Help me weasel out of a pact sworn in blood.

[molten_dragon]

My group just started a Way of the Wicked campaign. Early on in the adventure, you're basically forced to swear a pact in blood. OOC the purpose is to help keep the campaign from going off the rails and prevent party infighting.

The group has discussed it with the DM and the DM has told us that when the time is right, we'll have the opportunity, if we're clever enough, to get out of the pact.

My character definitely wants out. He's NE and wants to control Talingarde for himself, not for Asmodeus, and he wants to eventually betray and kill the rest of the party and rule alone. I need to figure out how to do this. The contract is very much enforced on the letter of the law and not the spirit.

The campaign goes to level 20, and my character is a Psion (telepath)/thrallherd.

The text of the contract is below.


Behold on this day October 27th in the eighth age of this world a perpetual Compact is made between Cardinal Adrastus Thorn (hereafter the Master) and those who would be bound to him as his acolytes (hereafter the Bound). Both the Master and the Bound shall hold fast and true to this Compact through all trial and tribulation. By blood and soul the Bound commit to the Compact and swear that it shall never be undone.

The Bound shall know and understand all the Four Loyalties.

The First Loyalty is to their patron and god – mighty Asmodeus, first among the fallen, prince of the nine hells, our father below.

The Second Loyalty is to their Master – He who is called the Cardinal Adrastus Thorn, High Priest of Asmodeus in Talingarde. They shall do the Master no harm and obey his every commandment as long as those commandments do not clash with their First Loyalty.

The Third Loyalty is to their companions and the other Bound who serve the Master. The Bound’s companions shall be named by the Master or Asmodeus. The Bound’s companions may change at any time as specified by the Master or Asmodeus. The Bound shall deal with each other fairly and honorably as long as doing so does not clash with the First and Second Loyalties. All treasure, wealth and reward garnered in their exploits will be equally shared with all of the Bound’s companions. The Bound shall not harm or control their companions. The Bound shall not let death befall a companion unless doing so would end in their demise.

The Fourth Loyalty is to themselves – for Asmodeus is the Lord of Ambition and all who serve him should strive to become great and powerful in his service as long as doing so does not clash with their First, Second and Third Loyalties. By their weakness, ye shall know the unworthy.

The Bound swear that they cleave to and uphold the Four Loyalties even in the face of death and damnation.

The Master swears that as long as the Four Loyalties are upheld, he shall reward the Bound as they deserve for their deeds.

Thus it is written, and thus it shall be.

We being of sound mind and free will do so swear and let they who violate this Compact know all the wrath of Hell unending.

[Phlebas]

It doesn't say anything specific about not killing Asmodeus, so there's that. Are you up for some deicide?

Second of all, looking at the text about the second loyalty, it says he who is called. So if you can change his gender somehow without harming him, then that would argueably nullify that loyalty. Have you got any belts of opposite gender?

Or hey, you could try and change his name or title somehow.

For the third loyalty, I was going to suggest some psionic form of dominate person, but that's been banned. It doesn't really say anything about putting them in a situation where they might die, and you can get around the not letting them die part with some compulsion on yourself to commit suicide if you help them survive.

Just some ideas.

Edit: Call yourself Cardinal whatever, now your "friends" have to obey you?

[Demidos]

My group just started a Way of the Wicked campaign. Early on in the adventure, you're basically forced to swear a pact in blood. OOC the purpose is to help keep the campaign from going off the rails and prevent party infighting.

The group has discussed it with the DM and the DM has told us that when the time is right, we'll have the opportunity, if we're clever enough, to get out of the pact.

My character definitely wants out. He's NE and wants to control Talingarde for himself, not for Asmodeus, and he wants to eventually betray and kill the rest of the party and rule alone. I need to figure out how to do this. The contract is very much enforced on the letter of the law and not the spirit.

The campaign goes to level 20, and my character is a Psion (telepath)/thrallherd.

The text of the contract is below.

First thought -- the text is pretty difficult to get out of against your companions. That said, there's nothing about not dominating your Master, as long as doing so does not directly harm him. Therefore dominate your Master, have him un-designate your companions as bound, proceed to dominate them. Keep them or kill them as you please, although it should be noted that it is rather convenient to have a number of high level creatures under your control. Consider becoming a vampire to kill them and re-raise them under your control. Use Microcosm on your Master and figure out some safe, out of the way place for him to stay in, and figure out some way to to keep him alive and un-harmed.

The first loyalty is either the hardest to escape or the easiest, depending on the way its read. Being loyal is very vague, and it doesn't have any of the clauses of the other loyalties. Honestly, its so vague that I would suggest just bypassing it altogether by Awakening a squirrel, declaring it "Asmodeus, prince of (etc)., title title bla bla bla", declaring it your patron and god, and proceeding to then dominate. You can swap the order of those last two if you feel dominating your god is not being very loyal. If anyone complains that its a squirrel and not a god, reply with "Asmodeus is a devil, not a god".

Shrug.

Just off the top of my head. I might have missed something, but that should generally work.

[BornValyrian]

You are a psion, with odd powers of the mind, so if you can prove that you were not "of sound mind" when you signed, that would nullify your contract. Try to prove that your psionic powers derive from madness, your golden

[OldTrees1]

Loophole 1?: Does Loyalty 1 change if the PCs convert to worship a real god? I think worshiping Pelor (even Pelor of the burning hate) would conflict and trump the later loyalties.

Opportunity 2?: Suggesting the Cardinal release you from the 2nd, 3rd and 4th loyalties does not harm or disobey the Cardinal. Might not work due to the starting paragraph.

[Epsilon Rose]

I suppose the simplest way to do that is to arrange/allow something else to eliminate the master and the other bound.

You'll want to start with the master for two reasons:

There is no clause stating that you have to act to protect the master, meaning he'll be marginally easier to eliminate.
Since part of the contract involves rewards that only the master can provide, his death might null the rest of the contract.

(Note: this is an extremely optimistic reading.)


Eliminating the rest of the bound is a bit trickier, because there's that clause that says you can't simply allow them to die. In general, there seems to be three ways around this.

The simplest escape from the clause is in the clause itself. If the danger you arrange to befall them is of such a nature that attempting to save them would result in your own death, you can freely abandon them. Do so.
The slightly trickier, but more sure fire way, is to get them to break the contract in some way. At that point, you're free to do whatever you want to them and, as a bonus, you get the support of everyone else.
The final loophole comes in the fourth loyalty's " By their weakness, ye shall know the unworthy." You might be able to leverage that statement to force people into breaking the contract, regardless of what they do (morton's forks and xanatos gambits are great for this).


All, or most of the solutions that work on the Bound, should also work on the Master. Additionally, there doesn't seem to be any clause against you mindraping him (unlike with the other bound). At that point you can just have him order the deaths of your enemies, since his commands override the lesser loyalties. I'm less sure about how to deal with Asmodeus. Once everyone else is dead, it might be a moot point, both because he's imprisoned and because he lacks enforcers.

