To Kobayashi Maru, or not to Kobayashi Maru?

[zyggythorn]

Completely theoretical question here:

Basic premise is such:
Paladin meets Devil.
Paladin agrees to sell soul to Devil.

With the following twists:
Paladin meets and exceeds prerequisites for the Saint template, has VoP to back it up.
No really. I'm talking there would be a fight amongst the Gods who gets to claim him.
The sale was an exchange- Paladin's soul for 10 other souls, to be returned immediately and never bothered or tempted by Devil again.

Does the paladin immediately fall? Or does he have to do a grand afterlife quest?

I'm of the opinion that he does not fall, and comes back as a Hellbred after he dies.

[Flickerdart]

Selling your soul is an Evil act, regardless of consequences. The paladin falls.

[Chronikoce]

If I was the Paladin I would be worried that the devil was sneaky enough to add fine print that went unnoticed to screw either myself or those I'm trying to save.

It's pretty rare for a devil to make a deal where they aren't somehow getting the vastly better deal over the unwitting rube who tried to get something from them.

Fall or not it sounds like it would lead to some excellent roleplaying.


Selling your soul is an Evil act, regardless of consequences. The paladin falls.

That doesn't prevent the paladin from living an exemplary life and seeking atonement does it? Are there rules indicating you can't be a paladin if your soul has been sold?

[Gildedragon]

Fall
A Paladin with of that goodness could try and ought succeed at finding other ways to free the souls
After all if such a Good soul is damned what hope is there for the rest of us
What burden of guilt and despair would fall on those ten souls that they removed such a beacon of Light
Making such a bargain is the paladin despairing on the power of Good to free the weak from Evil, and redeem the wicked.

Edit: For a Paladin of Freedom I could see striking a bargain and weasling out of it; but a standard LG paladin knows the spirit of their bargain and thus wouldn't break their word, no matter who they struck the bargain with.

[zyggythorn]

Paladin diplomancied him up to 10 souls (from 5) and added the fine print himself.

Side note: Invading hell from the inside? Could be.

[darksolitaire]

Paladin immediately falls and devil gets the soul. As per Book of Exalted deeds page 9, selling your soul to save 10 other souls is morally same as just selling your soul.

[Flickerdart]

Paladin diplomancied him up to 10 souls (from 5) and added the fine print himself.

Side note: Invading hell from the inside? Could be.

Doesn't matter. If you saved ten thousand souls, it still wouldn't matter. Evil act means you fall.

[Gildedragon]

Note (in my previous post) that it'd not be Evil to pretend/lie/cheat about selling your soul... But it'd be a fundamentally chaotic act (which would make a pally fall.

Quest for the Souls. Repair or undo their pacts. Break their chains. Kill the devil.
Don't sell your soul

[Flickerdart]

Note (in my previous post) that it'd not be Evil to pretend/lie/cheat about selling your soul... But it'd be a fundamentally chaotic act (which would make a pally fall.
That's not how it works - paladins are permitted to commit chaotic acts, even acts that are explicitly against their code, so long as it is not a gross violation. And bamboozling a fiend hardly counts as a gross violation of the code.

[ExLibrisMortis]

Depends on the value of the ten souls, I suppose. Any random ten? Not a chance, fall. Ten most powerful [good] souls in Hell (e.g. prisoners of war, not petitioners), not counting those already free to leave ? Well, still fall. But there would be some good deities who would be happy to provide a quick [I]atonement for the trade, and then proceed to coat the paladin in medals.

You could play it like a Sampson and Delilah story arc. The paladin is made to fall by a traitor, captured and blinded as a result, and when in the most precarious position, meets the/a devil (in the Biblical story, this would be in the temple of Dagon, who, in D&D, is a demon lord). The devil is not interested in the paladin, who seems unremarkable amongst the other prisoners, having lost their aura of good. Seeing the devil, the paladin prays to be granted their powers one last time.

Suddenly, the devil notices that there is a great [good] in the temple, and offers them a deal: their soul for the other prisoners, believing that the paladin could be falling on the spot. The paladin bargains divinely well, and talks up the price to the (three, five, ten) most powerful [good] soul imprisoned in Hell, knowing that the devil is fooled into believing the paladin is falling on the spot, when they've really fallen already. Mechanically, this works best if there is a (Su) paladin bonus to diplomacy; maybe there's a PF archetype for that.

As soon as the deal is sealed, the paladin loses their powers, for good, and the deception is revealed - the devil has been tricked. For a happy ending, this is where someone (the traitor, for bonus drama) travels to the Nessus to free the paladin.

Yes, it's a modern take. I don't think you're really supposed to barter away your paladin powers, but a sufficiently utilitarianist deity might go for it.

[Gildedragon]

That's not how it works - paladins are permitted to commit chaotic acts, even acts that are explicitly against their code, so long as it is not a gross violation. And bamboozling a fiend hardly counts as a gross violation of the code.
Second and third items in the paladin code of conduct

...act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends)
Not only is lying/cheating to "appear to sell but not sell" one's soul dishonorable (the fiend is bargaining in (lowercase g) good faith after all) It is also advancing chaotic ends (in so as much as being C chaotic to a being of pure Law is chaotic)

[Flickerdart]

Second and third items in the paladin code of conduct

Not only is lying/cheating to "appear to sell but not sell" one's soul dishonorable, It is also advancing chaotic ends (in so as much as being C chaotic to a being of pure Law is chaotic)

Irrelevant. It is not a gross violation. The paladin owes no fealty to the fiend, the fiend is not a friend, the fiend is not relying on the paladin, and at the end of the day the fiend is a fiend.

[Gildedragon]

Depends on the value of the ten souls, I suppose. Any random ten? Not a chance, fall. Ten most powerful [good] souls in Hell (e.g. prisoners of war, not petitioners), not counting those already free to leave ? Well, still fall. But there would be some good deities who would be happy to provide a quick [I]atonement for the trade, and then proceed to coat the paladin in medals.

You could play it like a Sampson and Delilah story arc. The paladin is made to fall by a traitor, captured and blinded as a result, and when in the most precarious position, meets the/a devil (in the Biblical story, this would be in the temple of Dagon, who, in D&D, is a demon lord). The devil is not interested in the paladin, who seems unremarkable amongst the other prisoners, having lost their aura of good. Seeing the devil, the paladin prays to be granted their powers one last time.

Suddenly, the devil notices that there is a great [good] in the temple, and offers them a deal: their soul for the other prisoners, believing that the paladin could be falling on the spot. The paladin bargains divinely well, and talks up the price to the (three, five, ten) most powerful [good] soul imprisoned in Hell, knowing that the devil is fooled into believing the paladin is falling on the spot, when they've really fallen already. Mechanically, this works best if there is a (Su) paladin bonus to diplomacy; maybe there's a PF archetype for that.

