Good Demons, daemons and devils?

[Ryulin18]

One of my players wants to make an infernal bloodline sorcerer who's great gradfather was a devil or demon that turned good. His character goal is to convert everyones thinking of them all being evil by being a celebrated pathfinder chronicler.

In my understanding, demons and devils are by nature evil and recieve there powers by evil means. they are evil incarnate. Their template says that they are Lawful and chaotic evil.

So, if a devil/demon turns good, would it die? or be hunted by both sides of the eternal fight?

[DeltaEmil]

Fiends that turn another alignment than they are do not suffer any ill consequences, except that they are still subject to any effect that goes against their alignment, as well as their subtype.

So a lawful good succubus for example (a fiend with the chaotic and evil subtype) would be affected by a smite good, smite chaos, smite evil, smite law. And be subject to a blasphemy, holy word, dictum, word of chaos.

As about if they would get hunted down, that's subject to the GM's whims and background lore what happens if a fiend turns good and what its brethens would do about it.

[hamishspence]

Yup- there's been a few examples of redeemed fiends in D&D materials.

[Ryulin18]

Sorry, this is for pathfinder.

So, with more reading, I've found that he would keep his Devil lineages subtype. I think he'd be He'd be a Chaotic Good, Lawful Evil humanoid with the subtype(outsider).

That's a lot of stuff that can affect him. Smite good, evil, law and chaos as well as appearing both good and evil to detect alignment. But as evil to a paladin's detect evil...

In return, he would have all weapons count as evil for overcoming DR. Not a great return for the vast amounts of downsides.

This could get complicated :smallfrown:

[satorian]

Nono, the demon would be affected by alignment things. The character would just be a chaotic good mortal, and be affected by things that affect him. He will still get the infernal powers as a sorcerer, and his DR will come from that. Mechanically, nothing is special or different about him. It's all RP.

Edit: That said, you are the DM. If you want a greater power to redeem the fiend and make him an archon, you could well decide that the character gets holy powers to replace his infernal powers. But that isn't in the rulebook. That would be between you and your player, and only relevant for your game.

[Slipperychicken]

Fiends are literally made of Evil. Most (all) Good actors would just see it as a lame trick, which Fiends are very good at. Pallies would just Smite him anyway, and dismiss his Good aura (but come on, no one casts Detect Good) as magical tampering through Magic Aura or the like.

Devil Daddy is hunted/ridiculed by Devils for being a traitor, and the Forces of Good for being a Fiend. He's really in a no-win scenario here. Maybe he can lay low somewhere to avoid destruction.

For the Sorcerer, its all fluff. Doesn't change anything mechanically for him. As far as bloodlines go, a Fiend's a Fiend. Fiends will see his propaganda as an insult (literally antithetical to their beings) and probably kill him. If he did change anyone's mind, Fiends would probably trick those people into thinking they were Redeemed too, then just betray them.

No one will believe a devil can be redeemed. They have enough trouble with Greenskins (and even half-greenskins), and just resort to genocide with them anyway. So I think it's going to be pretty hopeless for our poor Sorcerer. Interesting to RP the struggle, even though it won't work.

[Phelix-Mu]

No one will believe a devil can be redeemed. They have enough trouble with Greenskins (and even half-greenskins), and just resort to genocide with them anyway. So I think it's going to be pretty hopeless for our poor Sorcerer. Interesting to RP the struggle, even though it won't work.

Yet it is easy to believe that celestials, angels, etc, can be corrupted. Seems like a double standard if the tricks of evil work on the good guys, but evil is immune to redemption. Smart sages and spiritual people might note the disparity. It is a trap, after all, for the good person to hate evil people too much (evil people love it when this happens), and fiends are just evil people with good-related learning disabilities, so a truly virtuous person should extend some benefit of the doubt until they see the fiend's nature through its deeds.

I totally agree, however, that it should be super rare, even rarer than fallen celestials. After all, celestials and good creatures will tend to spread cautionary tales among their number about those that have been lead astray, whereas fiends would probably hush it up (all fluff here, though). I will second the notion that fiends would respond to desertion among their ranks with hunting down/execution, not to mention other ways of making an example of someone.

Good luck to the rebellious fiend, though. This is one of my favorite character traits, someone that doesn't fit in with their own people, the outcast, rebel, etc.

