Paladin + Demonbinding class in group

[Jeff240sx]

This is about to come up in my campaign. We have a Paladin, so what would be the proper way to go about being a Malconvoker and summoning a legion of fiends for battle? Or being a Demonbinder and having an Imp or Quasit Familiar.

The last thing we want is the Paladin to kill someone's Familiar, or to get hissy and leave the group because of the Malconvoker's dealings with devils.

So.. in each situation, what can be done?

Familiar: Polymorph into a human? Not polymorph and fly away when the Paladin does his Detect Evil, and hope he's dumb enough to not know a Devil when he sees one? Burn a slot and Conceal Alignment every day and again, hope that the Paladin never learns what a Devil is?

Malconvoker: Umm. Diplomacy away his army of Devils? *shrug*

[Evilfeeds]

Im not entirely familiar with malconvokers, but:

I dont see it being a problem.

As long as the demon isnt being used for evil deeds (and is kept on a tight leash), it can be seen as a tool, rather than an instrument of evil.

If a wizard was to - for example - summon a demon, and bind it to till fields for peasants and not harm anyone, then for a paladin to destroy the demon would likely cause more harm than good.

Also, iirc demons cannot be killed, they merely reform after X amount of time. Having a demon "bound" would (theoretically) reduce the amount of demons working to promote evil, which can only really be a good thing.

[Eldan]

Well, the least thing you will want to do is lie to the Paladin. It will not work out in the long run. Even the most stupid Paladin will find it out sometime. Tell him, from the beginning, in a diplomatic fashion and carefully state why you are doing good by summoning fiends.
Binding Tanar'ri prevents them from doing evil in the lower planes.
While bound you are forcing them to do good.

Explain that to the paladin. Sit down with him and talk about it. If he is at all reasonable, he will listen. He probably won't be comfortable with it, but he won't run around killing stuff. If he's not reasonable, well, he will make problems for a party no matter who's in it.

[JeenLeen]

I think the above logic could work. There is the problem of how the paladin code says one cannot associate knowingly with evil creatures. Would that include a familiar of one of one's allies?

The malconvoker class is definitely not evil and so should only be an issue if the fiends stay around. Of course, if done with much roleplay, having a paladin around should really hurt the malconvoker's bluff.
(Malconvokers are non-evil casters who summon fiends while bluffing that they are evil. The fiends are tricked into fighting for the forces of good.)

[Optimystik]

That's easy. Malconvokers are disliked by the regular clergy but are routinely employed by them. Show the paladin a writ from the High Muckity Muck Priest of Pelor or what have you giving you license to fool the forces of Evil.

If you're a really scoundrelly scoundrel, forge it :smallamused: After all, for Malconvokers, the ends definitely justify the means.

Paladins aren't meant to get along with any of the classes in CS by the way; even their own PrC, Gray Guard, is practically designed from the ground up to get under a regular paladin's skin.

[Aotrs Commander]

On the other hand, the Malconvoker might have to be very careful what he does with his summons.

I had potentially the same conudrum, when organising a party for Shackled City. The player mentioned in passing about having read up on Malconvokers on the CO boards where you could effectively get a Succubus permanently called via some nasty tricks with Geas; basically along the lines of trapping her in a summoning circle and commanding her to drink a glass of water outside the circle until she'd acrued serious penalties so they could bluff her better. I pointed out that, yes, while using demons to do good is not evil, effectively torturing them via Geas to do what you want is most certainly not good*, however you justify it, and suggested that not only would the paladin really not like that sort of thing, indeed, would be flat-out required to intervene...

So, as with all alignment-based issues, you should do what I did; make sure your players know exactly what's allowable and not allowable within the parameters of how you, the DM, interpret alignments and that you're thus all on the same page.

(In the end, the player abandoned the idea, as I also pointed out, that given the strong extraplanar element in Shackled City, there would definately be potential consequences to that sort of fiend-meddling in that specific adventure.)



*From the most important perspective of me, the DM, running the game.

[Jeff240sx]

Ok.. so the Malconvoker can probably be worked around via in-game diplomacy.