As soon as the deal is sealed, the paladin loses their powers, for good, and the deception is revealed - the devil has been tricked. For a happy ending, this is where someone (the traitor, for bonus drama) travels to the Nessus to free the paladin.

Yes, it's a modern take. I don't think you're really supposed to barter away your paladin powers, but a sufficiently utilitarianist deity might go for it.

I sort of like this (paladin's soul is one of the souls the paladin's soul ransoms)
Would fall sideways to CG so fast the Slads will think someone farted, but the powers of CG would let the paladin retrain levels for paladin of freedom

[Gildedragon]

Irrelevant. It is not a gross violation. The paladin owes no fealty to the fiend, the fiend is not a friend, the fiend is not relying on the paladin, and at the end of the day the fiend is a fiend.

Fealty has nothing to do (fealty would fall under the recognition of authority)
Otherwise a paladin would be free to cheat shopkeepers (owes no fealty to them), lie about their Deeds to nearly everyone they meet, and help thieves break into houses.

No.
Lying to a Fiend and bargaining in bad faith with one is arguably Good, but it is grossly Chaotic
How much more dishonorable could it get? Cheating an Inevitable at cards? Lying to an angry Archon to protect the party rogue?
By tricking the Devil you're exploiting their Lawful nature. They can't really lie or cheat you (they can twist your words and have you trick yourself, they can omit things (you never asked), but they can't lie or go back on their word). Taking advantage of that is the epitome of dishonorable conduct.

[Flickerdart]

Fealty has nothing to do (fealty would fall under the recognition of authority)
Otherwise a paladin would be free to cheat shopkeepers (owes no fealty to them), lie about their Deeds to nearly everyone they meet, and help thieves break into houses.

No.
Lying to a Fiend and bargaining in bad faith with one is arguably Good, but it is grossly Chaotic

Bro.

Listen.

Listen, bro.

Nobody is saying that lying isn't chaotic. It just doesn't matter. Look at the list of ways a paladin can fall:


A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who grossly violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and abilities (including the service of the paladin’s mount, but not weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies).

You can't fall just for any chaotic act; you must grossly violate the Code. And acting dishonestly towards a fiend (a creature made of dishonesty) is the smallest violation possible.

[Gildedragon]

Bro.

Listen.

Listen, bro.

Nobody is saying that lying isn't chaotic. It just doesn't matter. Look at the list of ways a paladin can fall:



You can't fall just for any chaotic act; you must grossly violate the Code. And acting dishonestly towards a fiend (a creature made of dishonesty) is the smallest violation possible.

Demons are dishonest
Devils are honest to a fault. They are wholly truthful. But that doesn't mean they'll play all their cards. They're need to know. They're the space between the letter of the law. They're the details.
Ask a devil something and they'll answer truthfully, though what you think you heard and they actually said might be radically different.

[zyggythorn]

Second and third items in the paladin code of conduct

Not only is lying/cheating to "appear to sell but not sell" one's soul dishonorable (the fiend is bargaining in (lowercase g) good faith after all) It is also advancing chaotic ends (in so as much as being C chaotic to a being of pure Law is chaotic)

That is the generic code. Certain deities (cough*Ilmater, Pelor, Lathander, Ilmater, Garl Glittergold, Wee Jas, Yondalla, Ilmater, Zilchus, Zodal, Helm, Ilmater, Boldrei, Dol Arrah, Silver Flame, Ilmater, Cyrolalee, Lastai, Phieran, Ilmater, and did I mention Ilmater? *cough) may be more forgiving of a violation with that reasoning.

Wow that was a really long cough. Excuse me.

[Big Fau]

Wasn't there a Vestige who's background was close to the OP's idea? Or a Legacy Item?

[Gildedragon]

Wasn't there a Vestige who's background was close to the OP's idea? Or a Legacy Item?
Yes. Paladin that fought dragons and became an antipaladin and then bailed on that too
I forget the name

[KillianHawkeye]

Is it a violation of the Paladin's code? Sure. Is it a gross violation? That's an opinion left to each of us to determine at our own tables, and arguing about it is senseless. If you think it's a gross violation, the Paladin falls, and if not, then not. End of discussion.

[zyggythorn]

Full disclosure: this is actually for a character background. Trying to get a general concencus before I put it in front of the GM, also because it's a more delicious (and thought provoking) Kobayashi scenario than usual.

[Flickerdart]

Demons are dishonest
Devils are honest to a fault. They are wholly truthful. But that doesn't mean they'll play all their cards. They're need to know. They're the space between the letter of the law. They're the details.
Ask a devil something and they'll answer truthfully, though what you think you heard and they actually said might be radically different.
Truthfulness and honesty are not the same thing. Being honest does mean being forthcoming. If I sold you a sack of rotten potatoes I had carefully disguised to look fresh, and you never asked me if the potatoes were rotten or not, I would have been truthful, but not honest.

[nedz]

RAW: Fall, but that's boring.

Sacrificing your soul to save ten others from hell is a selfless act which should redeem the fall - provided he doesn't just end up with 5 pairs of old boots that is.

[OldTrees1]

Full disclosure: this is actually for a character background. Trying to get a general concencus before I put it in front of the GM, also because it's a more delicious (and thought provoking) Kobayashi scenario than usual.

What is a soul?
Is it one's afterlife or lifeforce? If it is morally supererogatory to suffer torture to death to rescue one or more others, then the principle still stands for longer periods of torture.
Is it one's morality? Agreeing to be evil in exchange for the redemption of others is an extreme case of a hotly debated subject. However everyone would agree the Paladin has fallen even if they think it was the right thing to do.


However in neither case would they become a hellbred. Hellbred are the unclaimed evil souls that sought redemption too late to receive forgiveness but sought redemption early enough to delay their imminent fate. Since reality does not know where to allot them, they get a tiebreaker(with a default result to avoid an infinite loop).

Perhaps instead the Paladin (with the highly valued soul) offers to be reborn as a Hellbred(and thus soulbound to hell) in exchange for the release of the 10 souls.

[WeaselGuy]

Long story short (and maybe to answer the OP's question?) Sounds like a great reason to play a Hellbred, but you wouldn't even know what you did to get in that position anyways. Would be interesting fluff to start as a Hellbred Saint though...

[zyggythorn]

Long story short (and maybe to answer the OP's question?) Sounds like a great reason to play a Hellbred, but you wouldn't even know what you did to get in that position anyways. Would be interesting fluff to start as a Hellbred Saint though...


The paladin in question is actually the character's older brother.

And also a character that I played in a previous campaign. (VoP Monk/Paladin. Best tank the party ever had.)

Mostly just trying to finish up his story, and tie up some loose ends for me on an emotional level (certain characters just make you feel good when you play them.)

