Hide my Imp Familiar to Paladins

[4BR4]

So, I'm a Wizard and I'm thinking to take an Imp Consular as Familiar at lv.8.

Unluckily, in our group, there is a couple of Paladins, and a Cleric, that will not like my choice, and I need to hide my familiar from them.

I know that my Imp Consular can be invisible most of the time, or change his aspect via beast shape II, and speak with me via telepathy, but it could be detected via Detect Evil from one of them at some point.

So, there is any item or any spell of long duration that can I use for hide my familiar?

[Daftendirekt]

Have it stay invisible or in alternate form constantly, then they have no reason to suspect anything and detect on it.

[holywhippet]

Undetectable alignment hides the targets alignment from detection. Problem is, only bards, clerics and paladins can cast it (NFI why it's on the paladin spell list).

If you have a bag of holding you could always keep the imp stored in that.

[Daftendirekt]

(NFI why it's on the paladin spell list).

He may be trying to infiltrate a den of evil and not want to ping as the holiest dude in the house.

[elonin]

What level are you playing at? Non-detection is better than undetectable alignment for hiding it's aura. Also, if you want to hide it's identity from the rest of the group use alter self to make it look like a mephit or other creature of it's type.

[holywhippet]

He may be trying to infiltrate a den of evil and not want to ping as the holiest dude in the house.

Surely a den of evil would be using detect evil to ensure everyone was one of their own. That spell would make you not register to any of the alignment detection spells which would be suspicious.

[4BR4]

The problem is not that they could have any reason to suspect about my familiar, is that they use Detect Evil like crazies, and not always I'm in the right position for not be in the middle of the area of effect of their scrying.

I don't want to put it in a Bag of Holding because I want it able to do some tasks for me.

As I told we are all lv.8 and nondetection so far seems a good call :smallsmile:

[Diarmuid]

Aren't there alignment restrictions of taking improved familiars?

What is your wizard doing to not show up a devil to the rest of the party?

[4BR4]

Improved Familiar: You may choose a familiar with an alignment up to one step away on each alignment axis (lawful through chaotic, good through evil).

So, I can take an Imp as familiar, and I don't want to reveal my familiar to part of the party, because they are Paladins and a Cleric, sooo "Good", that even speaking about Necromancy is dangerous next to them.

[Renegade Paladin]

They'll find and kill it quickly, as is right and proper. :smallsmile:

[Bronk]

You could say that it was a Courre Eladrin familiar who succumbed to a terrible curse, and trick the Paladin into questing to 'break' the curse... Then, when you're a high enough level and discover that 'sadly, the curse is unbreakable', find a way to just switch it's alignment.

[holywhippet]

They'll find and kill it quickly, as is right and proper. :smallsmile:

Thing is, the owner of the familiar loses XP if their familiar is slain. Would it violate the paladin's code of conduct to do such a thing?

[Curmudgeon]

Thing is, the owner of the familiar loses XP if their familiar is slain. Would it violate the paladin's code of conduct to do such a thing?
Not in the slightest. Causing other people grief by forcing them to hew closely to the Paladin's LG alignment is pretty much that class's schtick.

[Kuulvheysoon]

Thing is, the owner of the familiar loses XP if their familiar is slain. Would it violate the paladin's code of conduct to do such a thing?

It'd probably violate the Paladin CoC to not kill it- not allowed to associate with Evil, remember?

[Renegade Paladin]

Thing is, the owner of the familiar loses XP if their familiar is slain. Would it violate the paladin's code of conduct to do such a thing?
Absolutely not. It's a fiend and must therefore die.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Thing is, the owner of the familiar loses XP if their familiar is slain. Would it violate the paladin's code of conduct to do such a thing?
In the interest of preventing out-and-out PvP, if I were the paladin, I'd file the imp under "tempter" and do my best to persuade the wizard to not succumb to temptation and to dismiss the evil creature before it corrupts him and so on. A bad DM might not go for that, though.

[JHShadon]

You could try to convince the Paladin not to kill it by explaining that when it's helping you here, it's not helping a demon elsewhere.

[Dusk Eclipse]

There is a feat... mask of gentility (I think) in EoE that makes you ping as neutral on Detect spells/abilities, pay a psion to Psychic reformate one of your imp's feats.