Alternatively, there's the Darth Vader approach to contract disputes. If you can position yourself so you're able to weather any reprisal and kill anyone that comes after you, you can break the contract with impunity. At that point, the best Asmodeus can do is alter the contract so that you're no longer in breach, so he can save face, or write it off as a loss. Either way, this relies on you being to much of a resource drain to deal with.

[molten_dragon]

It doesn't say anything specific about not killing Asmodeus, so there's that. Are you up for some deicide?

Our DM doesn't stat up deities, so we'll be unable to kill Asmodeus. I'm not sure exactly how the contract will be enforced. I'm guessing through an Avatar or some sort of agent, rather than Asmodeus himself curbstomping us if we break it. Killing whatever is sent to enforce it is an option, but I'm not sure if/when Asmodeus will give up and stop trying to kill us if we break it.

[Traab]

Im honestly having a hard time with this as there are too many ways to reassert control back over you. Even if you DO kill off your party members, there is nothing stopping the master from assigning more. It seems to me the best chance you have is forcing a breech of the second loyalty. Convince asmodeus that the cardinal is going to betray him. Once asmodeus either smited the bastard or orders you to do so, the compact is broken as there is only ONE master, with no provision for bringing in a new one. Once he is gone, the entire deck of cards should fall apart.

Another option is to change the masters circumstances. If he is no longer the cardinal and high priest of that town, then he is no longer the master. Get him excommunicated, get him demoted, get him transferred elsewhere. None of these things would harm him, but they would make him no longer the identified master of the compact.

[123456789blaaa]

First thought -- the text is pretty difficult to get out of against your companions. That said, there's nothing about not dominating your Master, as long as doing so does not directly harm him. Therefore dominate your Master, have him un-designate your companions as bound, proceed to dominate them. Keep them or kill them as you please, although it should be noted that it is rather convenient to have a number of high level creatures under your control. Consider becoming a vampire to kill them and re-raise them under your control. Use Microcosm on your Master and figure out some safe, out of the way place for him to stay in, and figure out some way to to keep him alive and un-harmed.

The first loyalty is either the hardest to escape or the easiest, depending on the way its read. Being loyal is very vague, and it doesn't have any of the clauses of the other loyalties. Honestly, its so vague that I would suggest just bypassing it altogether by Awakening a squirrel, declaring it "Asmodeus, prince of (etc)., title title bla bla bla", declaring it your patron and god, and proceeding to then dominate. You can swap the order of those last two if you feel dominating your god is not being very loyal. If anyone complains that its a squirrel and not a god, reply with "Asmodeus is a devil, not a god".

Shrug.

Just off the top of my head. I might have missed something, but that should generally work.

Actually, in PF (which is the system this adventure path takes place in) Asmodeus is a god as well as a devil. It's pretty clear he is in the fluff of the adventure path as well. Also:



<snip>
The First Loyalty is to their patron and god – mighty Asmodeus, first among the fallen, prince of the nine hells, our father below.
<snip>


The squirrel is not any of the bolded things.

Dominating Thorn would work but unfortunately:


They shall do the Master no harm and obey his every commandment as long as those commandments do not clash with their First Loyalty.




<snip>
In general, speaking is a free action that you can perform even when it isn't your turn. Speaking more than a few sentences is generally beyond the limit of a free action.
<snip>

[Tar Palantir]

If you can manage some time travel (or even send messages back in time), you could have yourself hit with charm or dominate, and you would not be of sound mind, thus invalidating the contract. Not sure how feasible that is, but it's a thought.

[Morphie]

If the pact is blood-bound, all you need to do is replace your blood entirely for a new one. Once you have new blood, you're free.

[Traab]

How are blood pacts enforced? Is there a magical component? Is it a divine (or infernal) thing? I just wonder if there is a way to negate its influence on you so it becomes nothing more than a sheet of paper with some writing on it instead of a magical contract that could compel obedience. Assuming it even does or is just a way for asmodeus to say, "If you screw with me I will smite you till your exploded remains explode"

[Twilightwyrm]

First, you will need to secure an impartial third party, one of divine or outsider level power being preferable. Do not leave it to the Devils of the Nine Hells to agree with your interpretation. (Convincing a Kolyarut Inevitable to side with you would be a good start)
Second, describe what the circumstances of you being "forced" into this deal are, and specifically whether or not your character wished to be party to this deal at the time. Depending on the circumstances, and whether or not your character actually wanted to become an acolyte of the Cardinal, the 13th (go figure) word of this contract might nullify your entire part in the contract. (Just be safe, never, ever, even under threat of death, refer to yourself as an acolyte of either a) Asmodeus, b) the Cardinal) The Contract states "a perpetual Compact is made between Cardinal Adrastus Thorn (hereafter the Master) and those who would be bound to him as his acolytes (hereafter the Bound)". The problem with this is that it does not explicitly bind any given mortal, but rather only binds those who "would be bound to him as his acolytes", which only implicitly includes you. "Would", in this context, is a horribly vague word to use for legalistic writing such as this, because in the context it is used, it seems to be a past tense of want or wish (any other definition would be either illogical given the context, or would remove any element of free will in the matter (See below)). This implies a form of intent that goes beyond just a vague yes. It implies that the person in question is actually wanting to be an acolyte of the Cardinal. Since I take it your character never actually wanted to be party to this contract, you can make the case that you simply affirmed the contract's existence, as you were not a strictly willing party at the time. For the Devils to then prove a breach of contract, they would have to prove intent (and good luck with that).
If, as it possible, the Devils/Cardinal look to affirm any other form of interpretation, simply argue that in that case the contract was made without your being a willing party, free from coercion, voiding it under the Pact Primeval (see Fiendish Codex II: TotNH, pages 23-24, Section "Pact Certain"). As a safe bet, take ranks in Profession (Barrister) to help ease the process along.
Alternatively, trick the Cardinal into voiding the pact by assigning you duties outside the purview of an "acolyte" by way of the pact. Take some ranks in Profession (Barrister) to find out both the explicit definition of "acolyte" in the country in which you are in, and the country from which you came. Should the Cardinal explicitly ask anything of you outside these terms, in service of himself, the church, or the Nine Hells, this rescinds your status as an "acolyte", thereby retroactively revoking your status as one of the "Bound" within the pact. Should the Cardinal/Devils retort that you are still party to the pact, as you were to be an acolyte at the time of its creation, retort that the pact only ensures your loyalty insofar as you would be an acolyte, and only explicitly guarantees your eternal service, insomuch as you still fit the parameters of designation as one that is an "acolyte". So either the pact is invalid in the first place, because the Cardinal never intended for your to just an an acolyte, or the pact as ended, as you no longer fit the designated criteria. If the Cardinal/Devils retort that you also agreed to the section regarding the Four Loyalties, reply that all this section requires is that you understand, and adhere to said loyalties. The loyalties do not prevent your master from reneging your status as an "acolyte" by assigning you duties outside the scope of said term, as even if the Second Loyalty does call upon your to obey his every commandment, it does not stipulate that the effects of said commandment should not place you outside the designation of the pact. (In other words, all it guarantees is that the Cardinal will be able to ask one duty outside the purview of being an "acolyte", and you will obey, as you are still currently an "acolyte". Once said duty is done, you are no longer an "acolyte", and therefore no future service is guaranteed) Finally, if the Cardinal attempts to decree that your duties do fall within the realms of an acolyte, simply retort that it does not matter as these were not the duties stipulated by the pact's use of the word "acolyte" at the time of agreement, and therefore you are at the least, entitled to renegotiation (at which point you can tell them to go to hell and offer nothing in return).
If you don't think either of these would work, feel free to ask and I'm sure I, and many of the others here, could come up with several others. Really, this Pact is very poorly worded.