Now I've got to deal with an Improved Familiar... which are usually Quasits or Imps.
At first, a Lawful Imp seems a bit better than a Chaotic Quasit, but I think the the Commune of a Quasit would benefit even a goody two-shoes Paladin.
That still doesn't get past the two problems below:
1: "A paladin will never knowingly associate with evil characters"
and
2: Does a Familiar count as a "character" for purposes of the above passage?

If so, what's the solution to having both a Demon/Devil Familiar and a Paladin?

[Optimystik]

If so, what's the solution to having both a Demon/Devil Familiar and a Paladin?

Don't let him see it. Can't they turn invisible?

[DragoonWraith]

Mostly I'd think that you would mostly need to convince the Paladin that you are good, and that you are in control of the fiends that you, ya know, control. He shouldn't like it, but he should accept it.

I've long considered a party with a Paladin and a re-fluffed Assassin a la Assassin's Creed - strong personal code, strict requirements to do good, and incidentally the belief that the most good can come from the credo "end one life to save a thousand". This would make (I think) the Assassin effectively Lawful Good. The Paladin has to recognize the Assassin's determination to improve the world, and must respect that he has his code of honor, but would be horrified by the means the Assassin is willing to justify towards the ends. I think that could make for some very excellent role-playing.

[Jeff240sx]

Don't let him see it. Can't they turn invisible?

Yep. But then that either requires that the Quasit not turn into a combat creature, not deliver touch spells, and pretty much not exist.

Or, the paladin gets lied to and told it's a Summon or something.

And doesn't Detect Evil work on Invisible creatures?

[Ponce]

I played a Malconvoker in a party with a Paladin. The Malconvoker was lawful good, though, so it worked out fairly well. They mostly agreed when it came to moral questions, so it worked out fine.

[Hadrian_Emrys]

Jeff: A familiar is an extension of the being it is bound to, not really a character unto itself. I forget the fluff details of the thing, but having an evil creature as one's familiar simply indicates that the caster has a darker aspect to them that has manifested in a manner that is not only harmless, but actually still working towards the greater good.

[Optimystik]

And doesn't Detect Evil work on Invisible creatures?

If your paladin is Detecting Evil on you, he has trust issues anyway :smalltongue: but in any case, you're a Malconvoker, you're supposed to have evil creatures around you all the time. Either he can deal with that, or he can't.


I've long considered a party with a Paladin and a re-fluffed Assassin a la Assassin's Creed - strong personal code, strict requirements to do good, and incidentally the belief that the most good can come from the credo "end one life to save a thousand". This would make (I think) the Assassin effectively Lawful Good. The Paladin has to recognize the Assassin's determination to improve the world, and must respect that he has his code of honor, but would be horrified by the means the Assassin is willing to justify towards the ends. I think that could make for some very excellent role-playing.

There is an Exalted Assassin-ish class in BoED. (Slayer of Domiel? Was that it?) That should be okay with your paladin friend.

[Hadrian_Emrys]

*cough* (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/prc/20070401a)

Oh, look: a non-evil assassin. Just be sure to add spells from expanded assassin lists.

[Random832]

1: "A paladin will never knowingly associate with evil characters"
and
2: Does a Familiar count as a "character" for purposes of the above passage?

If so, what's the solution to having both a Demon/Devil Familiar and a Paladin?

Does the Paladin know for sure the familiar is evil in alignment? The [Evil] subtype would make even a good or neutral fiend appear as evil to any detection effect. Even if they really are evil (and why does a (non-evil by mechanical requirement) have an evil-aligned creature as a familiar?), the Paladin doesn't necessarily know that. Bluffing about alignment is what the Malconvoker does for a living.

Or, yeah, what Hadrian_Emrys said about the Familiar fluff; if it's accurate (it doesn't match the SRD though, and s/he didn't sound sure), then it's definitely not evil, even if it is [Evil].

[Ernir]

There is an Exalted Assassin-ish class in BoED. (Slayer of Domiel? Was that it?) That should be okay with your paladin friend.

Slayer of Domiel it is.

If anything, I see it as even worse than the actual Assassin class, though. Except to further increase the Archivist's spell access. :smallfrown:

But. Its existence acknowledges that assassin-types were supposed to be able to be LG with the D&D alignment system. So you can use it as a starting point in the argument you will have with your DM. :smalltongue:

[Wings of Peace]

Don't tell the paladin you're doing it for the greater good is my first advice. Because to me the obvious counter argument is that the greater good should be able to support itself or else we can never actually get rid of all evil.