[3Power]

Surely a den of evil would be using detect evil to ensure everyone was one of their own. That spell would make you not register to any of the alignment detection spells which would be suspicious. I'm pretty sure undetectable alignment is supposed to make you register as "Not Good/evil/lawful/chaotic" to whatever detect spell is used. They could use detect evil as a way around that, but that would mean they were keeping all neutral people out too. How viable that is depends on where you are. In the abyss, it would pretty effective. In a seedy tavern, maybe not so much.

[Deathra13]

Planar motes, complete scoundrel. Basically overwrites alignment aura with its own so long as its carried. They do have a time limit, months if greater iirc.

[Aran Thule]

Say that you are trying to retain your neutrality, and the influence of the paladin and the clerics advise is causing you to become unbalanced.
Therefore you need something to counter their influence... ie the imp.

[Andezzar]

Say that you are trying to retain your neutrality, and the influence of the paladin and the clerics advise is causing you to become unbalanced.
Therefore you need something to counter their influence... ie the imp.Lol.

If you take that idea to extremes the paladin will have to go for the owner of the imp pretty quickly. After all he has to commit some evil acts to counter all the good acts he is performing in the presence of the paladin.

[Narren]

I'm pretty sure undetectable alignment is supposed to make you register as "Not Good/evil/lawful/chaotic" to whatever detect spell is used. They could use detect evil as a way around that, but that would mean they were keeping all neutral people out too. How viable that is depends on where you are. In the abyss, it would pretty effective. In a seedy tavern, maybe not so much.

Or you could just say "I mask my alignment because I don't want some holier-than-though paladin trying to stick a sword in me while I'm buying groceries." And then you fall for lying :smalltongue:

[Xuldarinar]

I don't think you have to hide it. Just toss this at your familiar until it works:


DMG. Pg 275


Helm of Opposite Alignment: This metal hat looks like a typical helmet. When placed upon the head, however, its curse immediately takes effect (Will DC 15 negates). On a failed save, the alignment of the wearer is radically altered to an alignment as different as possible from the former alignment—good to evil, chaotic to lawful, neutral to some extreme commitment (LE, LG, CE, or CG). Alteration in alignment is mental as well as moral, and the individual changed by the magic thoroughly enjoys his new outlook. A character who succeeds on his save can continue to wear the helmet without suffering the effect of the curse, but if he takes it off and later puts it on again, another save is required. The curse only works once; that is, a character whose alignment has been changed cannot change it again by donning the helmet a second time.
Only a wish or a miracle can restore former alignment, and the affected individual does not make any attempt to return to the former alignment. (In fact, he views the prospect with horror and avoids it in any way possible.) If a character of a class with an alignment requirement is affected, an atonement spell is needed as well if the curse is to be obliterated. When a helm of opposite alignment has functioned once, it loses its magical properties.
Strong transmutation; CL 12th; Create Wondrous Item, creator must be 12th level; Price 4,000 gp; Weight 3 lb.


If you have some gold to spare.. think this would be of use?

[Scumbaggery]

I don't think you have to hide it. Just toss this at your familiar until it works:


DMG. Pg 275


Helm of Opposite Alignment: This metal hat looks like a typical helmet. When placed upon the head, however, its curse immediately takes effect (Will DC 15 negates). On a failed save, the alignment of the wearer is radically altered to an alignment as different as possible from the former alignment—good to evil, chaotic to lawful, neutral to some extreme commitment (LE, LG, CE, or CG). Alteration in alignment is mental as well as moral, and the individual changed by the magic thoroughly enjoys his new outlook. A character who succeeds on his save can continue to wear the helmet without suffering the effect of the curse, but if he takes it off and later puts it on again, another save is required. The curse only works once; that is, a character whose alignment has been changed cannot change it again by donning the helmet a second time.
Only a wish or a miracle can restore former alignment, and the affected individual does not make any attempt to return to the former alignment. (In fact, he views the prospect with horror and avoids it in any way possible.) If a character of a class with an alignment requirement is affected, an atonement spell is needed as well if the curse is to be obliterated. When a helm of opposite alignment has functioned once, it loses its magical properties.
Strong transmutation; CL 12th; Create Wondrous Item, creator must be 12th level; Price 4,000 gp; Weight 3 lb.


