| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The rephrase the question, can the alignment of a diety in Pathfinder 2's world ever shift? Can an LE or CE good be converted to neutrality or even good either via their own changing view of the universe and their role in it or by external factors such as rhetoric delivered by a sufficient charismatic mortal? If they can be redeemed do we then punish them for the evil they've caused? If they can't can we condemn them for something fundamental to their very nature?
This is to say is an Asmodeus who cannot be redeemed actual evil if he has no choice in the matter? For that matter can one be good when they only do good acts because they are literally under a supernatural and immutable compulsion to do so? If Asmodeus could be so compelled to do good against his will even if it caused him mental anguish to so go against his nature would compeling him to do so be a good act?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Gods can shift alignment. It happened a few times. Nocticula is the perfect example. Arazni also shifted alignment, but it's a bit more complicated in her case as I'm not sure she shifted while being a demigod.
And there are tons of gods who strongly changed their nature. Qlippoth lords becoming demon lords are an example.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
My favorite case of (technical) alignment change is Acavna bisecting Nurgal (CE) and his lower half becoming Nergal, a LE archdevil. Also, Zon Kuthon used to be good. Well, it's complicated.
So yes, it definitely happens.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I forgot the most obvious one: Zon-Kuthon.
So, god's nature is clearly mutable.
Ninja'd.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Zon-Kuthon and Nocticula are the most visible examples of this, but Kazutal has also fundamentally shifted.
|
Well, in YOUR game anything can happen. If you want a deity's alignment to shift, go for it. If you are talking canonically? Very unlikely unless they were to specifically write that into an AP and it could (and probably would) have a significant impact on the global stage, not to mention their sales as the content of some books would become obsolete.
From a more theory-crafting perspective, I think it depends on how you view the relationship between the deities and their alignment/portfolio/dogma. Do you think the gods are a manifestation of the beliefs of the people who espoused them? Example, lots of people prayed for a good harvest and all that emotion and such coalesced into a representative being. Or did the deities exist as beings first, and imposed their will upon the multiverse and through their power and presence people took notice and began to worship them? This type of analysis drives how you feel about the power of a deity's following and whether larger numbers affects their power (more worshipers mean stronger, more powerful deity). If a deity lost a large number of their followers, would their power diminish? Is Aroden still just as powerful as he was despite having virtually no devoted followers anymore? If Aroden suddenly returned, would he just become Iomedae's herald since she now "owns" his place in the cosmos? Very interesting things to consider. Of course the existence of the Starstone can throw a wrench in the works depending how you feel about the relationship between the deities and their power.
In this type of discussion, YMMV greatly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My answer is, from a practical stand point yes they don't change.
The alignment/disposition of a god changing significantly should be a story arc if you're going to have it happen (IMO). Or you alter the base campaign setting from Golarion to Golarion+ (your own homebrew world where you've altered things to fit your view).
But ods aren't going to be swayed by mortals talking about something. Heck, its hard to imagine even mortal actions really mattering.
People have noted that some gods have changed, but didn't discuss the circumstances that brought about that change.
To be honest, I don't know the details of how they changed myself. But I think it's major events that are at deity levels of power/influence, not mortal means.
It is worth noting that in Golarion, gods powers are not derived from worshippers which is in contrast to other settings where deities can lose their power if they lose enough worshippers.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Lissala also went from LN to LE.
Creative Director
|
| 15 people marked this as a favorite. |
Absolutely a deity's alignment can shift, as can its nature. Folks have posted several great examples in here of when it's happened in Golarion's history. It's not something that happens often, though, and when it does, it should be tied to a major story event.
Another example of a deity shifting like this (one we've yet done a lot with, but one that I hope to do more with some day) is Achaekek, who started out as the first lawful neutral deity, then something happened that turned him feral and for a while he was a monster deity (during Azlant's height), and then something else happened and he turned lawful evil and became the assassin deity we know today.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Absolutely a deity's alignment can shift, as can its nature. Folks have posted several great examples in here of when it's happened in Golarion's history. It's not something that happens often, though, and when it does, it should be tied to a major story event.