[docnessuno]

An example (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/fc/20050824a) from WotC that raised some discussions at the time it was pubblished.

[Crake]

Fiends that turn another alignment than they are do not suffer any ill consequences, except that they are still subject to any effect that goes against their alignment, as well as their subtype.

So a lawful good succubus for example (a fiend with the chaotic and evil subtype) would be affected by a smite good, smite chaos, smite evil, smite law. And be subject to a blasphemy, holy word, dictum, word of chaos.

As about if they would get hunted down, that's subject to the GM's whims and background lore what happens if a fiend turns good and what its brethens would do about it.

Actually, technically a LG demon or a CG devil, or their evil celestial counterparts would be completely immune to blasphemy, holy word, dictum and word of chaos, as the spell specifies that non-[enter alignment here] creatures are affected, and since you qualify as all alignments, you're counted as being immune. This would also technically make you immune to every inward focused magic circle as they also specify non-alignment. On the other hand, yes you would register as all alignments for detection spells, and yes you would be subject to all types of smite.

Confusing I know, but it is both good and bad, depending on the effect.

Actually, that could make for some funny planar binding spells from a DM perspective. Summon an angel to try and get it to do your bidding, turns out its an evil angel and it steps right out of your magic circle and kills you

[Phelix-Mu]

Actually, that could make for some funny planar binding spells from a DM perspective. Summon an angel to try and get it to do your bidding, turns out its an evil angel and it steps right out of your magic circle and kills you

Lesson: Do your homework, wizard.:smallbiggrin:

[hymer]

I always thought it was terribly messy with extraplanars changing alignment like that and not following the established rules, so I decided on a way to counteract it.
They're all pretty much the same, but with different levels of power and different degrees of L-C and G-E. So if a pit fiend somehow changed to LG and stayed that way (not just a curse or some doubt), he'd gradually turn into a trumpet archon (possibly going via Marut on the way). He'd lose some power, but if it was a real change, he'd regain his status in a different hierarchy over time.
Correlation of that is that tieldings and aasimar are the same, but their alignments turn them into whatever aspect they most closely resemble.

I dislike good undead too (particularly if they sparkle). I rarely have good dragons in my campaigns, either. Evil monsters should be evil monsters, and if they get redeemed they should cease to be monsters alltogether.

But that's just me.

[Phelix-Mu]

I always thought it was terribly messy with extraplanars changing alignment like that and not following the established rules, so I decided on a way to counteract it.
They're all pretty much the same, but with different levels of power and different degrees of L-C and G-E. So if a pit fiend somehow changed to LG and stayed that way (not just a curse or some doubt), he'd gradually turn into a trumpet archon (possibly going via Marut on the way). He'd lose some power, but if it was a real change, he'd regain his status in a different hierarchy over time.
Correlation of that is that tieldings and aasimar are the same, but their alignments turn them into whatever aspect they most closely resemble.

I dislike good undead too (particularly if they sparkle). I rarely have good dragons in my campaigns, either. Evil monsters should be evil monsters, and if they get redeemed they should cease to be monsters alltogether.

But that's just me.


Interesting. I'm more of "the rules exist to be broken" school of thought, allowing that any rule has some kind of exception somewhere. By virtue of the infinite nature of the infinite planes, some fiend sometime somewhere is going to have some kind of *singing* "evil, what is it good for? (ABSOLUTELY NUTHIN', SING IT AGAIN)"- type moment. Statistically speaking, it's bound to happen.

That said, very uphill battle for anyone that wants to be free of their alignment subtype, since you have to pit your will against you inherent nature, not to mention the combined weight of past deeds (particularly formidable for evil subtype creatures). In practice, most fiends don't make it much further than some flavor of neutral.

I find outsiders spontaneously changing into other outsiders due to their behavior to also be "messy," especially if we go through the inevitable route, since inevitables would certainly hunt down misbehaving ones and send them back to Mechanus HQ for "repairs."

[gooddragon1]

There's a template that can be applied to them that redeems them somewhere or other.

[lunar2]

well, outsiders changing into other outsiders based on alignment is already established, though. the erinyes are fallen angels, or the descendants of fallen angels. that said, inevitables aren't part of that cycle, imo, since they aren't outsiders at all, but constructs. the pit fiend would more likely become a formian queen, and then a trumpet archon.