[Crake]

The First Loyalty is to their patron and god – mighty Asmodeus, first among the fallen, prince of the nine hells, our father below.

Funnily enough, there's nowhere written in the compact that your patron and god must change to Asmodeus. Simply declare your patron someone like hextor or grummsh, and declare that you're killing the master in the name of the first loyalty, loyalty to your patron, who declares the weak must die, and those who use silly contracts are weak.

[Benthesquid]

Play the clauses against each other. Establish a situation where you can argue that killing the Cardinal is necessary because you're loyal to Asmodeus. Then point out that you're only required to be generally loyal to Asmodeus, not to actually follow his orders.

[OldTrees1]

Funnily enough, there's nowhere written in the compact that your patron and god must change to Asmodeus. Simply declare your patron someone like hextor or grummsh, and declare that you're killing the master in the name of the first loyalty, loyalty to your patron, who declares the weak must die, and those who use silly contracts are weak.

Even if it was initially Asmodeus, there is nothing saying it cannot change to someone like Hextor or Grummsh.

[Red Fel]

How are blood pacts enforced? Is there a magical component? Is it a divine (or infernal) thing? I just wonder if there is a way to negate its influence on you so it becomes nothing more than a sheet of paper with some writing on it instead of a magical contract that could compel obedience. Assuming it even does or is just a way for asmodeus to say, "If you screw with me I will smite you till your exploded remains explode"

This. I don't actually see an enforcement mechanism in this contract anywhere. (There's that "Wrath of Hell unending" clause, but that's too vague to be properly enforceable.)

There's this big assumption that, "Ooh, it's signed in blood, this is serious." And yes, there is a special category for mystical fiendish contracts. But the one does not equal the other, and all you've really said about this contract is (1) that it's signed in blood, and (2) that it involves Asmodeus. So, yeah, breaking it will probably peeve the guy, but I don't see any inherent enforcement mechanism involved.

As a side note, and this is just a personal criticism, it bothers me when DMs feel they have to include some sort of fiat mechanism to force the party to collaborate and "keep . . . from going off the rails." It's almost as if the DM doesn't trust the players. :smallamused:

[Twilightwyrm]

Funnily enough, there's nowhere written in the compact that your patron and god must change to Asmodeus. Simply declare your patron someone like hextor or grummsh, and declare that you're killing the master in the name of the first loyalty, loyalty to your patron, who declares the weak must die, and those who use silly contracts are weak.

Indeed. Since Asmodeus is not actually a "God", really all they are doing is affirming that he is mighty, first among the fallen, et.c etc., and reaffirming their loyalty to whatever deity was their patron and god prior. Hell, if their loyalty was to Heronious (for some reason) before, they are not obligated, via their pact, to kill the Cardinal and destroy the church of Asmodeus. I'm sure Heronious would agree that Asmodeus is mighty, first among the fallen, etc., so affirming this in the pact doesn't even necessarily contradict anything about his prior religion. Or hell, he could pledge his loyalty to Zarus, and kill the Cardinal on the grounds that he is placing the interests of some devil over the interests of man, and converting humans away from their rightful god, into service of Asmodeus.

[Rushalt]

You could play the dumb card and take the word cleave for the other meaning..not sure how that helps but its all I can come up with that hasn't already been covered.

[Zweisteine]

Dominating Thorn would work but unfortunately:

The Second Loyalty is to their Master – He who is called the Cardinal Adrastus Thorn, High Priest of Asmodeus in Talingarde. They shall do the Master no harm and obey his every commandment as long as those commandments do not clash with their First Loyalty.


Unless he gave you a direct order against it, you can still Do
Dominate him. The real problem is the part about not doing harm. If he can change the terms, you're good, but if he can't, you'll have to maintain constant control over him without harming him. (maybe locking him safely away in a Genesis-created miniplane with a ring of sustenance type object...)


I see a gaping loophole: there is no specified punishment for reaming the contract. It's like saying, "nobody use force for anything." you can't use force to stop people who do. Without a clause saying, "if the above conditions are broken... Your soul belongs to Asmodeus," the contract does not allow for the taking of your soul (unless the DM says that that part is written into the laws governing this contract (but don't tell him that)).

EDIT: 9-minute hyper-ninja'd.

[Zanos]

As a side note, and this is just a personal criticism, it bothers me when DMs feel they have to include some sort of fiat mechanism to force the party to collaborate and "keep . . . from going off the rails." It's almost as if the DM doesn't trust the players. :smallamused:
Considering OP wants to break the blood pact so he can murder the rest of the group, the lack of trust seems justified.

[Benthesquid]

Indeed. Since Asmodeus is not actually a "God", really all they are doing is affirming that he is mighty, first among the fallen, et.c etc., and reaffirming their loyalty to whatever deity was their patron and god prior. Hell, if their loyalty was to Heronious (for some reason) before, they are not obligated, via their pact, to kill the Cardinal and destroy the church of Asmodeus. I'm sure Heronious would agree that Asmodeus is mighty, first among the fallen, etc., so affirming this in the pact doesn't even necessarily contradict anything about his prior religion. Or hell, he could pledge his loyalty to Zarus, and kill the Cardinal on the grounds that he is placing the interests of some devil over the interests of man, and converting humans away from their rightful god, into service of Asmodeus.

The only problem being that Asmodeus is actually a "God," in the Pathfinder setting.

[Marcelinari]

I might be misinterpreting this, but... it looks to me as if the First and Fourth Loyalties don't actually mean anything.

The requirements are that the Bound must know and understand the Four Loyalties, and must cleave to them and uphold them... but no-where does it detail, in the cases of the First and Fourth, what those are supposed to actually mean. The Loyalties are proper nouns, specific things which do not actually entail any loyalty (note the lower case) of any kind.

The only thing that the Loyalties state are to whom they relate. But in this case, the use of the word 'Loyalty' can just as easily be replace by the word 'Mivonk', and no meaning is changed - that's the beauty of proper nouns.