[WeaselGuy]

Certain characters just make you feel good when you play them.

I hear ya there. I have a pair of characters, a lvl 30 LG Drow Paladin of Bahamut (Platinum Knight/Vassal of Bahamut) and a lvl 30 LG Tiefling Monk/Tattooed Monk that I brought in to a gnarly epic level boss fight, just to give them closure. The monk was my first ever character, and I had to seriously re-optimize him, and the Paladin was a thought experiment in a 1 off that needed some story time.

[Gildedragon]

Red Fel Red Fel Red Fel

-----

On another note: for it to be an origin for a helbred, as a DM I would say YUP but would have to start with non-paladin class levels

[Lord Haart]

The Kobayashi Maru-ness of the question is really shot down by the fact that falling is a completely arbitrary mechanics, supposedly governed by some bloody stupid cosmic law instead of anyone's judgement and/or best interest yet commonly phrased and understood through a lens of human ethics.

Try rephrasing the question without referring to falling, class abilities or "breaking" some code*, and you'll either get a question with an obvious answer (e. g.: "Did he commit an evil act?" Obviously no, he was bloody saving people's souls. "Did he became a bad person?" Of course not. "Would any good gods try to punish him for it?"** As evidenced by multiple "they'd attone him ASAP" answers above, most of them would not; only a very extreme utilitarian could think of punishing the paladin on the "sacrificing a powerful servant of Good to save some random shmooks weakens Good's forces and is therefore a crime against Good" grounds, and that utilitarian deity would be obliged to pick a punishment that doesn't put the Paladin out of commission or reduce his fighting capacity because by that logic taking the Paladin out of commission is an even bigger crime. "Would gods who put Lawful first punish him for breaking a code?" Depends on how they, in-universe, interpret the specific wording of the oaths he swore, in-universe. "Would the forces of Good try to rescue his soul in any non-Evil way they can, including lobbying to make him a Hellbred if everything else fails?" One would think so) or a question in vein of "Did he do the most possible good or would it be gooder to refuse the deal?" that needs to be answered in the context of a specific philosophy (and looks to me like a variation on the Trolley Dilemma).


*Again, in real life there's no universal breaking-a-rule-o-meter. Someone has to pass judgement to state that you broke a code, even if that someone is yourself.
**Also answers the original question if (in the particular setting) falling requires a god to take an action to leave his servant powerless, rather than happening regardless of the gods' personal opinions on the matter.

[gooddragon1]

Not necessarily a rules perspective, but selfless sacrifice is never evil. Neutral good can lie occasionally in desperation (more lying leans to chaotic, less leans to lawful). Chaotic good treats lying as a tool in their tools of the trade. The most lawful good can do is twist the truth and only in desperation. Look at the example of durkon in the oots comic on this site in the azure city jail about the "mechanical defect". That is the best a paladin could do imo. I would evaluate the situation as I have described above.

[NecessaryWeevil]

I think we need to be clear on what the effect of selling one's soul is before the question can be answered. Does it merely mean that your soul goes directly to Hell (or the equivalent) when you die, regardless of how you lived? Does it mean you lose your free will to the one you sold your soul to? Does it mean you agree to freely choose to do evil?

[Honest Tiefling]

I would rule that the paladin falls. Any devil capable of freeing souls from the hell is going to be experienced and smart enough to not agree to a deal that's going to backfire horrendously. Either the deal makes the paladin regret his deal (10 souls of really evil people get freed, now with superpowers!) or there's no chance of him going back on the deal.

If all it took to take down a devil was a massive set of metallic gonads, then the devils aren't terribly impressive and act kinda stupidly. That ruins them as villains in my opinion.

[ExLibrisMortis]

If all it took to take down a devil was a massive set of metallic gonads, then the devils aren't terribly impressive and act kinda stupidly. That ruins them as villains in my opinion.
While this is, in general, how I see things as well, it should be possible, however hard, to occasionally outsmart a devil. Devils don't have a monopoly on smarts, and while paladins aren't famous for their intelligence scores, they can have pretty nice Diplomacy modifiers. It's a bit like a quiz show with a really big jackpot: lots of people participate, on the off-chance that they are smart and lucky enough to win that jackpot, even though most people aren't, and won't. The tiny chance of actual success is something that encourages customers to keep coming.

[Honest Tiefling]

1) Should mortals be able to outsmart a devil? I would actually argue that in some settings, the answer is 'nope'.
2) If possible, it probably shouldn't be a backstory element, instead of an epic campaign.

[ExLibrisMortis]

1) Should mortals be able to outsmart a devil? I would actually argue that in some settings, the answer is 'nope'.
2) If possible, it probably shouldn't be a backstory element, instead of an epic campaign.
1) There's always that setting where it's 'nope', but in default 3.5, you're looking at 18 HD and mental stats 26 for pit fiends, resulting in about +25 to +30 bonus on Sense Motive, Diplomacy and Craft (Legal Document)*. It's perfectly possible to beat those numbers on a high-level character (who can easily be immortal, if that's required). It's not easy on a paladin, but then paladins are some of the worse skillmonkeys in the game.
2) Depends on how you present it. If this is a level 15+ game, then it's totally reasonable to put a trick like that in the backstory of your older sibling, who is so much more accomplished yadda yadda jealousy yadda fall yadda shock yadda make up for the loss of honour but respect the sacrifice, and so forth.


*Default pit fiends have +10 Diplomacy and no Sense Motive, but you should transfer those ranks in Climb and Jump. Seriously, they can fly, why do they even... :smallfurious:.

[Honest Tiefling]

1) There's always that setting where it's 'nope', but in default 3.5, you're looking at 18 HD and mental stats 26 for pit fiends, resulting in about +25 to +30 bonus on Sense Motive, Diplomacy and Craft (Legal Document)*. It's perfectly possible to beat those numbers on a high-level character (who can easily be immortal, if that's required). It's not easy on a paladin, but then paladins are some of the worse skillmonkeys in the game.
2) Depends on how you present it. If this is a level 15+ game, then it's totally reasonable to put a trick like that in the backstory of your older sibling, who is so much more accomplished yadda yadda jealousy yadda fall yadda shock yadda make up for the loss of honour but respect the sacrifice, and so forth.

I assume the printed stats aren't used, else most parties could take Elminster and break him over their knee for kicks and giggles. But you are right, in some settings, it is valid, if not expected for a mortal to outwit a devil. But we don't know what the setting is supposed to be, so I guess that one is just up to the DM.

Yeah, if the campaign was expected to reach epic, that's also a fine and dandy backstory, and might actually be pretty funny for the epic level character to have a massive inferiority complex. But I still maintain this is a strange backstory for a lower level character.

