It would actually be more accurate for them to have no alignment at all, because they are simply beyond (or perhaps beneath) the concept. They have no moral agency and thus these creatures and their actions cannot be accurately modeled using a system of morality. As for actually sentient creatures, ignoring for the moment the fantasy trope of creatures who are always a certain alignment, such as extra-planar creatures like our friendly demon above, most beings see themselves as good, or at least wish to. That is not to say that they are all good, far from it, but barring insanity most people think they are doing the right thing. It can be argued that there is no such thing as an act of neutrality, because there is no big cosmic force of Neutral, like there is for good and evil. Oh sure, there are neutral outsiders, but they are embodiments of ideas such as Balance, not of neutrality itself, because neutrality is simply the absence of good or evil. Thus, unless one is playing an old-school druid who will always side with the underdog because somehow the forces of good and evil must remain in balance, a neutral person is not someone who commits "neutral" acts, but, on average, is someone who wants to be good, even sees themselves as good, but is too lazy or selfish to put forth the effort to actually be good. Because good requires effort, whereas evil only requires that one not care too much about the consequences of what one does for gain and convenience... such as releasing a demon onto an unsuspecting city.
Why would anybody think a contract with a Demon was valid? Not a Devil, a DEMON! Notorious liars and psychopaths.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dumb? Yes.
Evil? No.
I'd be willing to wager what they thought was going to happen was the Demon would go back to the Abyss upon being set free.