The First Loyalty Mivonk is to their patron and god – mighty Asmodeus, first among the fallen, prince of the nine hells, our father below.

You see? It means nothing. The 'Loyalty' isn't defined, and you are therefore not bound by it. I don't know where that path leads, but it ought to offer some kind of loophole.

[Zweisteine]

Marcelinari could have a very good point. The only problem is that "loyalty" might still count as a non-proper noun, despite the capitalization, in which case the meaning is more clear, though still open to some interpretation.

[The Random NPC]

You might have to kill the Cardinal anyways, he is probably ambitious enough to try and usurp Asmodeus and would have to be killed, and right now, before he starts to harm Asmodeus's activities. You could also argue that you must silence Asmodeus, as he keeps appointing these ambitious usurpers and you have to protect him from himself. After all you couldn't call yourself loyal if you didn't protect him from all sources of harm.
EDIT: Two things, first, the Loyalties read more like rules, as Marcelinari points out, and could be interpreted as such, and second, the only punishment that is refereed to is "know all the wrath of Hell unending" which doesn't mean that you'll suffer it, just that you'll be shown it. Just break the contract and when they go to punish you, say, "that sure is some unending Hell wrath" and leave with your "punishment" fulfilled.

[Captnq]

Making a blood pact. Stupid stupid stupid.
But okay, lets take a look.



Behold on this day October 27th in the eighth age of this world a perpetual Compact is made between Cardinal Adrastus Thorn (hereafter the Master) and those who would be bound to him as his acolytes (hereafter the Bound). Both the Master and the Bound shall hold fast and true to this Compact through all trial and tribulation. By blood and soul the Bound commit to the Compact and swear that it shall never be undone.


Okay, This part is easy to break. (I'm assuming you are an acolyte) Destroy the soul of one of the other acolytes. Why? I don't think he really loves the master as much as me.

The master has sworn that it "shall never be undone". Well, I dare say, if someone's soul is destroyed, that pact is undone, the cardinal has broken the pact by not keeping the souls of his acolytes intact, and the entire contract is now null and void.



The Bound shall know and understand all the Four Loyalties.

Funny thing, this doesn't state I have to actually FOLLOW any of the loyalties. It just says I should KNOW them and UNDERSTAND them. I also think that my demon lord should go screw himself. That is allowed. But lets assume I actually have to follow the next four loyalties.



The First Loyalty is to their patron and god – mighty Asmodeus, first among the fallen, prince of the nine hells, our father below.

Loyalty is not defined. It's vague. It's meaningless. I call BS, because Asmodeus would NEVER have allowed this contract to be signed.



The Second Loyalty is to their Master – He who is called the Cardinal Adrastus Thorn, High Priest of Asmodeus in Talingarde. They shall do the Master no harm and obey his every commandment as long as those commandments do not clash with their First Loyalty.


Do no harm. Well, doing no harm is not the same as Not doing no harm. For example. I lure you into a room with a bomb. The bomb is ticking with a big red wire sticking out of it. I trick you into cutting the wire. This sets off the bomb. There, you killed yourself.

It should read, "Shall not allow, through action or INACTION, allow harm to happen to Cardinal Adrastus Thorn." You can take no action against him, but you can take inaction to allow harm to happen to him. You can set up situations where his own actions harm him.

Also, putting no harm and obey in the same sentence is bad. You want me to go kill that guy? Sorry, his screams might hurt your hears. Don't have to obey. If I can justify it causing "harm" in any fashion, I can ignore any order from this guy.



The Third Loyalty is to their companions and the other Bound who serve the Master. The Bound’s companions shall be named by the Master or Asmodeus. The Bound’s companions may change at any time as specified by the Master or Asmodeus. The Bound shall deal with each other fairly and honorably as long as doing so does not clash with the First and Second Loyalties. All treasure, wealth and reward garnered in their exploits will be equally shared with all of the Bound’s companions. The Bound shall not harm or control their companions. The Bound shall not let death befall a companion unless doing so would end in their demise.


Let's see. I plan on killing the cardinal. If I get caught, I will die. So anything I do towards that goal is okay, because it might end in my demise. So I can slaughter all my friends without problem.



The Fourth Loyalty is to themselves – for Asmodeus is the Lord of Ambition and all who serve him should strive to become great and powerful in his service as long as doing so does not clash with their First, Second and Third Loyalties. By their weakness, ye shall know the unworthy.


By the poorly worded contract, you shall destroy all and become ruler.



The Bound swear that they cleave to and uphold the Four Loyalties even in the face of death and damnation.


Swearing and actually doing something are two different things.



The Master swears that as long as the Four Loyalties are upheld, he shall reward the Bound as they deserve for their deeds.


My reward shall be my master's head on a pike about three feet off the ground so I can wave at it when I go to be every night.



Thus it is written, and thus it shall be.
We being of sound mind and free will do so swear and let they who violate this Compact know all the wrath of Hell unending.


I cannot believe this contract was written by a demon lord. Its awful.

[Telonius]

Clause 2 is rendered meaningless by Clause 1. Unless Asmodeus gives you specific orders to keep the Cardinal alive, of course. Any servant of Asmodeus who puts himself in a position where he can be killed by an underling is definitionally unfit to be a servant of Asmodeus. You've served your god by removing an incompetent and unworthy servant.

[Kane0]

Not sure about PF, but in 3rd ed even the other archdevils are not really loyal to asmodeus. Big A does not expect loyalty, he expects ambition. Cut a deal with one of the oter archdevils and get involved in some devil politics or just pull a full devil and make a bid for your own dominance. Its just a matter of being good enough at xanatos gambits and being a cunning bastard in general.

[Wyntonian]

If you're bound by blood and soul, would changing your type to something without blood or a soul get you out of it? If you become a construct or outsider or whatnot, you might be okay. Not sure how you'd do that, but it's worth considering.

[Morithias]

Loyalty is a fake word in the nine hells, and you're a fool to think otherwise.

Also I'm not sure about pathfinder, but in 3.5 there were 2 very key rules that could get you out a pact.

1. Was the pact made under duress?

and

2. Did the devil give you what you ask for (for a certain value of ask)?

Also the fact that you have to sign this pact is really what turns me off from way of the wicked. Railroading at it's finest.

[Erik Vale]

If you're bound by blood and soul, would changing your type to something without blood or a soul get you out of it? If you become a construct or outsider or whatnot, you might be okay. Not sure how you'd do that, but it's worth considering.

Constructs are animated by souls [elementals], so that doesn't work.
Outsider bodies [and elementals] are also their souls, so even if they don't have blood it doesn't work.
That leaves undead, and one could argue sentient undead have souls, just different types of souls given that outsiders/elementals still have souls.

As has been repeated, this pact is a farce. Show this thread to your DM as you perform Coup de Grace's on your sleeping allies durring your watch as they believe themselves safe.

[Manly Man]

Declare the contract is null and void in that claims about being written by Asmodeus are complete crap, he wouldn't be caught dead with something that retardedly written.