[hymer]

Well, under this system they wouldn't, seeing how it is the way things are supposed to be. :) Or it might be seen as their way of trying to stop the movement at LN and gain a powerful ally. No guarantee they'd succeed, and they might be in conflict with some other big'uns who wanted the changer destroyed or moved on to his true purpose, as they see it.
But no doubt there's different strokes for different folks. :)
My main problem, I guess, with all these infinite possibilities is that it seems the world is full of freaks and misfits, and I just don't believe it. Blurring the lines long enough just means there are no lines to count on any more. If enough people are freaks and misfits, the term loses its meaning. Which I guess is fine for some people.

[Slipperychicken]

It is a trap, after all, for the good person to hate evil people too much (evil people love it when this happens), and fiends are just evil people with good-related learning disabilities, so a truly virtuous person should extend some benefit of the doubt until they see the fiend's nature through its deeds.

I regard Fiends as "Evil Elementals", as in, only the most demented (by Fiend standards) Fiends would even consider doing Goodness. It would be like a Fire Elemental with water on the inside, antithetical to their beings.

In D&D, a virtuous person would destroy every Fiend s/he could, since they are literally composed of everything wrong with the universe. Fiends spend their infinite existence inflicting untold suffering on everyone they can. I take this in part from the fact that merely allowing a Fiend to exist is Evil, and making deals with them is on the same level as shooting up schoolhouses full of innocent children.

A Fiend which tells you it's redeemed is certainly a liar. If there's even the slightest chance you believe that, every Fiend will start pulling that line, and given time they will destroy/corrupt you through your trust. These are not merely untrustworthy, Fiends will spend aeons plotting against the forces of Good, and faking redemption is right up their alley. I wouldn't be surprised if there were already instances of "double agent" devils.

[The_Snark]

A Fiend which tells you it's redeemed is certainly a liar. If there's even the slightest chance you believe that, every Fiend will start pulling that line, and given time they will destroy/corrupt you through your trust. These are not merely untrustworthy, Fiends will spend aeons plotting against the forces of Good, and faking redemption is right up their alley. I wouldn't be surprised if there were already instances of "double agent" devils.

While that's probably true... Celestials are embodiments of good in the same way that fiends are embodiments of evil, and we know for a fact that they can fall. Logically, it is then possible for a fiend to rise. There may be some kind of sign to mark the change of heart—erinyes have red eyes and dark wings, for instance—but there's no hard-and-fast rules on that.

It's completely possible, even likely, that a fiend claiming redemption is lying. It's the kind of thing they'd do. But it's also possible, in theory, that they're telling the truth. Trusting them is terribly risky. Not trusting them is safer... but what if you're wrong?

[lunar2]

if you are wrong, and you have any kind of supernatural connection to the forces of good, you'd better not act on your mistake, because murdering an innocent is evil. catch 22 for the paladin, there. "do i kill it, and risk falling, or do i allow it to live, and risk it doing untold amounts of damage".

[The_Snark]

if you are wrong, and you have any kind of supernatural connection to the forces of good, you'd better not act on your mistake, because murdering an innocent is evil. catch 22 for the paladin, there. "do i kill it, and risk falling, or do i allow it to live, and risk it doing untold amounts of damage".

Mind you, killing an innocent that you honestly believed was an evil fiend is the kind of fall that could be undone without too much trouble. A brief "gods, what have I done?" moment, an atonement spell, and possibly some exploration of the dangers of trust versus suspicion if the DM feels like going into that. It could be interesting. This, I feel, is the kind of situation the paladin's code of conduct was intended to create, not "haha you lose your powers forever! Sucks to be you!"

If, on the other hand, it's a cold-blooded decision to err on the side of caution and risk murdering one innocent rather than endangering many more... then you're probably not playing a paladin in the first place.

[Slipperychicken]

if you are wrong, and you have any kind of supernatural connection to the forces of good, you'd better not act on your mistake, because murdering an innocent is evil. catch 22 for the paladin, there. "do i kill it, and risk falling, or do i allow it to live, and risk it doing untold amounts of damage".

Thanks to BoVD, Paladins have this one answered for them. Allowing Fiends to exist, or aiding them in any way, is an evil act. The Paladin falls if he doesn't kill the Fiend.

I'd really like to see the case for a Fiend being considered "innocent" by any sane definition of the word.

[The_Snark]

I'd really like to see the case for a Fiend being considered "innocent" by any sane definition of the word.