An argument I would make is that by having evil fight evil you are employing the two-birds one stone principle. Every evil creature your minion slays is less evil in the world and every minion slain is less evil in the world.

[DragoonWraith]

There is an Exalted Assassin-ish class in BoED. (Slayer of Domiel? Was that it?) That should be okay with your paladin friend.
*cough* (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/prc/20070401a)

Oh, look: a non-evil assassin. Just be sure to add spells from expanded assassin lists.
I was aware of both, but this was an entirely hypothetical exercise, not an actual situation. The character I had in mind was quite literally the Assassin PrC from the PHB, but with the entry requirements refluffed to Lawful Good and the single kill to have taken place for the sole purpose of improving the lives of many by removing the one, and then adding fluff about a code of honor among the assassins regarding appropriate targets (only those whose removal would cause the most good), thereby justifying the Lawful Good alignment, and forcing the Paladin to at least consider the other's very different take on the concepts of Law and Good. Purely as an interesting intra-party dichotomy with considerable role-playing potential.

The Slayer of Domiel could fill the role I intended, but I don't think the Avenger's fluff would work as I was considering. Again, the point is moot because it was entirely hypothetical.

[Hadrian_Emrys]

Or, yeah, what Hadrian_Emrys said about the Familiar fluff; if it's accurate (it doesn't match the SRD though, and s/he didn't sound sure), then it's definitely not evil, even if it is [Evil].

It's not in the SRD, but to the best of my recollection, the fluff can be found in an actual PHB. You're right though, I am not certain.

[woodenbandman]

Ask the paladin how many demons he's killed lately. Then ask your demon how many demons he's killed lately. I bet that by simple math, the demon does more good than the paladin.

[Olo Demonsbane]

Speaking of which, the Blood War is the cause of a ton of good in the world :smalltongue:

Wizard/Malconvoker/Fiendbinder. Coolest. Character. Ever.

[ZeroNumerous]

If your paladin is Detecting Evil on you, he has trust issues anyway :smalltongue:

Actually it's more pragmatism. After all, Asmodeus was once good, wasn't he?

[Optimystik]

Actually it's more pragmatism. After all, Asmodeus was once good, wasn't he?

And who knows? Maybe he would have stayed that way if he didn't have to put up with Moradin's constant nagging. :smallwink:

[Tukka]

I pointed out that, yes, while using demons to do good is not evil, effectively torturing them via Geas to do what you want is most certainly not good*, however you justify it, and suggested that not only would the paladin really not like that sort of thing, indeed, would be flat-out required to intervene...
I wouldn't classify lesser geas and most other Cha-busting tactics as torture. While the effects of many of the spells would not be pleasant, most of them (such as lesser geas) are merely debilitating ... the succubus becomes dumber and weaker, and probably very frustrated that she can't get the task over with, but there's nothing in the spell description that indicates that she'd be in any sort of mental anguish (or physical agony).

So Cha-busting is certainly coercive and not very sporting, but is it really evil (or particularly chaotic)? Because for the paladin's code to come into play, that is the standard the malconvoker's action would have to meet (at minimum).


[The] paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.

There's nothing there that says the paladin must intervene to stop someone from performing a dishonorable or offensive act -- only that the paladin personally is not allowed to engage in such activities. It says the paladin must punish those who harm or threaten innocents, but I think it's a bit of a stretch to call an intrinsically evil outsider like a succubus an "innocent."

You could say that the succubus is innocent in that the group has no reason to suspect her of any specific crime or evil act, but if you're going by that definition, paladins in your games would have to be very careful about initiating a fight (even with the like of drow, illithids and devils) unless some standard of "probable cause" is satisfied.

Of course, the DM is free to interpret and modify the nature of alignment or the paladin's code however he wants ... but I don't think adding those sorts of restrictions and obstacles is very productive, by and large.