[Kane0]

Declare the contract is null and void in that claims about being written by Asmodeus are complete crap, he wouldn't be caught dead with something that retardedly written.

Big A is the king of contracts, so he probably never intended the pact to be anything more than a speedbump. Just look at the whole pact primeval debacle. He is capable of far more (and far less) restricting deals, as suits him at the time. And it always is in his best interests, dont be fooled.

[Spore]

You got pressured into that contract that's why it is null and void. Still, tell your DM beforehand, since PvP is frowned upon, if not prepared.

[molten_dragon]

If the pact is blood-bound, all you need to do is replace your blood entirely for a new one. Once you have new blood, you're free.

Well, it does say "By blood and soul". So I'm guessing you'd need a new soul as well.

I considered using mind seed to create another me, and psychic chirurgery to remove the 8 negative levels, then just killing myself and replacing me with the duplicate, but it's not clear whether that would work or not, since there's some conflicting language between mind seed and psychic chirurgery.

[molten_dragon]

This. I don't actually see an enforcement mechanism in this contract anywhere. (There's that "Wrath of Hell unending" clause, but that's too vague to be properly enforceable.)

There's this big assumption that, "Ooh, it's signed in blood, this is serious." And yes, there is a special category for mystical fiendish contracts. But the one does not equal the other, and all you've really said about this contract is (1) that it's signed in blood, and (2) that it involves Asmodeus. So, yeah, breaking it will probably peeve the guy, but I don't see any inherent enforcement mechanism involved.

We're actually not sure if there's an enforcement mechanism beyond "Asmodeus sends a pit fiend to have a friendly chat with you", or not. So there may or may not be some sort of automatic penalty for breaking it.


As a side note, and this is just a personal criticism, it bothers me when DMs feel they have to include some sort of fiat mechanism to force the party to collaborate and "keep . . . from going off the rails." It's almost as if the DM doesn't trust the players. :smallamused:

This one's written into the module, it wasn't the DM that thought it up.

[molten_dragon]

Indeed. Since Asmodeus is not actually a "God", really all they are doing is affirming that he is mighty, first among the fallen, et.c etc., and reaffirming their loyalty to whatever deity was their patron and god prior.

We're playing in the Pathfinder campaign setting. Asmodeus IS a god, and a powerful one at that.

[molten_dragon]

Okay, This part is easy to break. (I'm assuming you are an acolyte) Destroy the soul of one of the other acolytes. Why? I don't think he really loves the master as much as me.

The master has sworn that it "shall never be undone". Well, I dare say, if someone's soul is destroyed, that pact is undone, the cardinal has broken the pact by not keeping the souls of his acolytes intact, and the entire contract is now null and void.

This is kind of the direction I'm leaning. The contract is between us and Adrastus, not us and Asmodeus, so if something bad were to happen to Adrastus, the contract is null and void, because it refers to him by name, so Asmodeus can't just appoint someone else.

So either, I need to find a way to get rid of Adrastus without directly harming him, or I need to find a way to set him against Asmodeus and then I'm free to do whatever I want to him.

[Spore]

I'd go the bluff/convince/mind control the Arch Bishop route.

[molten_dragon]

1. Was the pact made under duress?

Technically no (That was the first thing I tried). We were freely given the choice whether or not to sign it.

At the time though, Cardinal Thorn had just helped us escape from prison, and was sheltering us from the authorities, and made it clear that he would only continue doing so if we signed the document.

[molten_dragon]

Declare the contract is null and void in that claims about being written by Asmodeus are complete crap, he wouldn't be caught dead with something that retardedly written.

We were never told it was written by Asmodeus. I'm pretty sure cardinal thorn wrote it.

And from a metagame perspective, I believe the module intends for you to eventually break the contract, so it couldn't be made too hard to get out of.

[Red Fel]

We're actually not sure if there's an enforcement mechanism beyond "Asmodeus sends a pit fiend to have a friendly chat with you", or not. So there may or may not be some sort of automatic penalty for breaking it.

This one's written into the module, it wasn't the DM that thought it up.

Well, here's the bottom line: The only consequence written into the contract is that "Wrath" thing, and that's too vague to be enforceable.

That does two things.

1: There is no valid enforcement mechanism. Ordinarily, a contract is enforced by the idea that contracts are supposed to be enforced; when that fails, they are enforced by some adjudicatory body, such as a court. However, there is nothing unlawful about breaking a contract - anyone can do it. That's why most contracts made by savvy folk have some sort of enforcement mechanism, an explicit penalty, consequence, or measure of damages upon which a court can rely when breach occurs.

What court will enforce this? What measure of damages will they use? There is no mechanism, no statement of jurisdiction. In short, the contract can't be enforced by any reasonable entity.

2: The DM doesn't have to be a reasonable entity. If the purpose of this contract is to keep the party on the rails, the DM will find (read: fiat) a way to enforce it. Period, full-stop. Trying to weasel out of it before the DM is ready for you to do so will likely not end well.

So, keep that part in mind, too.

Of course, that raises a metagame way to get out of the contract - annoy the DM about it. Make it clear that you're playing nice - you don't want to weasel out of the contract until it's time.

Then ask if it's time yet.

Over and over again.

Like a kid on a car ride.

At some point, he'll become so tired of it that he may actually give you a way out of the contract just to shut you up.

Or, you know, rocks fall.

[Asheram]

harm (härm)
n.
1. Physical or psychological injury or damage.
2. Wrong; evil.
tr.v. harmed, harm·ing, harms
To do harm to.

I don't think you can dominate him, but what you can do is making yourself and the others uanble to perceive the "Masters" commands when he needs assistance, murder by inaction.

The easiest of this would be a Silence spell

[Chambers]

Get yourself killed and at the moment of death renounce your pact. Come back to life as a Hellbred (not sure what rules would allow that, I'd run it by your DM first). That should nullify the pact, though you'll have to be careful not to die again. Is there a psionic version of the Lich?

[TheStranger]

We were never told it was written by Asmodeus. I'm pretty sure cardinal thorn wrote it.

And from a metagame perspective, I believe the module intends for you to eventually break the contract, so it couldn't be made too hard to get out of.

Sounds like the way to break it will be made pretty clear eventually, then. I doubt you'll have to do much beyond seize the opportunity when the module presents it. But if you're really questioning the enforcement mechanism, there's a simple solution - convince a party member to break it, and see what happens to them. Since you want them dead anyway, it's no big loss if their soul gets dragged into Hell, and then you know to be careful when you pick your spot.

And really, you're not going to break it anytime soon anyway. Being able to kill anybody or anything that might object is pretty much a requirement before you try that. Asmodeus might or might not really care about this pact, but I doubt Thorn is going to just shake your hand and say, "Good show, old chap. You certainly got me there." So if you can't kill him, there's no point in trying to get out of this.