[OldTrees1]

I think we need to be clear on what the effect of selling one's soul is before the question can be answered. Does it merely mean that your soul goes directly to Hell (or the equivalent) when you die, regardless of how you lived? Does it mean you lose your free will to the one you sold your soul to? Does it mean you agree to freely choose to do evil?

I agree. I tried to address part of this in my answer to the question.

If selling one's soul only affects the afterlife destination (1st option). Then it really does not seem like as big a deal. Basically it is regifting the greatest gift of all time (utopic afterlife) and making the gift bigger in the process. Selfless self sacrifice in the service of others.

On the other hand if selling one's soul means freely choosing to be evil (3rd option), then the question about falling becomes crystal clear.

The second option you mentioned (losing one's will to the owner) seems based upon the idea of the soul as one's being/personality. I don't know about this one. My initial instincts tell me it is very similar to the 1st option.

[ekarney]

I'm going to say good act.
First of all, OP has said that he believes he's getting the better end of the bargain, having written up the deal personally and avoiding the negative consequences.

For those saying that this is an evil act, so is cold blooded murder but well, most games require a lot of that in order to even level up. Plus paladins do tend to spend a lot of time hunting down and subsequently killing evil people as well. So if that's not evil I don't see why this should be.

If said Paladin traded his sight so that 10 other people got their sight back would it still be evil?

The main argument against this is "But what if the devil somehow profits without the Paladin's knowledge?" well, that's unfortunate but it's not the Paladins fault. It's similar to the Paladin sacrificing himself to let his party get away from an enemy lieutenant, only for the party later to realize that the whole time it was a plot to kill the Paladin. He wouldn't fall because of that case of self sacrifice, so why should he fall for this one.

[Red Fel]

Red Fel Red Fel Red Fel

I don't need to weigh in; it's been said repeatedly. By RAW, willingly engaging in a deal with infernal powers - particularly to sell one's soul - is an arbitrarily Evil act, regardless of reason. Selling your soul, even if you have the rest of your life to make up for it, is fall-worthy.

Can you atone for it? From an alignment perspective, sure. From the generic discussion of Good and Evil, there's always a path back.

From a Paladin perspective? Debatable. Why? Because choosing to willingly sell one's soul, rather than taking a third option, may be an act of sacrifice, but it is still directly facilitating and enabling Evil to get what it wants. A Devil wouldn't trade one soul for ten unless it was that valuable; you're contributing to Cosmic Evil's win, actively. Moreover, as a general rule, dealing with Cosmic Evil is the easy way, not the right way. Nobody's saying you have to go on a suicide mission into the Hells to rescue ten souls, valorous though that would be, but selling your own is basically just choosing the path of least resistance. If you're playing a Paladin, you're not doing something because it's easy.

You also mention VoP. Can you atone from an Exalted perspective? Absolutely not. By RAW, the path of Exalted is one way - fall off once and it's over. And you fall off for a voluntary Evil act, such as entering into a Pact. Guess what this was?

My point is this. From a narrative standpoint, it's a beautiful and noble gesture, a tragic and heroic sacrifice. But from the perspective of arbitrary alignment, you fall from the moment you enter into the deal. Your alignment may recover, but your Exalted status never will, and your Paladinhood may not either.

Evil is the alignment of "the ends justify the means." When you decide that it's acceptable to sell your soul, for any reason, that is the path you are embracing - this end, this outcome, justifies the actions I'm taking. Good is the alignment of "some means cannot be justified," and selling your soul is one of them.

I shouldn't have to say it. S'been said over and over, and in this thread, no less.

[Metahuman1]

You fall. Ways around that include:

Being a Grey Guard.

Being a Paladin of Freedom.

Being a Crusader and just calling yourself a Paladin.


But unless you've one or more of those things to leverage, you fall.

[Red Fel]

You fall. Ways around that include:

Being a Grey Guard.

This works, because Gray Guards are explicitly allowed to perform any act in pursuit of righteousness and justice, and salvation for ten souls is certainly that.


Being a Paladin of Freedom.

This does not work, because a CG Paladin still loses its features for willfully committing an Evil act, and dealing with a Devil is still explicitly and arbitrarily Evil.


Being a Crusader and just calling yourself a Paladin.

This totally works, and is also the best thing.

[Metahuman1]

Paladin of Freedom would be the hardest one to make fly, and would require some very tricky finagling, but it can be done.





That said, unless you have one of those three things, you fall. Period. End of story.

[Calthropstu]

...

"I will allow you to take my soul, but in return you must then allow me to pick 10 good souls bound to hell to be released."

*goes to hell*

"I pick these 9 souls and my own."

No lying involved.

[gooddragon1]

I don't need to weigh in; it's been said repeatedly. By RAW, willingly engaging in a deal with infernal powers - particularly to sell one's soul - is an arbitrarily Evil act, regardless of reason. Selling your soul, even if you have the rest of your life to make up for it, is fall-worthy.

Can you atone for it? From an alignment perspective, sure. From the generic discussion of Good and Evil, there's always a path back.

From a Paladin perspective? Debatable. Why? Because choosing to willingly sell one's soul, rather than taking a third option, may be an act of sacrifice, but it is still directly facilitating and enabling Evil to get what it wants. A Devil wouldn't trade one soul for ten unless it was that valuable; you're contributing to Cosmic Evil's win, actively. Moreover, as a general rule, dealing with Cosmic Evil is the easy way, not the right way. Nobody's saying you have to go on a suicide mission into the Hells to rescue ten souls, valorous though that would be, but selling your own is basically just choosing the path of least resistance. If you're playing a Paladin, you're not doing something because it's easy.

You also mention VoP. Can you atone from an Exalted perspective? Absolutely not. By RAW, the path of Exalted is one way - fall off once and it's over. And you fall off for a voluntary Evil act, such as entering into a Pact. Guess what this was?

My point is this. From a narrative standpoint, it's a beautiful and noble gesture, a tragic and heroic sacrifice. But from the perspective of arbitrary alignment, you fall from the moment you enter into the deal. Your alignment may recover, but your Exalted status never will, and your Paladinhood may not either.

Evil is the alignment of "the ends justify the means." When you decide that it's acceptable to sell your soul, for any reason, that is the path you are embracing - this end, this outcome, justifies the actions I'm taking. Good is the alignment of "some means cannot be justified," and selling your soul is one of them.

I shouldn't have to say it. S'been said over and over, and in this thread, no less.

It is possible his character does not know that evil always makes a deal in its favor. And while RAW is set, dm's can run with RAI. Intent then takes priority and a selfless sacrifice of this nature has no intent of gain nor evil. In the same way that 2 good aligned people can fight due to circumstances, this could be a case where good is misled. I would have the character fall, but it would be able to regain his soul, paladin status, and exalted status because of the intent behind the actions. There are certainly cases where this becomes more difficult to judge, but this doesn't look like one of them. As mentioned in oots, good isn't judged by efficiency. Not RAW though, and just imo.