Personally, I'd rule that the paladin could not assist with the binding process or else risk falling (because it certainly is deceptive and dishonorable), but if he held himself apart from the ritual, it'd be fine. Also, if the malconvoker took some reasonable measures to keep the date of the binding process a secret whenever he intends to use long-term Cha-busting tactics, it wouldn't be a problem either. Chances are, the malconvoker already is taking some precautions (or at least, he should be) against the general public finding out about his business with demons ... it may not be a big stretch for him to keep the details of his binding process out of sight of the paladin for a few days as well.

I know some people have advised against trying to deceive the paladin, but I think a little deception within the party is OK. Trying to pretend that you don't actually traffic with demons is doomed to failure and is dumb. Not letting the paladin know that you knock the demons around with spells like enervation, lesser geas, ray of sickness, fear and bestow curse before proposing the deal ... that would be a rather sensible lie of omission.

The main problem I see with having paladins in a group with characters like fiendbinders, malconvokers or people with evil familiars and the "no association with evil" clause. This is more problematic than having a paladin object to the methods used to bind the demon itself, because a malconvoker doesn't need to use Cha-busting tactics to take pretty good advantage of his class features, but if the paladin can't associate with anyone who routinely travels with a fiend at his side, then either the paladin will fall or the other character will be effectively crippled.

One way I might rule in that situation is that I'd say the paladin could not willingly, directly benefit with his association with the fiend. That is, they couldn't buff or heal each other, or fraternize, but they could still fight side-by-side for a good cause, so long as it is apparent that the fiend is under the control of a non-evil character.

I guess part of the rationalization could be that the fiend doesn't have true autonomy -- it's a prisoner or a slave of sorts. Would it count as "association" if a paladin routinely visited a heinous criminal in a prison-dungeon to interrogate him? You could argue that a bound demon assisting the party is a roughly analogous situation.

I think that's a bit of a stretch though, but it's a stretch I'd be willing to make.

[Optimystik]

There's nothing there that says the paladin must intervene to stop someone from performing a dishonorable or offensive act -- only that the paladin personally is not allowed to engage in such activities. It says the paladin must punish those who harm or threaten innocents, but I think it's a bit of a stretch to call an intrinsically evil outsider like a succubus an "innocent."

Your analysis has not considered this line:


While she may adventure with characters of any good or neutral alignment, a paladin will never knowingly associate with evil characters, nor will she continue an association with someone who consistently offends her moral code.

The paladin is not required to punish the Malconvoker for torturing a succubus, but standing idly by while they do so is verboten.

But Malconvokers don't need to go to those lengths anyway. They can get perfectly good minions with lower CHA without the whole "curse and starve" bit.

[Tukka]

The paladin is not required to punish the Malconvoker for torturing a succubus, but standing idly by while they do so is verboten.

But Malconvokers don't need to go to those lengths anyway. They can get perfectly good minions with lower CHA without the whole "curse and starve" bit.
Right, I acknowledged that elsewhere in my post, albeit a little indirectly. [Edit: And like I said, calling it "torture," in my opinion, is a real stretch.]

Binding a succubus (or other fiend with high Charisma) isn't something a malconvoker is going to do every day ... generally it's something he does when he has a specific plan in mind. The first time a paladin sees or notices the malconvoker do something offensive during the binding, he wouldn't have to leap to stop it or refuse to party with the malconvoker in the future (because a one-time thing isn't "consistent"). The paladin might tell the malconvoker, "You're not going to do that again while I'm around" and the malconvoker might be perfectly happy to argue the point for a bit, get the paladin to grudgingly accept that what's done is done, and he won't use those sorts of methods again.

And maybe he doesn't employ those kinds of methods anymore because, as we agree, they're pretty much unnecessary. But if he does want to use such tactics, all he has to do is keep the paladin out of the loop, do a little bluffing, or contrive a situation that takes the paladin out of the picture. Most Cha-busting methods take effect immediately (lesser geas is the exception), so all he needs is a couple hours of privacy to do his business. The tricky thing is if the paladin has the presence of mind to demand to be present during the bindings, or questions the malconvoker with magic that compels the truth, etc. However, there are countermeasures the malconvoker could take there, also.

But I like a little cat-and-mouse within the group, and playing with a few handicaps is fine, as long as it doesn't shut down the group (as the "no association" rules can threaten to do).