Although I do like the logic that says the first Loyalty requires you to serve Asmodeus by killing his unworthy servant, Thorn. Which voids the contract, since it was made with Thorn, not Asmodeus. And I could see Asmodeus going with that explanation, so long as you swore to serve in Thorn's place.

Which makes this a pretty standard D&D situation - kill somebody to solve a problem, create a new problem, and take the game totally off the rails.

Or, you know, play along with it, since you've all agreed to play this module. If you go off the rails, then what? Your DM doesn't get to use the material, and you have to find a new module to play.

[Telonius]

By blood and soul the Bound commit to the Compact and swear that it shall never be undone.

It never specifies whose blood and soul...

[OldTrees1]

I don't think you can dominate him, but what you can do is making yourself and the others uanble to perceive the "Masters" commands when he needs assistance, murder by inaction.

The easiest of this would be a Silence spell

Suggesting would be less potent but is easier and would neither wrong nor damage the master. Thus Suggestion would still work if used solely to escape the clause.

[malonkey1]

Easiest way to get out of a blood oath: Replace all your blood.

[The Random NPC]

At the time though, Cardinal Thorn had just helped us escape from prison, and was sheltering us from the authorities, and made it clear that he would only continue doing so if we signed the document.

That right there? Pretty sure that's duress.

[Brookshw]

DON'T! Without a jurisdiction listed any breech of contract would be handled wherever filed first. File in Celestia and let them decide the damages/penalty. So horribly written.....

[TheStranger]

That right there? Pretty sure that's duress.

Not really. Duress is an actual threat of harm. That's just a strong incentive.

Of course, there are some fundamental flaws in applying real-world concepts of contract or duress to this situation. The first one being, your DM probably doesn't have any legal education, and so may not be entirely equipped to apply them. The second one being, these concepts vary greatly across times and places - there is no one true law of contracts. Under various legal systems, there can be substantially different rules about the formalities required to execute a contract, the effect of ambiguous or incomplete terms, and the remedies available for a breach. As far as we know, the answer to all of those in this case is "DM fiat."

Which is the most important, and least addressed, part of this. This is *not* a contract. This is a plot device that looks like a contract.

[Red Fel]

Not really. Duress is an actual threat of harm. That's just a strong incentive.

Of course, there are some fundamental flaws in applying real-world concepts of contract or duress to this situation. The first one being, your DM probably doesn't have any legal education, and so may not be entirely equipped to apply them. The second one being, these concepts vary greatly across times and places - there is no one true law of contracts. Under various legal systems, there can be substantially different rules about the formalities required to execute a contract, the effect of ambiguous or incomplete terms, and the remedies available for a breach. As far as we know, the answer to all of those in this case is "DM fiat."

Which is the most important, and least addressed, part of this. This is *not* a contract. This is a plot device that looks like a contract.

One definition of duress, in this context, is the removal of a reasonable choice. Incentive suggests that you can still choose, but one choice would produce inferior benefit. The circumstance above suggests that your choices are (1) sign or (2) jail. That's coercive - it removes any semblance of reasonable choice.

That said, it's not a stretch for LE to use coercive measures to get people to sign contracts. In fact, only the most lawful would be against such measures - most would argue that there is technically still a choice, albeit not a reasonable choice. (Heck, even death in that situation would be a choice, just not a palatable one.) The only real rule is that you can't use magical compulsion to take away the subject's ability to refuse - nothing says you can't threaten them.

[Morithias]

One definition of duress, in this context, is the removal of a reasonable choice. Incentive suggests that you can still choose, but one choice would produce inferior benefit. The circumstance above suggests that your choices are (1) sign or (2) jail. That's coercive - it removes any semblance of reasonable choice.

That said, it's not a stretch for LE to use coercive measures to get people to sign contracts. In fact, only the most lawful would be against such measures - most would argue that there is technically still a choice, albeit not a reasonable choice. (Heck, even death in that situation would be a choice, just not a palatable one.) The only real rule is that you can't use magical compulsion to take away the subject's ability to refuse - nothing says you can't threaten them.

In the Fiendish Codex 2. "Coercive measures" is one of the basis you can use to get your soul back from Baator. Let me quote it for you.

Ah here we are, page 25.

"Only the following two defenses against condemnation are considered valid.

The mortal was coerced or magically compelled into signing a Faustian Pact.

The devil offering a Pact Certain did not provide the promised benefits."

So yeah, even by Lawful Evil standards this contract sucks. It's basically just a protection racket *cough*railroading*cough* trying to pass itself off as some kind of legit contract.

[Rama]

The solution that jumps out at me: have the other PCs be your tools.

This requires a fair bit of time and working privately with the DM, but here's the process I'd implement:

1) Convince the other PCs through planted evidence that the Cardinal is planning to betray Asmodeus and is secretly a worshipper of (insert enemy of Asmodeus here).

2) Lead the PCs to the conclusion that the Cardinal is violating clause 1 of the contract, and therefore they must kill him to honor said clause.

3) Sit back (maybe providing some passive buffs or dealing with reinforcements before they reach the battleground, but taking no direct aggressive action that would violate clause 2) and watch the PCs take out the Cardinal.

The key is having the other PCs be making a 'good faith' effort to honor the contract (even if under erroneous information), as well as sticking to the letter of your own by not violating clause 2 yourself. Once the master your contract is 'assigned' to is no more, particularly since there's no transference method, your sole obligation is to be "loyal" to Asmodeus as your patron and god. There's a lot of leeway to do whatever you want under that, and can probably get by with lip service.

Bear in mind this is not a short term project though. You have to really convince the PCs that this guy is a 'traitor', and that means leading them slowly by the nose until they come to the conclusion themselves. If they aren't convinced, then they are violating clause 2 without the cover of belief in clause 1 supremacy, and you could get swatted yourself in the fallout - guilt by association.

[molten_dragon]

Sounds like the way to break it will be made pretty clear eventually, then. I doubt you'll have to do much beyond seize the opportunity when the module presents it.

Well, the DM told us we would have the opportunity to break the pact if we were clever. I'm assuming that means I can't just sit back and wait for the solution to drop into my lap.


And really, you're not going to break it anytime soon anyway. Being able to kill anybody or anything that might object is pretty much a requirement before you try that. Asmodeus might or might not really care about this pact, but I doubt Thorn is going to just shake your hand and say, "Good show, old chap. You certainly got me there." So if you can't kill him, there's no point in trying to get out of this.

Although I do like the logic that says the first Loyalty requires you to serve Asmodeus by killing his unworthy servant, Thorn. Which voids the contract, since it was made with Thorn, not Asmodeus. And I could see Asmodeus going with that explanation, so long as you swore to serve in Thorn's place.

Which makes this a pretty standard D&D situation - kill somebody to solve a problem, create a new problem, and take the game totally off the rails.

Or, you know, play along with it, since you've all agreed to play this module. If you go off the rails, then what? Your DM doesn't get to use the material, and you have to find a new module to play.