Another example of a deity shifting like this (one we've yet done a lot with, but one that I hope to do more with some day) is Achaekek, who started out as the first lawful neutral deity, then something happened that turned him feral and for a while he was a monster deity (during Azlant's height), and then something else happened and he turned lawful evil and became the assassin deity we know today.
I'm so, so interested in eventually learning some of this. I love Grandmother Spider too, so Achaekek and Nana Anadi in an AP would be <3 <3 <3.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I figure the answer is "yes, but it generally requires exceptional circumstances outside of the control of mortals, so it's at best ancillary to the story of your player characters."
It's much like how Gods can die (e.g. Aroden, Curchanus, Acavna) but there's no way for the player characters to kill them (or if they do, it's because they completed the ritual, captured the artifact flag and brought it home, etc. not because they did HP damage or someone failed a save).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My answer is, from a practical stand point yes they don't change.
The alignment/disposition of a god changing significantly should be a story arc if you're going to have it happen (IMO). Or you alter the base campaign setting from Golarion to Golarion+ (your own homebrew world where you've altered things to fit your view).
But ods aren't going to be swayed by mortals talking about something. Heck, its hard to imagine even mortal actions really mattering.
People have noted that some gods have changed, but didn't discuss the circumstances that brought about that change.
To be honest, I don't know the details of how they changed myself. But I think it's major events that are at deity levels of power/influence, not mortal means.
It is worth noting that in Golarion, gods powers are not derived from worshippers which is in contrast to other settings where deities can lose their power if they lose enough worshippers.
Kazutal pretty neatly disproves this; her writeup explicitly says she shifted from being a goddess of war to a goddess of protecting communities and fairness, in response to her worshippers seeking the latter instead of the former.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Absolutely a deity's alignment can shift, as can its nature. Folks have posted several great examples in here of when it's happened in Golarion's history. It's not something that happens often, though, and when it does, it should be tied to a major story event.
Another example of a deity shifting like this (one we've yet done a lot with, but one that I hope to do more with some day) is Achaekek, who started out as the first lawful neutral deity, then something happened that turned him feral and for a while he was a monster deity (during Azlant's height), and then something else happened and he turned lawful evil and became the assassin deity we know today.
Forever hoping to see that Achaekek plotline in something someday.
|
Creative Director
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Forever hoping to see that Achaekek plotline in something someday.Absolutely a deity's alignment can shift, as can its nature. Folks have posted several great examples in here of when it's happened in Golarion's history. It's not something that happens often, though, and when it does, it should be tied to a major story event.
Another example of a deity shifting like this (one we've yet done a lot with, but one that I hope to do more with some day) is Achaekek, who started out as the first lawful neutral deity, then something happened that turned him feral and for a while he was a monster deity (during Azlant's height), and then something else happened and he turned lawful evil and became the assassin deity we know today.
Cool! From the office of Expectation Management, though... that plotline does not involve Nana Anadi at all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Kazutal pretty neatly disproves this; her writeup explicitly says she shifted from being a goddess of war to a goddess of protecting communities and fairness, in response to her worshippers seeking the latter instead of the former.My answer is, from a practical stand point yes they don't change.
The alignment/disposition of a god changing significantly should be a story arc if you're going to have it happen (IMO). Or you alter the base campaign setting from Golarion to Golarion+ (your own homebrew world where you've altered things to fit your view).
But ods aren't going to be swayed by mortals talking about something. Heck, its hard to imagine even mortal actions really mattering.
People have noted that some gods have changed, but didn't discuss the circumstances that brought about that change.
To be honest, I don't know the details of how they changed myself. But I think it's major events that are at deity levels of power/influence, not mortal means.
It is worth noting that in Golarion, gods powers are not derived from worshippers which is in contrast to other settings where deities can lose their power if they lose enough worshippers.
I disagree. One mortal is nothing. Having your entire faith (or even the majority) say we'd like you to stop being a god of war and become a god of protection is beyond "mortal means" and also it's a story event.
My statement wasn't meant to say gods are immutable, more just a guideline that GMs shouldn't feel beholden to a player trying to change a god (unless that's what they want to focus on for the campaign). But it should never be a simple or easy task.