Ironically, in my game where I play a malconvoker, my character is the one who often finds himself arguing against using more expedient but morally questionable methods (most of the rest of the party is neutral on the good/evil axis, while my guy is neutral good). I'm not sure if the demon I bound is still convinced that I'm really an evil character (considering that I'm the only one who seems willing to do things the hard/right way), but I think he's sufficiently cowed by my character's power (and that of the rest of the group) that he wouldn't risk trying to defy us even if he knew the whole truth.

[Optimystik]

A better thing for the Malconvoker to do in that situation is convince the Paladin that binding a Succubus (along with all the "prep work" that entails) is their best chance of solving a particular problem. Having him just whistle one up and slap a geas on it is going to cause a lot more friction in the party (which could easily spill OOC.)

Besides, he might be wrong. The Paladin might have a better idea, one that doesn't involve compromising the group's morality.

[Tukka]

A better thing for the Malconvoker to do in that situation is convince the Paladin that binding a Succubus (along with all the "prep work" that entails) is their best chance of solving a particular problem. Having him just whistle one up and slap a geas on it is going to cause a lot more friction in the party (which could easily spill OOC.)

Besides, he might be wrong. The Paladin might have a better idea, one that doesn't involve compromising the group's morality.
That's true, but if Cha-busting really is "torture," and/or a paladin really is honor-bound to thwart an attempt to use such methods, and the malconvoker knows this, then he would (probably) either opt against using them at all, or would use them behind the back of the paladin.

If the malconvoker believes that those methods would merely be distasteful to the paladin (and would not threaten his standing with his deity in a significant way) then yeah, proposing the plan to the rest of the group and making his case does make the most sense.

Either way, some OOC/metagame discussion is probably warranted. [Edit: And either way, it can work, if you can get around the more problematic (IMO) "association with evil characters" rule.]

[Optimystik]

That's true, but if Cha-busting really is "torture," and/or a paladin really is honor-bound to thwart an attempt to use such methods, and the malconvoker knows this, then he would (probably) either opt against using them at all, or would use them behind the back of the paladin.

I would say magically compelling someone to perform an impossible task to the extent that their ability scores degrade counts as torture.


[Edit: And either way, it can work, if you can get around the more problematic (IMO) "association with evil characters" rule.]

Actually, one presumes that merely accepting the nature of the Malconvoker's work precludes this problem. If the Paladin is okay with the Malconvoker's regular methods, binding Fiends to service with Planar Ally is just more of the same.

The best way of course is official sanction. Keep in mind CS' viewpoint, that LG religions typically expel Malconvokers regardless of the good they do. NG, LN and CG orders can be more forgiving.

[DragoonWraith]

I don't see why a Lawful Good group would be especially likely to decry the Malconvoker's methods. Assuming that they accept as fact that the Malconvoker is A. good, and B. in control of the fiends, there should be no problem for any flavor of Good, IMO. "The ends justify the means" may be a Chaotic concept, but the Malconvoker is not necessarily using evil means - he is not attempting to make Evil actions result in something Good, he's using Evil creatures to do something Good. A Good Malconvoker's actions should be generally Good, entirely, not Evil acts to achieve Good ends.

[Optimystik]

If I can play Devil's Advocate for a second... An LG group would have several reasons to be wary of Malconvokers.

1) Their skills come from a book called the Vital Pact, and the DM is free to decide whether the book is truly benevolent, or if it subtly corrupts the reader toward evil. But from the church's perspective, they have no idea what the book contains, and it only reveals itself to skilled conjurers.

2) The common man watching the Malconvoker in action has no way of distinguishing him from a regular evil cleric at first glance, and isn't likely to stick around for a second. An LG church is going to face no small amount of skepticism for supporting such individuals openly, and even more so if they are found to have been doing so in secret. Thus, having Malconvokers on the books is a hassle that a Heironeus or Tormite faith might not want to deal with.

3) Malconvokers aren't perfect; all it takes is a failed bluff check to have the ranks of the enemy doubled or worse every time a Malconvoker summons reinforcements. In a sensitive situation, an LG character might not see the risk as being worthwhile. Worse is a failed Calling instead of a failed Summoning, where the evil Outsider in question may turn the tables on the Malconvoker and leave him running to his allies for aid and even long-term protection. So there are many justifiable reasons to avoid associating with Malconvokers entirely.