No, it's not something we're going to get out of for some time. The contract wasn't some sort of unpleasant surprise. We were warned ahead of time, and we all want to play the module, so no one intends to run it off the rails. Breaking the contract and betraying each other likely won't happen until near the end of the campaign. And the DM told us that fiat would be used if necessary to keep us from breaking it before she was ready.

[denthor]

Hire an assassin to hurt the cardnial. Not kill put him negative. then watch him bleed to death.

there is nothing that say you must help your master as a bound if he is hurt.

Beware there is nothing there to say he has to help you if you are wounded either.

[demigodus]

I don't see anything in the second Loyalty that is stopping your minions from doing the master harm.

Have your thralls kill the cardinal. Make sure that you are incommunicado for the duration of the operation, so that he can't issue you any commands to stop them. Once the master is dead, the contract is null and void.

[Traab]

I don't see anything in the second Loyalty that is stopping your minions from doing the master harm.

Have your thralls kill the cardinal. Make sure that you are incommunicado for the duration of the operation, so that he can't issue you any commands to stop them. Once the master is dead, the contract is null and void.

Nah, you still have to place the order. Doing that is no different than casting disintegrate at his head then claiming, "It wasnt me, it was the magic that killed him!" Same for the hired killer thing. Harm, you cant harm. Hiring someone to take him into negatives is considered harm by most rational beings.

[A Tad Insane]

Expelled vestige is a great way to get out of a pact
Though in all seriousness, as a thrallherd, the pack never mentions your believers or thralls, who technically can do what ever they want, and only follow you because of psionics they can't understand. So a offhand comment about wishing your companions were dead in front of them isn't breaking the pact

[Zubrowka74]

I'd pit Loyalty 1 againt number 2 and 3. That is : convince the Cardinal and your fellow teammates to usurp Asmodeus's position. This alones breaches the contract for them - I don't know if the Cardinal has one. WHen they attack Big A, turn on them and fulfill the first clause.

[Frosty]

Trying to breach this contract/get out of it sounds like a capital idea to get yourself killed mighty quick. Don't do it until you're level 20 or something.

[Epsilon Rose]

Nah, you still have to place the order. Doing that is no different than casting disintegrate at his head then claiming, "It wasnt me, it was the magic that killed him!" Same for the hired killer thing. Harm, you cant harm. Hiring someone to take him into negatives is considered harm by most rational beings.

Actually, the thrall thing might be viable (unlike the assassin). If you give your thrall a general, poorly worded, order like "Guard this hallway by killing anyone who comes through here before I return", you aren't technically violating the pact, since defending your headquarters isn't attempting to harm the Cardinal. It's hardly your fault if the Cardinal didn't get the memo about the change in security protocols (which should actually exist, but be no more accessible then the notice for earth's demolition) and it's not like there's anything you can do about it if you're unavailable at the time (preferably do to the Cardinal's orders).

At that point it's just an unfortunate workplace accident and the Cardinal's fault for not following proper safety procedures.

[Fouredged Sword]

Destroy Talingarde, or change the name of Cardinal Adrastus Thorn, or otherwise get him promoted or demoted.

If you change his identity from "He who is called the Cardinal Adrastus Thorn, High Priest of Asmodeus in Talingarde." you are free. I would see about getting the city changed from one empire to another and grease hands to get the name changed in the process. Or maybe you can grease the kings hands enough to get him to change the name of the city to be named after his son or something.

[Frosty]

You also realize that, by killing the rest of your party, you are making sure that you have LESS allies when the rest of you foes come charging at your door right?

[erikun]

Well, the Second Loyalty has the most wiggle room. As others have mentioned, there is nothing in it that prevents domination - especially useful as the Third Loyalty specifically disallows control of others, which the Second Loyalty does not. Also, the Second Loyalty specifies "He who is called the Cardinal Adrastus Thorn, High Priest of Asmodeus in Talingarde." Changing any of that information invalidates him as the Master. You could try getting him excommunicated or moved to another city (by destroying Talingarde, for instance) but perhaps the best method is to get him promoted. Giving him greater influence within his own church will be met with less resistance, and once he has become something other than a Cardinal, he's fair game.

Third Loyalty is a bit trickier. You'll need the Master to rename who a Bound's companion is, and so domination again seems the most practical option. It would probably be safest for a thrall to perform the domination, if possible, because that way the Master cannot give you an order before it takes effect.

A fun little Catch-22 you could try would be to help promote the Master to some station other than Cardinal, then get him dominated to declare yourself no longer a companion to the others, then kill everyone (party members first). If the DM tries to question you, mention that the Compact was considered valid with no punishment when the ex-Cardinal declared you not a companion, and so you violated nothing by killing the others. Then mention that the ex-Cardinal is no longer "He who is called the Cardinal Adrastus Thorn, High Priest of Asmodeus in Talingarde" and thus not the Master mentioned in the Second Loyalty, and so killing him is fine.

As for the whole Compact itself, you'll need to work some sort of loophole there. Perhaps it could be challenged as Adrastus Thorn, despite being a priest, is not an actual devil and thus not someone who can produce a valid Compact. You could also swear yourself to another deity, attempting to break the Compact through divine intervention. And finally, you could attempt to declare somehow that person ambition and ignoring Asmodeus's implied will is following the LE tenents of Asmodeus himself, and thus your actions are not violating the First Contract. This is especially nice if a devil shows up and tries to force you into "following Asmodeus's will" - unless you are specifically violating it, your interpretation could be just as valid as any random devils'.

[OldTrees1]

Nah, you still have to place the order. Doing that is no different than casting disintegrate at his head then claiming, "It wasnt me, it was the magic that killed him!" Same for the hired killer thing. Harm, you cant harm. Hiring someone to take him into negatives is considered harm by most rational beings.

Enthrall something that would attack the Cardinal of its own initiative. No order given, you are able to coordinate the meeting and be far enough away to avoid having to order the free willed thrall from attacking.

[Frosty]

And finally, you could attempt to declare somehow that person ambition and ignoring Asmodeus's implied will is following the LE tenents of Asmodeus himself, and thus your actions are not violating the First Contract. This is especially nice if a devil shows up and tries to force you into "following Asmodeus's will" - unless you are specifically violating it, your interpretation could be just as valid as any random devils'.And then the devil KILLS you. You can't out-rules lawyer a devil.

[erikun]

And then the devil KILLS you. You can't out-rules lawyer a devil.
Well, yes. You make sure you can kill the devil before starting negotiations with it, or at least dominate it. I thought that the "kill everyone else and become lord of the campaign" idea kind of implied being capable of taking out everything else anyways.

And they say, surviving is 9/10th of the law. :smalltongue:

[Sith_Happens]

You could try getting him excommunicated or moved to another city (by destroying Talingarde, for instance) but perhaps the best method is to get him promoted. Giving him greater influence within his own church will be met with less resistance, and once he has become something other than a Cardinal, he's fair game.