It's also worth mentioning that Kazutal's followers petitioned her change in response to Earthfall. You know that thing that basically wiped out most of humanity and civilization on Golarion, and led to the Age of Darkness for 1000 years.
The way you framed it excluded the events leading up to her change, which are a huge factor (IMO).
The rephrase the question, can the alignment of a diety in Pathfinder 2's world ever shift? Can an LE or CE good be converted to neutrality or even good either via their own changing view of the universe and their role in it or by external factors such as rhetoric delivered by a sufficient charismatic mortal? If they can be redeemed do we then punish them for the evil they've caused? If they can't can we condemn them for something fundamental to their very nature?
This is to say is an Asmodeus who cannot be redeemed actual evil if he has no choice in the matter? For that matter can one be good when they only do good acts because they are literally under a supernatural and immutable compulsion to do so? If Asmodeus could be so compelled to do good against his will even if it caused him mental anguish to so go against his nature would compeling him to do so be a good act?
Your Asmodeous point assumes that asmodeus doesn't enjoy being evil and in fact chooses to be evil. You can only redeem something who want's to be redeemed and see's a value in being redeem.
Asmodeus just isnt a good example.
A better example would be an angel, however they have examples of angels being both corrupted by evil and those choosing to be evil.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Asmodeus might be the second hardest entity in the setting to redeemed (behind Rovagug). So there might be *something* that gets him to change his mind, basically every other evil thing will have had to go first.
It's kind of different to redeem yourself when your portfolio is about darkness, lust, and outsiders than when your portfolio is about slavery, tyranny, and oppression.
There's something about being the epitomy of lawful evil that makes it hard for me to envision redemption. A chaotic evil creature may just be acting on instinct, and instincts overruled by rational analysis. But a god who creates the sort of organized and systematic evil that Hell represents? Clearly they have put some thought into what they are doing.
There's something about being the epitomy of lawful evil that makes it hard for me to envision redemption. A chaotic evil creature may just be acting on instinct, and instincts overruled by rational analysis. But a god who creates the sort of organized and systematic evil that Hell represents? Clearly they have put some thought into what they are doing.
Also I think there needs to be a differentiation between ''OG'' gods that represent primal aspects and ''later'' gods who were mortals once (like Nethys or Urgathoa)
Asmodeus is the exemplification of pure, unaldurated, immutable Law. He will not change, he is the Iron pillar upon which reality is built.
But Norgorber ? I don't know? Maybe ?
|
Creative Director
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's something about being the epitomy of lawful evil that makes it hard for me to envision redemption. A chaotic evil creature may just be acting on instinct, and instincts overruled by rational analysis. But a god who creates the sort of organized and systematic evil that Hell represents? Clearly they have put some thought into what they are doing.Also I think there needs to be a differentiation between ''OG'' gods that represent primal aspects and ''later'' gods who were mortals once (like Nethys or Urgathoa)
Asmodeus is the exemplification of pure, unaldurated, immutable Law. He will not change, he is the Iron pillar upon which reality is built.
But Norgorber ? I don't know? Maybe ?
Achaekek is one of the "OG" deities and he's changed twice. The only thing preventing Asmodeus or any other deity from changing is that we don't want to tell those stories. Yet. That could change at some point in the future.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Achaekek is one of the "OG" deities and he's changed twice. The only thing preventing Asmodeus or any other deity from changing is that we don't want to tell those stories. Yet. That could change at some point in the future.There's something about being the epitomy of lawful evil that makes it hard for me to envision redemption. A chaotic evil creature may just be acting on instinct, and instincts overruled by rational analysis. But a god who creates the sort of organized and systematic evil that Hell represents? Clearly they have put some thought into what they are doing.Also I think there needs to be a differentiation between ''OG'' gods that represent primal aspects and ''later'' gods who were mortals once (like Nethys or Urgathoa)
Asmodeus is the exemplification of pure, unaldurated, immutable Law. He will not change, he is the Iron pillar upon which reality is built.
But Norgorber ? I don't know? Maybe ?