[Telonius]

It is possible his character does not know that evil always makes a deal in its favor.

It's possible that a character doesn't know that evil always makes a deal in its favor. It's significantly less likely that a Paladin doesn't know the same. Fighting Evil is a big part of the Paladin's shtick. Not knowing that Devils will do that, but being in a class whose entire purpose is fighting Chaos and Evil and promoting Good and Law? That's like going into a swordfight without knowing that the pointy end is supposed to go into the other guy.

[Honest Tiefling]

It is possible his character does not know that evil always makes a deal in its favor.

I really don't think the gods would really want this guy to follow them if he didn't know the first thing about his own enemies. Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if there were campaign settings where even common people knew that devils made Faustian pacts. True, they might think they're immune to acid and follow Abamantagor, but it's sorta an important and well-known detail.

[Extra Anchovies]

From a Paladin perspective? Debatable. Why? Because choosing to willingly sell one's soul, rather than taking a third option, may be an act of sacrifice, but it is still directly facilitating and enabling Evil to get what it wants. A Devil wouldn't trade one soul for ten unless it was that valuable; you're contributing to Cosmic Evil's win, actively. Moreover, as a general rule, dealing with Cosmic Evil is the easy way, not the right way. Nobody's saying you have to go on a suicide mission into the Hells to rescue ten souls, valorous though that would be, but selling your own is basically just choosing the path of least resistance. If you're playing a Paladin, you're not doing something because it's easy.

Evil is the alignment of "the ends justify the means." When you decide that it's acceptable to sell your soul, for any reason, that is the path you are embracing - this end, this outcome, justifies the actions I'm taking. Good is the alignment of "some means cannot be justified," and selling your soul is one of them.

This says it all, at least from how I see it.


more lying leans to chaotic, less leans to lawful

Where is this idea coming from? Lawful characters have personal rules that they follow, while Chaotic characters act on their whims with less regard for holding consistently to specific principles. I'm not aware of any requirement that "don't lie" has to be part of any lawful character's personal code.


Full disclosure: this is actually for a character background. Trying to get a general concencus before I put it in front of the GM, also because it's a more delicious (and thought provoking) Kobayashi scenario than usual.

I'm not clear on how this is a situation akin to the Kobayashi Maru test. The simulation is designed primarily to test how the cadet operates under pressure, when no fully successful actions are possible - enter the Neutral Zone and get rekt, or cut their losses and give up the Kobayashi Maru as doomed.

The situation you present would be parallel if violating the Neutral Zone treaty and sacrificing your own ship would somehow save the KM. In that case, the decision is "hold to the rules and withhold from saving noncombatants" or "break the rules and sacrifice yourself to save noncombatants". In such a scenario, the "right" decision depends on how closely you are expected to stick to the rules. Paladins are expected to hold to the rule against committing evil acts without exception, so if the situation in the OP were presented to Paladins-in-training as a test, passing would require holding to the code - and thus not accepting the bargain.

[gooddragon1]

I really don't think the gods would really want this guy to follow them if he didn't know the first thing about his own enemies. Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if there were campaign settings where even common people knew that devils made Faustian pacts. True, they might think they're immune to acid and follow Abamantagor, but it's sorta an important and well-known detail.

Knowledge: Religion is a class skill for a paladin, but it's not a requirement.


Where is this idea coming from? Lawful characters have personal rules that they follow, while Chaotic characters act on their whims with less regard for holding consistently to specific principles. I'm not aware of any requirement that "don't lie" has to be part of any lawful character's personal code.

I meant with regards to a sliding scale of neutrality. Leaning towards lawful or chaos depending on how much you're willing to lie. It's not the only indicator, but that's what I was trying to describe.

[Honest Tiefling]

Knowledge: Religion is a class skill for a paladin, but it's not a requirement.

If the good aligned gods are fighting over some dude who doesn't know thing one about his enemies, then even Red Fel is an improvement over them. I don't think this is the intended tone for the backstory.

Also, while I will concede that in some settings it would make quite a lot of sense for a mortal to trick a high-ranking Devil, it sure as heck ain't going to happen with a dude who can't tell a hamatula from his shiny behind. Again, I don't think sheer incompetency is really the tone of the backstory.

[KillianHawkeye]

For those saying that this is an evil act, so is cold blooded murder but well, most games require a lot of that in order to even level up.

This point, at the very least, is intrinsically false. From personal experience over almost twenty years of playing D&D, I can probably count on one hand the number of times a character of mine has committed murder. The killing one does as an adventurer is to a great degree more similar to fighting in a war than it is to committing a murder. At worst, in rare cases it might be comparable to manslaughter. In the quasi-medieval societies that dominate the settings of D&D, creatures such as dragons and orcs and vampires would all be considered persona non grata, having no legal rights and (for all legal purposes) basically wouldn't count at all because of how they live entirely outside of civilization.

[gooddragon1]

If the good aligned gods are fighting over some dude who doesn't know thing one about his enemies, then even Red Fel is an improvement over them. I don't think this is the intended tone for the backstory.

Also, while I will concede that in some settings it would make quite a lot of sense for a mortal to trick a high-ranking Devil, it sure as heck ain't going to happen with a dude who can't tell a hamatula from his shiny behind. Again, I don't think sheer incompetency is really the tone of the backstory.

My point is that if he didn't know it was evil (possibly due to incompetence) and genuinely made a selfless sacrifice I'd go against RAW and punish him with falling while also giving him a way to get back paladin and exalted status. Then I'd have the thing he atones to explain to him why it is evil and not to do it again.

Also, the fact that he fights his enemies for the cause of good is good enough imo. Whether or not he knows much about them doesn't change that he's doing good.

[zyggythorn]

The specific reason mentioned it as a Kobayashi Maru scenario is because from a strictly RAW perspective, it is a case of Fall>Lose Exalted status>Hell.

From an RP/RAI/GM Fiat perspective, this can be seen as well within the bounds of certain Gods' Paladin code (Ilmater specifically encourages Paladins to save the people, rather than defeat Evil, hence my very long cough). This may include making the deal in good faith, damning (hehe) as it may be.

This campaign would start at lv 5, and go epic- so longer story threads are encouraged by GM. There's a few small hooks initially, but the big motivation for this character is [Find Brother, Save or put him to rest]

As mentioned previously, it would be an interesting thought experiment for an epic character to have an Inferiority Complex, and the end result could be well outside of what I would expect. After all, The GM knows who the 10 souls are. I don't.

[Zanos]

RAW: Fall, but that's boring.