I don't know about the OP, but this is definitely my favorite suggestion so far. Seriously, that is devious.

[Frosty]

Well, yes. You make sure you can kill the devil before starting negotiations with it, or at least dominate it. I thought that the "kill everyone else and become lord of the campaign" idea kind of implied being capable of taking out everything else anyways.

And they say, surviving is 9/10th of the law. :smalltongue:Good luck doing so before the end of the campaign then. The DM *always* has a more powerful monster ready. If the standard encounters aren't difficult enough for your optimization level, then the DM isn't doing it right. The DM should always make the encounters hard enough for you to want to have your allies around, assuming it is not a solo game.

You can't derail the campaign via optimization. The DM always has more and bigger ammunition. I guess I *can* see this happened at the very end of the campaign though. After defeating the Big Good, you see your tired, battered allies. This is then your chance to strike and become the sole ruler instead of sharing power! This could make a fine epilogue, and the campaign was still played through.

[erikun]

Good luck doing so before the end of the campaign then. The DM *always* has a more powerful monster ready. If the standard encounters aren't difficult enough for your optimization level, then the DM isn't doing it right. The DM should always make the encounters hard enough for you to want to have your allies around, assuming it is not a solo game.

You can't derail the campaign via optimization. The DM always has more and bigger ammunition. I guess I *can* see this happened at the very end of the campaign though. After defeating the Big Good, you see your tired, battered allies. This is then your chance to strike and become the sole ruler instead of sharing power! This could make a fine epilogue, and the campaign was still played through.
At this point, the OP character has dominated or killed all the other PCs and the primary NPC. The campaign is completely derailed at this point. It doesn't matter how thoroughly the PC is following the will of Asmodeous at this point - if the DM wants to flood the PC with devils, the PC will either die or have enough contingencies in place to deal with everything. Discussing if the PC can deal with the fallout is somewhat trivial, because either A.) they cannot, B.) they can, or C.) Diabolus ex Machina will win out. The choice isn't up to the player, either.

They will need to be a considerably high-level character anyways to be throwing around domination enough to make the plan work anyways, though, so they will be high-level before any of this works. Assuming they want to try to break #3 or #1. If they're just trying to break #2, they could do it a lot earlier (but would be stuck together as a party then, because no Master to restate the pact).

[Epsilon Rose]

I just realized, with how the Master is defined, a soul jar/body switch or, if you're feeling, daring a simple PaO/Disguise self, might be enough for you to subsume the role of master.

After all, the second loyalty is to "He who is called the Cardinal Adrastus Thorn..." not the master or, necessary, the same thorn who made the contract. If you can get yourself called "Cardinal..." then the second loyalty should apply to you. The only restrictions on the methods used are how legitamite you want it to be (disguise self<PaO<Body swapping< Reality Revision "people call me...").

The really fun part is, none of those things should actually constitute harm to the cardinal. If you body swap, you're giving him your body which is, presumably, in good shape and none of the other options even touch him.

[123456789blaaa]

Unless he gave you a direct order against it, you can still Do
Dominate him. The real problem is the part about not doing harm. If he can change the terms, you're good, but if he can't, you'll have to maintain constant control over him without harming him. (maybe locking him safely away in a Genesis-created miniplane with a ring of sustenance type object...)


I see a gaping loophole: there is no specified punishment for reaming the contract. It's like saying, "nobody use force for anything." you can't use force to stop people who do. Without a clause saying, "if the above conditions are broken... Your soul belongs to Asmodeus," the contract does not allow for the taking of your soul (unless the DM says that that part is written into the laws governing this contract (but don't tell him that)).

EDIT: 9-minute hyper-ninja'd.

And my point is that he can Free Action order you to stop while you're using your standard action to try and dominate him. Why did you remove the second quote I posted? :smallconfused:

[ryu]

And my point is that he can Free Action order you to stop while you're using your standard action to try and dominate him. Why did you remove the second quote I posted? :smallconfused:

Because who in their right mind casts dominate while the target is openly aware of their presence without using basic skill tricks to hide what's going on at high level? Note I'm not him. Just pointing out the obvious flaw in this counterpoint.

[Frosty]

At this point, the OP character has dominated or killed all the other PCs and the primary NPC. The campaign is completely derailed at this point. It doesn't matter how thoroughly the PC is following the will of Asmodeous at this point - if the DM wants to flood the PC with devils, the PC will either die or have enough contingencies in place to deal with everything. Discussing if the PC can deal with the fallout is somewhat trivial, because either A.) they cannot, B.) they can, or C.) Diabolus ex Machina will win out. The choice isn't up to the player, either.

They will need to be a considerably high-level character anyways to be throwing around domination enough to make the plan work anyways, though, so they will be high-level before any of this works. Assuming they want to try to break #3 or #1. If they're just trying to break #2, they could do it a lot earlier (but would be stuck together as a party then, because no Master to restate the pact).Correction. A character cannot try to do this via optimization and get away with it in-character, because if enough opposition shows up, the character will die and not get his or her happy ending.

If the whole point of the endeavor is the derail the campaign and ruin the game, then the DM will simply remove the player and say none of it happened. The DM always has the final say on what happens in his or her game world. If the players don't like the premise, they shouldn't play in that particular campaign. You don't win confrontational wars like this with DM. It just doesn't end well.

[molten_dragon]

Good luck doing so before the end of the campaign then. The DM *always* has a more powerful monster ready. If the standard encounters aren't difficult enough for your optimization level, then the DM isn't doing it right. The DM should always make the encounters hard enough for you to want to have your allies around, assuming it is not a solo game.

You can't derail the campaign via optimization. The DM always has more and bigger ammunition. I guess I *can* see this happened at the very end of the campaign though. After defeating the Big Good, you see your tired, battered allies. This is then your chance to strike and become the sole ruler instead of sharing power! This could make a fine epilogue, and the campaign was still played through.

Let me point out again that the party has sat down with the DM and discussed this. We all want to play this adventure path, so the betrayal and backstabbing won't happen until near, or after the end of the campaign, and only when the DM is ready for it. I'm not trying to pull a fast one on anybody.

[Bovine Colonel]

I'm not sure if this will fly with your DM but:


The Fourth Loyalty is to themselves – for Asmodeus is the Lord of Ambition and all who serve him should strive to become great and powerful in his service as long as doing so does not clash with their First, Second and Third Loyalties. By their weakness, ye shall know the unworthy.


as long as doing so does not clash with their First, Second and Third Loyalties. By their weakness, ye shall know the unworthy.


their First, Second and Third Loyalties.


and

[Manly Man]

Big A is the king of contracts, so he probably never intended the pact to be anything more than a speedbump. Just look at the whole pact primeval debacle. He is capable of far more (and far less) restricting deals, as suits him at the time. And it always is in his best interests, dont be fooled.

Point taken. I'm far more experienced with demons than devils, though the fact that I'm the most into Graz'zt tends to help with working conniving fiends properly.