I have to imagine though James, that even is Asmodeus did change, someone/something would take the roles he vacated. I wouldn't think the multiverse could tolerate the absence of a god who represents such basic concepts/tenets.
|
Creative Director
|
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have to imagine though James, that even is Asmodeus did change, someone/something would take the roles he vacated. I wouldn't think the multiverse could tolerate the absence of a god who represents such basic concepts/tenets.
Perhaps. Or perhaps the story is more about hope than cynicism and the change could represent the multiverse getting better instead of staying awful. As with all stories regarding the deities, the goal of the storyteller is what sets the tone.
Of course, a story like that is unlikely to be one we'd tell, since Pathfinder is a game about conflict, and it's important to keep things in the setting that PCs (and thus players) can be galvanized to fight against. Balancing that need while also not making sure that every story gives the players a chance to feel like they made a difference can be tricky, of course. Which is part of the reason why we have SO MANY different deities (and locations and monsters and groups and etcs.) in the setting to choose from—more potential stories than anyone can ever fully tell.
I mean, if Asmodeus (or rather what he represents) was to go away that would likely mean Hell and all its denizens have to go, including the planes.
It would be a change to multiverse and how it's balanced functions.
At least from my perspective.
Not say it's impossible...but it seems like the sort of thing that happens right before the multiverse throws itself apart from the imbalance.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, if Asmodeus (or rather what he represents) was to go away that would likely mean Hell and all its denizens have to go, including the planes.
It would be a change to multiverse and how it's balanced functions.
At least from my perspective.
Not say it's impossible...but it seems like the sort of thing that happens right before the multiverse throws itself apart from the imbalance.
Why is this the case? Hell was there before Asmodeus 'found' it inhabited with the asuras, and likely would continue to exist under new management if he were to leave.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've noticed that all of the gods who've changed have only done so as the result of a major setting-changing event. This calls into question if they could choose to make such a change without the external pressure to do so. Could a logical schemer like Asmodeus decide that the core of his goals might be better served by a different approach or must it be that he could only make such a change due to some cosmic event that requires him to adapt or face destruction? The reason I make the distinction is that in any system of morality intention and the ability for free choice matters. If a god can only change due to an outside event then they can't exactly be said to be free to choose and thus can't be judged moral or immoral any more than could an unthinking beast or a destructive force of nature.
Beyond the nature of choice and its role in any system of moral judgment, we must examine the concept of what it even means to be inherently good or evil. As an example, would be a good of creation causing a star to go nova even at the cost of an intelligent civilization because it is the nature of creation that things must be destroyed to allow for new ones to arise. Would doing such a thing be good, evil, or neutral? Could a good creation diety do such a thing knowing that in the end, many more worlds will bear fruit using this method than would ever do so if all life-bearing worlds remained so forever?
A system where morality is an innate trait of the cosmos should be closely examined so we can see what is actually meant by being good, evil, lawful, chaotic, or neutral. It can be easy to put incorrect human expectations on things that should be very high-level concepts and which are utterly alien to our perspective.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Whether a deity changes because of a major setting event, or a major setting event changes a deity, the end result is the same. It's kind of a chicken and the egg sort of scenario.
In terms of the impact on the world, yes it makes little difference. From a philosophical standpoint, which is where I'm approaching things from, it makes a massive difference.
Like what is Abadar's inner monologue like? Does he just love civilization and seek to spread it or is he a force of nature compelled to civilize the land? Are the god's forces of nature locked into a feedback loop with their followers or are they as complex as the gods in Sanderson's Cosmere setting?
It is hugely setting defining and worth spending pages of flavor text to detail.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the other Archdevils should oust Asmodeus (who retires with a Golden Parachute) and cycle through a series of ill promoted Chief Evil Officers while they worry about branding, clawbacks, and increased revenue growth.There are at least twelve potential contenders who are all sitting right there, after all, and I'm positive that some of them would want to fill those Asmodeus-sized shoes. Dispater and Baalzebul come to mind immediately, as do Ardad Lili and Eiseth.Why is this the case? Hell was there before Asmodeus 'found' it inhabited with the asuras, and likely would continue to exist under new management if he were to leave.I mean, if Asmodeus (or rather what he represents) was to go away that would likely mean Hell and all its denizens have to go, including the planes.