Innocent was probably the wrong word, yeah (even a hypothetical repentant fiend has a lot to repent for). Killing a good-aligned individual who's asking for your help is an evil act. If you're a lawful good fighter, you can make the argument that it's a necessary evil because you can't take the risk of being deceived... but that is not a very paladin-like thing to do.

As long as we're citing D&D books on morality, the BoED states that categorically denying the possibility of forgiveness and mercy is an evil viewpoint. The BoED has some wonky bits—I don't think it's possible to write a book about something as nebulous as morality and get everything "right"—but in this case, I feel it's correct. Angels can fall. Demons can rise above their nature.

[Slipperychicken]

As long as we're citing D&D books on morality, the BoED states that categorically denying the possibility of forgiveness and mercy is an evil viewpoint. The BoED has some wonky bits—I don't think it's possible to write a book about something as nebulous as morality and get everything "right"—but in this case, I feel it's correct. Angels can fall. Demons can rise above their nature.

This passage should be enough to excuse our hypothetical Paladin, even if it doesn't acknowledge the possibility of Good-aligned Fiends.



Redeeming Evil, BoED 8
Of course, good characters recognize that some creatures are
utterly beyond redemption. Most creatures described in the
Monster Manual as “always evil” are either completely irredeemable
or so intimately tied to evil that they are almost
entirely hopeless. Certainly demons and devils are best slain, or
at least banished, and only a naïve fool would try to convert
them. Evil dragons might not be entirely beyond salvation, but
there is truly only the barest glimmer of hope.

[navar100]

In D&D, a virtuous person would destroy every Fiend s/he could, since they are literally composed of everything wrong with the universe. Fiends spend their infinite existence inflicting untold suffering on everyone they can. I take this in part from the fact that merely allowing a Fiend to exist is Evil, and making deals with them is on the same level as shooting up schoolhouses full of innocent children.



Ouch. Bad timing for that metaphor, or was it on purpose?
(Not offended, just noticeable.)

[Slipperychicken]

Ouch. Bad timing for that metaphor, or was it on purpose?
(Not offended, just noticeable.)

I feel like the gravity helps express what you should think of when you hear "Evil", realize just how serious that designation is, and associate it with how much harm a Fiend, a literal manifestation of the concept of Evil, is going to do if you let it go on and hurt more people.


EDIT: Removed off-topic paragraphs.

[Arbane]

It's completely possible, even likely, that a fiend claiming redemption is lying. It's the kind of thing they'd do. But it's also possible, in theory, that they're telling the truth. Trusting them is terribly risky. Not trusting them is safer... but what if you're wrong?

Ask Sir Eadric of Deorham, as that dilemma is what set off one of the few genuinely epic epic-level campaigns (http://leagueofimaginaryheroes.wordpress.com/2009/03/22/sepulchraves-tales-of-wyre/) I've heard of.

[The_Snark]

This passage should be enough to excuse our hypothetical Paladin, even if it doesn't acknowledge the possibility of Good-aligned Fiends.

That passage refers to attempting to convert evil creatures, not how to deal with normally-evil creatures that have changed their alignment (or are attempting to do so). I'm not suggesting that paladins have an obligation to try to convert unwilling fiends, because in general that's a hopeless game; at best you'll be laughed at, at worst exploited for all you're worth. But when they've already taken the first steps towards good alignment, that changes the situation a bit. If they are genuine (and you definitely want to assure yourself of that), then there's some seed, remnant, whatever of goodness in them that you'll extinguish if you say "No, that's impossible" and kill them without a second thought.

If fiends are literally composed of everything that's wrong with the universe, then the implication is that helping them become less evil will make the universe a better place.


Ask Sir Eadric of Deorham, as that dilemma is what set off one of the few genuinely epic epic-level campaigns (http://leagueofimaginaryheroes.wordpress.com/2009/03/22/sepulchraves-tales-of-wyre/) I've heard of.
Ooh, nice. See, this is why I think the issue deserves consideration; isn't this more interesting than "Nope, redemption is impossible; I smite evil"?