[DragoonWraith]

I agree with all of that - I just don't think any of it is unique to LG churches.

[Optimystik]

I agree with all of that - I just don't think any of it is unique to LG churches.

Not unique, but they'll have stronger issues with it than a more liberal (read: Neutral/Chaotic) clergy. Fooling the populace? Check. Keeping secret agents on the church books? Check. Not worrying what their priests are reading? Check. Covering for a botched malconvoking? Check. All things a Paladin might feel more uncomfortable with than most.

[deuxhero]

Depends on the Paladin. You will never get away with it if he is stupid on at least one axis.

Nothing however stops a pragmatist Paladin from existing. Bind a fiend? Send it on a suicide mission, one less fiend in existence!

[Wings of Peace]

Depends on the Paladin. You will never get away with it if he is stupid on at least one axis.

Nothing however stops a pragmatist Paladin from existing. Bind a fiend? Send it on a suicide mission, one less fiend in existence!

You version of stupid though is from a calculatory standpoint. Sure a Paladin can be pragmatic but Paladin's aren't businessmen they're holy warriors taught to abide by a code of honor, tradition, and good. Saying "Well look at it this way we're being efficient." doesn't make summoning a fiend (Debatably ethical), giving it an impossible task so it stays bound (Probably not very honorable.), and then shrugging if it dies because we already knew it was probably a suicide mission anyways (I strongly doubt sending someone knowingly to a probable death, a likely very painful probable death at that because it is more efficient qualifies as doing a good deed.), is probably going to clash somewhat with the Paladin's code and obligation to both abide by it and disassociate from anyone who clashes with it.

[deuxhero]

No, I said that it would never work with a Lawful Stupid or Stupid Good Paladin but could work with a Lawful Good Paladin (praticularlly one who treats the PHP code as a suggestion like iconics). I doubt that is untrue.

[Wings of Peace]

No, I said that it would never work with a Lawful Stupid or Stupid Good Paladin but could work with a Lawful Good Paladin (praticularlly one who treats the PHP code as a suggestion like iconics). I doubt that is untrue.

My point though is that abiding by the code of conduct to a tee does not necessarily make a Paladin stupid. They're a class with a "guide-line" as you put it that if nothing encourages them to be overzealous. They don't have to be of course but they do have to live with the knowledge that if they stray from that guidline they lose their Paladin powers. I would not find it a stretch of logic for a Paladin to think "Well gosh, I'm not sure I'm comfortable with this Malconvoker fellow. He seems to be summoning evil creatures and making the locals a little uneasy. I don't think I like him." If anything I would expect someone who's source of power is tied to their Code to be even more cautious than this.

Edit: Not saying that all Paladins would think this way but it sounds as though you're suggesting only the hardest of the sticklers would detest a Malconvoker. If I'm wrong please do correct me.

[DragoonWraith]

Not unique, but they'll have stronger issues with it than a more liberal (read: Neutral/Chaotic) clergy. Fooling the populace? Check. Keeping secret agents on the church books? Check. Not worrying what their priests are reading? Check. Covering for a botched malconvoking? Check. All things a Paladin might feel more uncomfortable with than most.

I wouldn't equate all LG clergy with Paladins, though. While Paladins have a code of honor, LG Clerics just have to serve their deity.

And if an church sanctions a Malconvoker, that would at least prevent a Paladin from immediately disassociating with them.

[Optimystik]

I wouldn't equate all LG clergy with Paladins, though. While Paladins have a code of honor, LG Clerics just have to serve their deity.

And if an church sanctions a Malconvoker, that would at least prevent a Paladin from immediately disassociating with them.

True, but my argument is based on the thread being specifically about Paladins and not LG Clerics.

Also, some faiths are run by the paladins more than the clerics e.g. Tyr, Torm, Bahamut.

[DragoonWraith]

I think a Paladin of Bahamut would at least attempt to accept a Malconvoker officially sanctioned by the Church of Pelor or something. He may end up being unable to do so, but I feel like that sanction would be enough for him to give the Malconvoker a shot.