It would be a change to multiverse and how it's balanced functions.
At least from my perspective.
Not say it's impossible...but it seems like the sort of thing that happens right before the multiverse throws itself apart from the imbalance.
There are absolutely people waiting in the wings to takeover if Asmodeus should have a change of heart or be destroyed.
But that wasn't what I was talking about with James.
I was talking about if his role as a god of tyranny, pride, contracts, and slavery were to disappear. No one taking over or filling in.
James implied it's possible, though not a story Paizo would tell.
As for my comment about the planes...well I guess the planes that were the Hells would stick around, but they wouldn't be Hell anymore (not with Devils, and if no ones taking Asmodeus' place, they're probably gone too).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Except, it doesn't. Either scenario points to the same thing, a deity changing because of something happening.
Not really, a diety could also desire a change due to a lack of progress with a plan. For example, could Asmodeus come to realize that he could be best served by making strict order seem less monstrous for a few millennia and then pushing harsher and harsher rules on his devotees once there are more of them in openly powerful positions? Thus for all intents and purposes, he chooses to act as a Lawful Neutral diety for a while of his own will even if his end goals are still vile.
I get that this isn't a store James would ever tell, but I'm more interested in knowing if such a change is within the grasp of a god in he first place.
In that way they are actually more complex than shards, which are, by definition, limited by what their particular shard allows them to do.
I don't care about their power and abilities at all. I care about their inner thoughts and the nature of their morality. This is something the makes the Shards more interesting as their goals and personality are shaped by the vessel that claims their power.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pharasma is keenly aware of "this universe has an expiration date" but are the rest of the deities?
It feels like any particular evil entity would be more concerned with "how can I, personally, keep existing even if the maelstrom consumes the universe" than any sort of moral growth.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pharasma is keenly aware of "this universe has an expiration date" but are the rest of the deities?
It feels like any particular evil entity would be more concerned with "how can I, personally, keep existing even if the maelstrom consumes the universe" than any sort of moral growth.
This is exactly why a being like Asmodeus could logically think that a plan which makes him look less odious to the neutral and good deities would allow him to gather more power and be less vulnerable to the cruel machinations of fate. He'd still be a complete bastard but a less obvious one that other gods might actually consent to work with. Of course, if he saw a chance to seize greater power by betraying his 'allies' he'd also do that in a heartbeat.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is exactly why a being like Asmodeus could logically think that a plan which makes him look less odious to the neutral and good deities would allow him to gather more power and be less vulnerable to the cruel machinations of fate. He'd still be a complete bastard but a less obvious one that other gods might actually consent to work with. Of course, if he saw a chance to seize greater power by betraying his 'allies' he'd also do that in a heartbeat.Pharasma is keenly aware of "this universe has an expiration date" but are the rest of the deities?
It feels like any particular evil entity would be more concerned with "how can I, personally, keep existing even if the maelstrom consumes the universe" than any sort of moral growth.
Then would his portfolio or Alignment ever really change? Nothing prevents LE from playing nice.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
That anyone can decide why the gods do what they do is a feature IMO, not a bug.
And the alignments are not a cosmic concept beyond mortal understanding. They are what the GM (who is the entire game universe including the deities) decide, hopefully with some feedback from the players. So, very much understandable by any human.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is exactly why a being like Asmodeus could logically think that a plan which makes him look less odious to the neutral and good deities would allow him to gather more power and be less vulnerable to the cruel machinations of fate. He'd still be a complete bastard but a less obvious one that other gods might actually consent to work with. Of course, if he saw a chance to seize greater power by betraying his 'allies' he'd also do that in a heartbeat.Pharasma is keenly aware of "this universe has an expiration date" but are the rest of the deities?
It feels like any particular evil entity would be more concerned with "how can I, personally, keep existing even if the maelstrom consumes the universe" than any sort of moral growth.
Asmodeus works with good and neutral deities pretty frequently, actually. He's not shunned or anything like that. Just evil.
The Order of the Godclaw is a group that draws power from several lawful deities, including him. And he and Sarenrae together (along with a host of other deities) were the ones that locked up Rovagug.