If you have some gold to spare.. think this would be of use?

This seems like a pretty good idea.
This also gives me an idea on how my rogue can pull some hilarious shenanigans on the rest of my party. :smallamused:

[nedz]

The Helm is a good idea, but will the Wizard still be within one alignment step of his familiar ?

[ahenobarbi]

Handling lawful goods should be easy (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0228.html) :smallwink: (hint: pallies are very unlikely to recognize forged document).

You could switch alignment of your familiar (helmet of oppoised alignment?).

[Talya]

It wouldn't work. Devils have the [evil] subtype, and retain it regardless of their actual alignment; a good devil still has the [evil] subtype and therefore an evil aura. A redeemed fiend is therefore subject to Detect Good, Detect Evil, Smite Good, Smite Evil...

You can't get around Detect Evil that way.



Evil Subtype
A subtype usually applied only to outsiders native to the evil-aligned Outer Planes. Evil outsiders are also called fiends. Most creatures that have this subtype also have evil alignments; however, if their alignments change, they still retain the subtype. Any effect that depends on alignment affects a creature with this subtype as if the creature has an evil alignment, no matter what its alignment actually is. The creature also suffers effects according to its actual alignment. A creature with the evil subtype overcomes damage reduction as if its natural weapons and any weapons it wields were evil-aligned (see Damage Reduction, above).

[Scumbaggery]

Crapbaskets.

How about just giving him a Mask of Lies instead? Won't force an alignment change, but will make it perma-undetectable.

edit: Source

Magic Item Compendium, pg. 115
Price (Item Level): 4,500 gp
(9th)
Body Slot: Face
Caster Level: 5th
Aura: Faint; (DC 17) abjuration
Activation: — and swift (mental)
Weight: 1 lb.
This black, featureless mask has cross-shaped slits where the wearer's eyes and mouth should be. While wearing this mask, you gain a +5 competence bonus on Bluff checks and your alignment is disguised as if by an undetectable alignment spell. This is a continuous effect and requires no activation. When you activate the mask, you can alter your appearance as if by a disguise self spell. This ability functions three times per day.

Prerequisites: Craft Wondrous Item,
disguise self, undetectable alignment.
Cost to Create: 2,250 gp, 180 XP, 5 days.

[4BR4]

But I don't want to change the alignment of my Familiar, I want only hide its real one.

And I esclude that the paladins could be persuaded in any way to accept it.

[ahenobarbi]

It wouldn't work. Devils have the [evil] subtype, and retain it regardless of their actual alignment; a good devil still has the [evil] subtype and therefore an evil aura. A redeemed fiend is therefore subject to Detect Good, Detect Evil, Smite Good, Smite Evil...

You can't get around Detect Evil that way.

A. I forgot, thanks for reminding.

But this makes tings easier. "You know folks, this Imp here was redeemed, it's not really evil any longer (as proved by working with you). Still it will register as evil for your spells because of how it was born". Drink a potion of Glibness to make sure they believe it :smallbiggrin:

[Lanson]

The Helm is a good idea, but will the Wizard still be within one alignment step of his familiar ?

As long as the Wizard is true neutral, he'd technically be one step away from both sides of the imps alignment, or does WotC count that as 2 steps away?

I have always imagined the alignments to be something like this.

Lawful Good | Neutral Good | Chaotic Good

Lawful Neutral | Neutral | Chaotic Neutral

Lawful Evil | Neutral Evil | Chaotic Evil

Everything that's Adjacent is one step away from each other. But knowing Wizards, this may well be blatantly incorrect so please correct me if I'm wrong.

[Raven777]

Out of character, tell the other players "I'm taking an Imp for the mechanical benefits, please work with me so we can all have reasons to be OK with it".

Because it is not more ok for a D&D player to screw over another player's options than it is ok for a World of Warcraft Paladin to refuse raiding tonight because there's a Warlock in the group.

Common sense, people. You are first and foremost real people playing together. Your characters are not the boss of you.

[Scumbaggery]

Out of character, tell the other players "I'm taking an Imp for the mechanical benefits, please work with me so we can all have reasons to be OK with it".

Because it is not more ok for a D&D player to screw over another player's options than it is ok for a World of Warcraft Paladin to refuse raiding tonight because there's a Warlock in the group.