Sacrificing your soul to save ten others from hell is a selfless act which should redeem the fall - provided he doesn't just end up with 5 pairs of old boots that is.
Ransoming other souls is actually one of the strategies Devils frequently make use of to get more powerful and righteous individuals to sign pacts.

Under the normal cosmology, making a Pact Certain with a Devil is enough to not only make you fall, it's so potent that your alignment immediately becomes Lawful Evil. Paladin is hosed.


I don't need to weigh in; it's been said repeatedly. By RAW, willingly engaging in a deal with infernal powers - particularly to sell one's soul - is an arbitrarily Evil act, regardless of reason.

It's not quite arbitrary. The Pact Primeval dictates that such is true. And furthermore to OP specifically, the Good deities would have to break that pact to try to raise your soul from Hell, which is basically impossible.

[Fizban]

Part of this hinges on the definition of "sells his soul." As has been pointed out, BoED says this is always evil no exceptions, thus doing so means you are no longer exalted (until atoned) and no longer qualify for Saint (period).

So the next question is if it's appropriate to (as the DM/writer) make an exception, when the soul being sold is your own and you are doing so as a selfless act for others. I believe most people would prefer to think when it comes to your own body/soul, whatever you choose to do with it cannot be considered evil. Evil is about harming others, not yourself, and selling your soul is just a bit more final than a normal death. The standard rules/cosmology on the other hand seem to be counting your soul as part of the multiversal balance of good, such that even if it's "yours," selling it hurts others by reducing the overall power of good. And the definition of a Saint is that they never take a loss, ever.

That said, none of this has anything to do with weather or not the character could be reborn as a Hellbred, which are basically the opposite of this character. A Hellbred is an evil person who changed their ways too late (and then had their memories erased, like that's a fair play ha). What we have here is a Saintly example who suddenly performed an evil act. One evil act does not change your alignment, even suddenly committing the most monstrous of act is more a reveal that something was wrong all along, and the action here obviously doesn't count as that.

Basically what you want to do is take the idea of the scourging and apply it to something else that seems thematically appropriate: instead of a sudden convert, a person throwing themselves into a demonic contract knowing the audience will hate the guy on the other side. While I'd personally say the whole point of a "selling your soul" plot is that it involves knowingly and intentionally forfeiting the protection of your gods, leaving them unable to protect you no matter how much they may want to, it's not inherently wrong. It does suggest a significant change in how much the gods are allowed to actively do, since the default assumption is that gods stay out of things because of nebulous rules or reasons. The Hellbred scourging works despite this assumption because it draws upon the inherent murkiness of when an alignment change happens, while a contract is the opposite of murky.

So, the main question your DM should be asking is: am I okay with setting the precedent that gods can ignore cosmic contracts and get directly involved when they want to? Some DMs do this as naturally as breathing, gods are gods after all, but others may be more invested in the hands-off approach. If the DM agrees that this was significant enough to make the gods say "screw the rules," then using Hellbred to represent the mechanical result of their meddling is a perfectly fine choice.

Oh, and this is Forgotten Realms? Yeah, their gods do all kinds of direct intervention stuff. Ond module I've read literally just has you walk into town and a divine vision straight from Azuth guides you to the plot point, because someone couldn't be bothered writing I guess. So if Ilmater tells you to save the people through sacrifice and you put the screws to a Devil hard enough to get a good deal on sacrificing your soul (assuming you had no other choice, you did have no other choice, right?), I'd say that's enough to let him bend the rules. Any situation where a Paladin has to make a deal must always be predicated on being unable to win through force of arms, since that's literally their whole job.

[Mr Adventurer]

It's not sacrifice though - it's sale.

[OldTrees1]

It's not quite arbitrary. The Pact Primeval dictates that such is true.

How is that not still arbitrary? An arbitrary moral rule is a rule that could have been otherwise. If there is no reason for a moral rule being true other than it being true, then it is an arbitrary moral rule as far as we know.


Lots of RAW morality is arbitrary.

[Calthropstu]

Heh.

Souls... hell... hellbred...

hell bread. Mmmmmm.

... Ok so this post is rather silly. But I'm hungry damn it.

[OldTrees1]

Heh.

Souls... hell... hellbred...

hell bread. Mmmmmm.

... Ok so this post is rather silly. But I'm hungry damn it.

Don't do it! Hell bread might taste better than even ambrosia, but it is an addictive trap they use to corrupt you.

Hell bred bread on the other hand is a CR 3 carnivorous loaf of bread. So I guess still be careful.

[Zanos]

How is that not still arbitrary? An arbitrary moral rule is a rule that could have been otherwise. If there is no reason for a moral rule being true other than it being true, then it is an arbitrary moral rule as far as we know.


Lots of RAW morality is arbitrary.
Arbitrary: based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.

The Pact is a carefully constructed legal document designed to enshrine the power of Hell in the cosmos. No portion of it is arbitrary. If dealing with Devils under any circumstances was Evil with no justification, it would be arbitrary. It is not arbitrary because it has an in setting justification.

[OldTrees1]

Arbitrary: based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.

The Pact is a carefully constructed legal document designed to enshrine the power of Hell in the cosmos. No portion of it is arbitrary. If dealing with Devils under any circumstances was Evil with no justification, it would be arbitrary. It is not arbitrary because it has an in setting justification.

And what is that in setting justification? I can find plenty of carefully constructed legal documents, however if I decided one of those would dictate moral rules then I would be making an arbitrary decision. Not only are legal concerns personal whims in a moral context but my choosing which document would be based on either a random choice or a personal whim. So I disagree with your assertion that the Pact is non arbitrary in a moral context unless you present this justification you claim to have seen.

Now if you were claiming that all deals are a net loss as a result of the Pact && that deals that are net losses as evil then you might be saying something. There are reasons to believe deals that give Hell a net benefit would tend to be evil (if dealing in a consequentialist morality) and thus you have tied those existing reasons to your claim. Of course then you would have to deal with Rule vs Act consequentialism but that is another story.

[Frelus]

Is half this thread really arguing that an act of martyrdom is evil? An act of pure self-sacrifice?

[Honest Tiefling]

Is half this thread really arguing that an act of martyrdom is evil? An act of pure self-sacrifice?

That's RAW for you.

Through admittedly the idea that the Devils made this an evil act due to both the wording and the power of the Pact Primeval tickles me pink.

[Extra Anchovies]

Is half this thread really arguing that an act of martyrdom is evil? An act of pure self-sacrifice?

The Paladin had sworn an oath which includes a promise to never cooperate with evildoers except against a greater evil, no matter what could be gained from doing so. Devils are literally made of evil, so there is no greater evil to fight. The Paladin selling their soul - willingly promising ownership of it to a demon - breaks their oath regardless of what is gained from the contract. What a Paladin is expected to do is find another way to free the ten souls, or accept that they are unfortunate casualties and that there are bigger fish to fry.