[Darth Stabber]

Humans are, like most animals, beings shaped by nature to reproduce. It is inherent in all successful animals to reproduce, those that don't get Darwin'd away. So it isn't unreasonable to state that reproductive urges are fundemental for humans. Being a certain alignment is fundamental for outsiders. (I choose reproduction over eating since not eating will kill you, but not reproducing won't)

Individual humans can be celibate, it usually isn't easy, but you can do it. Most people don't do so because they don't see any benefit from doing so, and going against biological imperitives is psychologically difficult. People may take steps to ensure that activities don't result in procreation, but they will still want to engage that activity since even without spawning it still satisfies the psychological imperative. The celibate will usually still want to, but put some other value, drive, moral, ethic, or goal ahead of that want.

I don't see why a demon couldn't do so. It wouldn't likely occure to them to do so, and even those that do are unlikely to see it as worth their effort.

Demon paladins probably have to work pretty hard every time they see a puppy to not run up and kick it, as that instinct is as real and potent as a human's "urge to merge".

Now this may seem simplistic, it may even be simplistic, but it's what I have worked out in my head.

[hamishspence]

I'm not suggesting that paladins have an obligation to try to convert unwilling fiends, because in general that's a hopeless game; at best you'll be laughed at, at worst exploited for all you're worth. But when they've already taken the first steps towards good alignment, that changes the situation a bit. If they are genuine (and you definitely want to assure yourself of that), then there's some seed, remnant, whatever of goodness in them that you'll extinguish if you say "No, that's impossible" and kill them without a second thought.

If fiends are literally composed of everything that's wrong with the universe, then the implication is that helping them become less evil will make the universe a better place.


This. Savage Species had a "worldview variant" that's worth looking at:


page 103 Savage Species:

In this world, evil among monsters is largely perceived to be a psychological condition rather than an absolute or genetic one. Most monsters are thought to become creatures of evil or destruction not because of any infernal or diabolic tie, but because of rejection, loneliness, or some other understandable psychological condition. Even the foulest tanar'ri may in truth be the victim of its own psychoses, and the enlightened people of this world hold out hope that with openness, respect, and even love, the darkest of souls can be redeemed. And who knows? Perhaps they are right.

[hymer]

But this isn't Psychology & Therapy, it's Dungeons & Dragons. Let them be eeevil, so we can murder slay them with a clear consience and be proud when we loot their bodies recover the treasure.

If you're playing a game with evil PCs against various monsters, then it may actually be pretty good, because now you're killing the psychologically impaired (much more fitting), not hulking monsters.

Don't get me wrong. I like the idea of the occasional evil person or monster not being evil after all. I love the idea of redeeming someone. I just think it's something best used sparingly, like once per campaign.
Every good undead/demon/such also diminishes the evilness of their colleagues, if you take my meaning. It's like that campaign where every angel with a name really ought to be attacked on sight, because the percentage chance s/he'd fall was 80% or more. They all ****ing fell, what Good are they if they all ****ing fall??

[Analytica]

This discussion would not be complete without pointing out the Planescape: Torment computer game, which has detailed and valuable insights into both fallen and potentially redeemed celestials, and risen fiends, notably the escaped succubus Fall-From-Grace. I feel experiencing that story contributes a lot to an understanding of some of the ways that D&D has handled things like this in different incarnations.

[hamishspence]

This discussion would not be complete without pointing out the Planescape: Torment computer game, which has detailed and valuable insights into both fallen and potentially redeemed celestials, and risen fiends, notably the escaped succubus Fall-From-Grace.

Dragon Magazine's Demonomicon articles (written by the guy who wrote Fiendish Codex 2) also bring up Fall-From-Grace: specifically, the Malcanthet: Queen of the Succubi article.

So arguably, Fall-From-Grace exists in 3.5.

[Alleran]

This discussion would not be complete without pointing out the Planescape: Torment computer game, which has detailed and valuable insights into both fallen and potentially redeemed celestials, and risen fiends, notably the escaped succubus Fall-From-Grace. I feel experiencing that story contributes a lot to an understanding of some of the ways that D&D has handled things like this in different incarnations.
Malcanthet's article in Dragon also states that Fall-From-Grace is the daughter of the Queen of Succubi, too.

[hamishspence]

I thought Malcanthet saw all succubi as her daughters or "scions"?

[Alleran]

I thought Malcanthet saw all succubi as her daughters or "scions"?
I remember something about Thralls of Malcanthet (as in, the PrC) being seen as her favoured daughters/scions, but nothing about succubi in general off the top of my head. I'd have to look at it again.