Common sense, people. You are first and foremost real people playing together. Your characters are not the boss of you.

Going to have to slightly disagree with you here. WoW vs. D&D 3.5 is comparing apples to oranges when you are talking about the roleplaying aspect. For some people (such as myself), when you sit at the table to roll dice, you are your character. Having other characters not take action against something blatantly against them for mechanical benefits is pretty much metagaming.

[Andezzar]

But I don't want to change the alignment of my Familiar, I want only hide its real one.As Talya already pointed out, hiding the alignment is pointless. You have to hide the subtype. If you don't the imp will always ping as moderately evil, due to its subtype.



As long as the Wizard is true neutral, he'd technically be one step away from both sides of the imps alignment, or does WotC count that as 2 steps away?

I have always imagined the alignments to be something like this.

Lawful Good | Neutral Good | Chaotic Good

Lawful Neutral | Neutral | Chaotic Neutral

Lawful Evil | Neutral Evil | Chaotic Evil

Everything that's Adjacent is one step away from each other. But knowing Wizards, this may well be blatantly incorrect so please correct me if I'm wrong.Contrary to movement on the grid, with alignments there is no diagonal movement that only take one (5 ft) step. Going diagonally is always 2 steps.

[Scumbaggery]

I feel as if you have two options here then.

Changing the subtype, or literally hiding it from the party and hope they don't get paranoid and use Detect Evil in your direction.

[Lanson]

Contrary to movement on the grid, with alignments there is no diagonal movement that only take one (5 ft) step. Going diagonally is always 2 steps.

Ah, thank you, I thought that it didn't sound quite right, especially with the alignment system as rigid as it is.

[ahenobarbi]

I feel as if you have two options here then.

Changing the subtype, or literally hiding it from the party and hope they don't get paranoid and use Detect Evil in your direction.

Or using that fact to your advantage. It will register as evil because of the subtype, so you can convince them it is in fact not evil (but registers as evil because subtype).

[Andezzar]

I feel as if you have two options here then.

Changing the subtype, or literally hiding it from the party and hope they don't get paranoid and use Detect Evil in your direction.Easier said than done. The paladin does not even have to do it to check the familiar. Everythin within a 60 ft cone gets detected.

[Xuldarinar]

Well, here is a question.


You have a creature of the evil subtype, but of a good alignment.

Is a paladin (of honor) required to kill it because it is (evil), or would it be against their code of conduct because the creature is not (x)E, but is in fact (x)G, making killing them an evil act?

[Andezzar]

If that creature is a fiend he is screwed either way. However there are no creatures in the SRD that have the evil subtype and do not have an alignment of always x evil. So that good fiend is at best a statistically insignificant anomaly.

[Joe the Rat]

yeah, I'd go with the "He's a reformed Imp (Lawful Neutral, though you didn't ask), but still has the subtype" approach. I'd still have him shift into something less impish for when first introduced.

I considered having you point out that you have a familiar, who happens to be an Imp up front ("Hey, I need to share something. Detect Evil."), if not for the fact that the Pallies would then be willingly and knowingly associating with an evil (alignment) being.

[Xuldarinar]

If that creature is a fiend he is screwed either way. However there are no creatures in the SRD that have the evil subtype and do not have an alignment of always x evil. So that good fiend is at best a statistically insignificant anomaly.

But there are individuals that do exist. Fiends that become paladins even, like Eludecia (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/fc/20050824a).

[Andezzar]

Yes they can exist, but having the PCs run across them more than once is even worse than all the Drizzt clones.

[Xuldarinar]

Yes they can exist, but having the PCs run across them more than once is even worse than all the Drizzt clones.

Well, for the most part that goes without saying. Good aligned members of inherently/typically evil races exist, but they are rare in of themselves and the odd are against ever meeting them. My question, however, was on the standpoint of a paladin's code of conduct.

Someone is (evil), but not evil.

Is killing a good-aligned creature, especially unprovoked, an evil act?
Are they required to kill (evil) creatures on the spot?
Do we get ourselves into a situation where no matter what the paladin is losing their powers, or does one matter more than the other?

How does this play into association?

[Tysis]

The op also needs to start planning to hide his own alignment. Consorting with fiends tends to put your alignment south of neutral.