A Good character can deviate from the path of Good and briefly consort with Evil for greater goals. Paladins have sworn to never leave the path, to follow it not matter the cost. Exalted characters are expected to be the path, to serve as shining examples of Good for others to aspire to. Those last two include refusing to negotiate with servants of Evil no matter what they offer.


Heh.

Souls... hell... hellbred...

hell bread. Mmmmmm.

... Ok so this post is rather silly. But I'm hungry damn it.

Can't help but think of this (http://youtu.be/VAC-5BQnuXI).

[Strigon]

The Paladin selling their soul - willingly promising ownership of it to a demon - breaks their oath regardless of what is gained from the contract. What a Paladin is expected to do is find another way to free the ten souls, or accept that they are unfortunate casualties and that there are bigger fish to fry.


This is true. People willing to sacrifice themselves for someone else are a dime a dozen. A Paladin is more than that; they strive to do Good in the world, and reduce Evil. That means that, sometimes, a Paladin has to go against his selfless nature and realize that, yes, he is more important than that random farmer, as his death will be a much greater success for Evil than the farmer's. That's an ugly, but necessary part of the duty - doing what's best, even if it doesn't make you feel good about yourself.

[OldTrees1]

Is half this thread really arguing that an act of martyrdom is evil? An act of pure self-sacrifice?

Yes. This is precisely why parroting RAW is silly for alignment questions.


Although, to be fair, what if the martyrdom included volunteering to be evil thereafter? What is a soul and what does selling it mean?

[Telonius]

Is half this thread really arguing that an act of martyrdom is evil? An act of pure self-sacrifice?

An act of pure self-sacrifice (from the Paladin/deontological perspective) would be an act that doesn't do any Evil. Selling your soul is Evil, by definition. It might be the lesser Evil to destroy one soul to save the universe, but (again, from the Paladin perspective) a lesser Evil is still an Evil. All the justification in the world can't turn Evil into Good.

[zyggythorn]

Is half this thread really arguing that an act of martyrdom is evil? An act of pure self-sacrifice?

I'm glad that someone else can agree on that level.
Saying there won't be a punishment of some sort is a whole different bag of chickens, mind you, but the core of the question here (and again, why I feel this is a close enough Kobayashi scenario) is how far does martyrdom go towards a... Re-rising? Re-ascent?

Articulating that in an eloquent manner is difficult at this hour.

[Honest Tiefling]

Wouldn't that depend on the god of said paladin? Your coughing fit earlier was nearly 50% Ilmater, so I assume Ilmater is the god of this paladin. I don't know much about him, but given he is the god of sacrifice and matyrdom, I think a case could be built for a re-ascension provided your DM does NOT interpret the whole selling your soul business as RAW.

But if he doesn't fall, how does he become a Hellbred? Doesn't he need to be evil for that to work, or are you just using the stats for a soul tortured by devils that never became evil?

[Zanos]

And what is that in setting justification? I can find plenty of carefully constructed legal documents, however if I decided one of those would dictate moral rules then I would be making an arbitrary decision. Not only are legal concerns personal whims in a moral context but my choosing which document would be based on either a random choice or a personal whim. So I disagree with your assertion that the Pact is non arbitrary in a moral context unless you present this justification you claim to have seen.

Now if you were claiming that all deals are a net loss as a result of the Pact && that deals that are net losses as evil then you might be saying something. There are reasons to believe deals that give Hell a net benefit would tend to be evil (if dealing in a consequentialist morality) and thus you have tied those existing reasons to your claim. Of course then you would have to deal with Rule vs Act consequentialism but that is another story.
The in settings justification is that it is signed by beings of such power that they dictate what reality is. Perhaps by our morality it seems arbitrary, but Outsiders sort of define what Good and Evil are. I didn't say it was not arbitrarily lowercase evil(although the very fact that the devil is willing to make the trade is an indicator that it is), but it's definitely not arbitrarily uppercase Evil. You're also stretching both the common and literal definition of arbitrary.


Is half this thread really arguing that an act of martyrdom is evil? An act of pure self-sacrifice?
Yes. The Devil gets his due. Dealing with a Devil will always result in the world being worse off for it, even without considering The Pact.

[OldTrees1]

The in settings justification is that it is signed by beings of such power that they dictate what reality is. Perhaps by our morality it seems arbitrary, but Outsiders sort of define what Good and Evil are. I didn't say it was not arbitrarily lowercase evil(although the very fact that the devil is willing to make the trade is an indicator that it is), but it's definitely not arbitrarily uppercase Evil. You're also stretching both the common and literal definition of arbitrary.

I thought we were talking about morality. Thank you for clearing that up. However even if these outsiders have the authority to define [Evil] and [Good], them doing so makes those definitions arbitrary (because they could have defined them as something else).

However since I find no merit in talking about morally irrelevant details in a thread like this. I think we should table this off topic discussion.


Yes. The Devil gets his due. Dealing with a Devil will always result in the world being worse off for it, even without considering The Pact.

This is a better track to follow. I am just going to note some assumptions:
1) The Devil always net benefits from a deal (I presume that is what you meant by gets his due)
2) The Devil's benefit always makes the world worse off
3) Deals are not positive sum (you are unclear if you are presuming deals to be negative sum, zero sum, or either)

#1 is unclear in a system where dealing parties can be in
a) Stronger positions than those they deal with
b) Stronger bargainers than those they deal with
c) Dealing with someone with different motives than the Devil

#2 is unclear unless we know that all the Devil's motives are such that satisfying some of one with make the world worse off. If the Devil likes pasta, then I don't see how the Devil receiving pasta would make the world worse off(provided the pasta cost was offset).

#3 sounds clearly false if economics has any merit. Furthermore the argument might hinge on #3 for if positive sum deals can exist then the deal might net benefit the world despite the mixed results. Depending on one's moral theory this might be acceptable depending on the details.

Edit: 1c

[Red Fel]

Yes. The Devil gets his due.

Please, I've told you. Call me Red Fel.


This is a better track to follow. I am just going to note some assumptions:
1) The Devil always net benefits from a deal (I presume that is what you meant by gets his due)

I think it's safer to say that, one way or another, the proverbial Devil comes out at least even, generally ahead, as compared to where he was. For a Devil to be powerful enough to grant boons, he'd have to have been cunning and ambitious enough to outmaneuver a lot of other Devils, who are, as you recall, an entire race whose primary function includes getting the better end of any bargain.


2) The Devil's benefit always makes the world worse off

By definition. Devils are Cosmic Evil; whenever they benefit, Evil benefits, and if Evil benefits, it's bad for the rest of us. Well, you all.