Edit: Also, the largest and arguably most powerful country in the inner sea region is his.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Asmodeus is, among the evil deities, the one that good and neutral deities can be confident that he will do *exactly* what he has agreed to do. He'll only betray you if the nature of the agreement can't be pinned down to something where he can do so by following the letter of the agreement. Mortals have no chance of playing on an equal field with the God of Contracts when it comes to these sorts of contractual shenanigans, but other Gods can pull it off.
Like Desna, maybe not, but Abadar for sure.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Asmodeus is, among the evil deities, the one that good and neutral deities can be confident that he will do *exactly* what he has agreed to do.
Always struck me as weird given that trickery and deception is part of his portfolio and Hell is basically run on backstabbing and betrayal.
Really not a very Lawful place considering it's supposed to be the literal embodiment of LE.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Asmodeus is, among the evil deities, the one that good and neutral deities can be confident that he will do *exactly* what he has agreed to do.Always struck me as weird given that trickery and deception is part of his portfolio and Hell is basically run on backstabbing and betrayal.
Really not a very Lawful place considering it's supposed to be the literal embodiment of LE.
It's a different kind of trickery and deception than you'd find in, say, the first world. In Hell, the residents will do exactly what they've agreed to. That's just never what you actually want.
It's basically the embodiment of "Should've read the fine print."
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Asmodeus is, among the evil deities, the one that good and neutral deities can be confident that he will do *exactly* what he has agreed to do.Always struck me as weird given that trickery and deception is part of his portfolio and Hell is basically run on backstabbing and betrayal.
Really not a very Lawful place considering it's supposed to be the literal embodiment of LE.
It's the trickery that a CEO plays on his employees when they get injured and get rushed by half a dozen managers carrying NDAs before they can go to the hospital.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's the trickery that a CEO plays on his employees when they get injured and get rushed by half a dozen managers carrying NDAs before they can go to the hospital.Asmodeus is, among the evil deities, the one that good and neutral deities can be confident that he will do *exactly* what he has agreed to do.Always struck me as weird given that trickery and deception is part of his portfolio and Hell is basically run on backstabbing and betrayal.
Really not a very Lawful place considering it's supposed to be the literal embodiment of LE.
It's worse than that. It's the arbitration clause in your employment agreement that says you can't take your injury case to court, you have to go to arbitration. An arbitration run specifically by the company with partial judges and participants. An arbitration that is somehow inexplicably not illegal in this jurisdiction.
When you walk away from this your still alive and this has ended, you're lucky the company didn't sue you for cleaning up the mess, lawyer's time, and the decrease in productivity.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Asmodeus is, among the evil deities, the one that good and neutral deities can be confident that he will do *exactly* what he has agreed to do.Always struck me as weird given that trickery and deception is part of his portfolio and Hell is basically run on backstabbing and betrayal.
Really not a very Lawful place considering it's supposed to be the literal embodiment of LE.
It's a specific kind of trickery and betrayal based on "the letter of the law, but not its spirit". He's the god of contracts, so hes's simply not going to break a contract he has agreed to. What he will do, however, is finagle a dozen outs for him to benefit at your expense into the contract when he is able to do so.
It's the classic "making a deal with the devil" thing where the ironic comeuppance of the damned-to-be is based on a specific reading that they did not anticipate (e.g. "I promised you eternal life for your soul, I never promised you eternal youth") In these sorts of stories the devil doesn't just show up and kill you and take your soul, they make you think you're taking advantage of them and this is how they take advantage of you.
(He's also the god of betrayal because he murdered his own brother, surely?)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Lots of evil Gods are going to betray you when it benefits them, Asmodeus is largely unique among various evil entities that he is as good as his word if you sit down and hash out the details of an agreement with him. He will lie, cheat, steal, and betray but if he puts his name to a contract he will do exactly what he wrote the contract to indicate that he will.
It's not like Asmodeus and Ihys had some sort of explicit agreement not to surprise-murder each other.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I would be hard pressed to characterize the slaying of Ihys a betrayal. Asmodeus in fact could have just cause to consider Ihys the betrayer, and his own violence an understandable response to action.
From his own point of view anyways. Given that his is the surviving account, even in-world that is taken with a large grain of salt.