[Andezzar]

Association does not specify whether the creature is of evil alignment or of the evil subtype. So the paladin cannot associate with either without consequences.

For the code of conduct there is no hierarchy of sins as in oWoD. It either is an evil deed or it is not.

BoED, I think, states that letting a fiend live is an evil deed. Killing an innocent is an evil deed as well.

BTW which feat lets you take an imp as familiar? Neither the CS or the CW version of Improved Familiar includes an imp.

[Talya]

BoED, I think, states that letting a fiend live is an evil deed. Killing an innocent is an evil deed as well.


BoED also suggests (both in word, and in an awesome picture) that showing mercy to a fiend because of some inherent goodness (even if that goodness isn't enough itself for redemption) is goodness.

BoED also considers attempting to redeem evil to be a greater good than merely vanquishing evil.

I like the implications of both of those sentiments. I just wish BoED wasn't so contradictory of itself.

[ahenobarbi]

Is killing a good-aligned creature, especially unprovoked, an evil act?

FTFY / Yes.


Are they required to kill (evil) creatures on the spot?

Why would they?

[Andezzar]

BoED also suggests (both in word, and in an awesome picture) that showing mercy to a fiend because of some inherent goodness (even if that goodness isn't enough itself for redemption) is goodness.

BoED also considers attempting to redeem evil to be a greater good than merely vanquishing evil.

I like the implications of both of those sentiments. I just wish BoED wasn't so contradictory of itself.I like those contradictions because then there is no obvious right answer. It is however poor game design to screw a character class in such situations no matter the choice the character makes.

[Xuldarinar]

Redeeming someone is a good act.

Helm of Opposite alignment the imp. Explain to the paladin the imp now seeks to become good, to do good (which is true).

Or, even without magic. Follow the process of redemption in BoED. This would also make things easier in terms of alignment conflicts. Taking the familiar then putting it through the process of redemption would give the paladin something to do that doesn't require them to draw their sword.

[Andezzar]

Or, even without magic. Follow the process of redemption in BoED. This would also make things easier in terms of alignment conflicts. Taking the familiar then putting it through the process of redemption would give the paladin something to do that doesn't require them to draw their sword.
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.
Additionally the variant rules in chapter 2 say this:
Creatures whose alignments are listed as “always” a specific alignment, and characters who would lose class abilities if they changed alignment (including evil clerics and blackguards), gain a +4 bonus on their Will saves. Outsiders with the Evil subtype are immune to redemption in this manner.
Now the question is, does a Imp remain an outsider or does it becime a magical beast when it is made into a familiar like the normal ones?

[Xuldarinar]

Additionally the variant rules in chapter 2 say this:
Now the question is, does a Imp remain an outsider or does it becime a magical beast when it is made into a familiar like the normal ones?

Ah. The latter of the two examples I missed. That does change things a bit. Unless one can change it's type or subtype (which I'm certain there are ways), I guess redemption in that particular manner cannot be preformed successfully.

The former I intentionally disregard because an angel, who has gone un-named to my knowledge, may have been a naive fool but he was a successful one. (See the link to Eludecia).

[ahenobarbi]

Now the question is, does a Imp remain an outsider or does it becime a magical beast when it is made into a familiar like the normal ones?

Doesn't matter if all you want is making pallies believe it's redeemed (and not actually redeem it).

[Talya]

Just for kicks, look at page 7 of BoED.

See the caption of the picture? Note that's a pair of succubi.

[Scow2]

BoED also suggests (both in word, and in an awesome picture) that showing mercy to a fiend because of some inherent goodness (even if that goodness isn't enough itself for redemption) is goodness.

BoED also considers attempting to redeem evil to be a greater good than merely vanquishing evil.

I like the implications of both of those sentiments. I just wish BoED wasn't so contradictory of itself.It's not an issue, really: The fiend lives.

Specific Trumps General. The general rule is "Tolerating a Fiend is an Evil Act", but when you throw in the qualifiers "Is redeemed" or "Has a spark of inherent goodness" (Neither of which are given to all fiends ever), it's more specific, and the BoED makes it clear letting them live is a Good Act.

Also, while Fiends are immune to Redemption, they can voluntarily waive that immunity.