3) Deals are not positive sum (you are unclear if you are presuming deals to be negative sum, zero sum, or either)

Deals can be zero sum, but to reach that point presumes that the non-Devil is as savvy at dealmaking as the Devil itself, which is infinitesimally improbable, for reasons I expressed above. Generally, someone will come out ahead, and almost inevitably, that person will be the Devil.


#1 is unclear in a system where dealing parties can be in
a) Stronger positions than those they deal with
b) Stronger bargainers than those they deal with
c) Dealing with someone with different motives than the Devil

Here's the thing. A Devil cannot come off with the worse end of the deal, for a very simple reason - a Devil who comes off with the worse end of the deal is going to find a way to benefit, or to make the other party suffer, until he feels that debt is even. So even if he loses in the short term, in the long term, he still wins.

Nor is a Devil going to bargain with someone in a stronger position. Half of the art of dealmaking is targeting those in a position of weakness and desperation.

Nor is it probable that someone will be a stronger bargainer than the Devil. Think of car dealers. These are people who spend every day getting better at negotiating. That's the majority of their job. Now imagine that, but exponentially amplified; this is a creature cosmically formed for bargaining, who has spent countless centuries doing it. It is highly improbable that you will be better at it than this guy.

And of course your motives will be different. But that is irrelevant. The only question that matters is this one: "Do we have a deal?" Motives play no part in that.


#2 is unclear unless we know that all the Devil's motives are such that satisfying some of one with make the world worse off. If the Devil likes pasta, then I don't see how the Devil receiving pasta would make the world worse off(provided the pasta cost was offset).

Simply put, anything that benefits a Devil makes the world worse, if for no other reason than that it makes that Devil stronger and more confident. Lose a haggling match over a one-pound note, and that Devil feels more confident in his haggling abilities; maybe next time he'll try for the Crown Jewels.


#3 sounds clearly false if economics has any merit. Furthermore the argument might hinge on #3 for if positive sum deals can exist then the deal might net benefit the world despite the mixed results. Depending on one's moral theory this might be acceptable depending on the details.

Yeah, I'm not 100% sure where this one's going.

[OldTrees1]

Please, I've told you. Call me Red Fel.
For the sake of ease, clarity, and respect, for the rest of this post I will say Red Fel instead of the Devil and Bob instead of a devil to differentiate "the Devil" from "a devil".


Here's the thing. A Devil cannot come off with the worse end of the deal, for a very simple reason - a Devil who comes off with the worse end of the deal is going to find a way to benefit, or to make the other party suffer, until he feels that debt is even. So even if he loses in the short term, in the long term, he still wins.

Nor is a Devil going to bargain with someone in a stronger position. Half of the art of dealmaking is targeting those in a position of weakness and desperation.

Nor is it probable that someone will be a stronger bargainer than the Devil. Think of car dealers. These are people who spend every day getting better at negotiating. That's the majority of their job. Now imagine that, but exponentially amplified; this is a creature cosmically formed for bargaining, who has spent countless centuries doing it. It is highly improbable that you will be better at it than this guy.

And of course your motives will be different. But that is irrelevant. The only question that matters is this one: "Do we have a deal?" Motives play no part in that.
Normally the story goes that Bob is making a deal with the mortal.
a) Bob is not Red Fel and thus it is more reasonable to imagine a mortal in a stronger position being able to force an unfavorable deal
b) Bob is not Red Fel and thus it is more reasonable to imagine a mortal better at bargaining than Bob
c) Bob is not Red Fel and thus might have slightly different motives (different motives -> different preferences -> different ordinal ranking for payouts -> different deal).

Now Red Fel you are right that (b) is probably still improbable for mid level PCs given the many years of practice that Bob has in making deals.

You are also right that if Bob makes a deal Red Fel does not like (whether a minor betrayal, being tricked, or being forced) then Red Fel is likely to seek to even the scores. Bob would likewise seek to even the score if only to settle it before Red Fel needs to. However settling a score has a cost. If the cost to settle exceeds the initial loss by enough, then wouldn't they just take the loss?

I think we will both agree that there is an improbable chance for a short & long term beneficial deal to be made.



Simply put, anything that benefits a Devil makes the world worse, if for no other reason than that it makes that Devil stronger and more confident. Lose a haggling match over a one-pound note, and that Devil feels more confident in his haggling abilities; maybe next time he'll try for the Crown Jewels.

I don't know how pasta would make Red Fel stronger, but you have a good point about confidence.


Yeah, I'm not 100% sure where this one's going.
Basically I was saying that deals could be positive sum (aka both Red Fel & the world are better off) rather than only zero sum (Red Fel is better off at the expense of the other person) or negative sum(Red Fel is better off but value was lost).

Holding off a shared enemy might have potential to be an example of a positive sum deal. Although I would not count either the Pact Primeval or the Blood War as positive sum deals.

[ExLibrisMortis]

The point can be summed up as: "Even if there is a general tendency amongst all deals towards profit for Hell, there may be individual deals or series of deals that tend towards profit for the non-Hell party involved in the deal". Hell plays for the win, not short-term success. An unprofitable deal can be part of an overall more profitable strategy, such as one that secures more deals with a higher total net gain.

Or: "Hell is not perfect; that would be boring". Not that Asmodeus would mind such boredom, but the rest of the multiverse would complain. Hell is not working with perfect tools anymore than the Heavens, the Eladrin Court, or the Demon Princes. Even pit fiends mess up sometimes (usually, when they meet ECL 17+ adventurers).

[nedz]

Also, in real games, Bob is role-played by the DM - lets call him Denis.

Now Denis is multi-talented, but it is possible for a player to get one over on Denis because that player may be a used-car dealer in real life.

Now Denis can rationalise this because Bob is unlikely to be Asmodeus himself and the big A is better at this than the rest of Bobdom.

Also, it's good to allow the players to win - occasionally.

This also explains why Asmodeus is a no-show in most games, well assuming Denis is smart.

Of course, most players take a more physical approach to such negotiations anyway.

[Strigon]

Hell is not perfect

Remember, folks; you heard it here first!

[Extra Anchovies]

Also, in real games, Bob is role-played by the DM - lets call him Denis.

Now Denis is multi-talented, but it is possible for a player to get one over on Denis because that player may be a used-car dealer in real life.

Unless the player's character is a genius used-cart dealer, the player is not roleplaying a negotiation; they are using real-world abilities to manipulate their DM in order to "win" at D&D, and the player is a disgrace to the roleplaying hobby. Roleplaying (in the context of a roleplaying game) is sitting down with friends, doing your best to set aside each of your own talents and memories in exchange for those of imagined characters, and creating an interesting story from the characters' interactions. It is not using your own talents to screw with your friends to make sure the story goes exactly the way you want it to. If you want to do that, go play Diplomacy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomacy_(game)).