Paladin meeting good succubus.

[Hollysword]

This question has been nagging me in my mind for so long now, and I never know what would happen:

Lets say there's a paladin (we'll call him Pally) of an order that despises fiends, and has made it his life's work to eliminate all demons from the world. He comes to a town and spots a succubus (we'll call her Succy) in town. I'd picture Pally's first reaction would be to attack Succy. However, Succy is actually a good succubus, and has been living in the town and helping around, and the whole town knows that she's not evil. So the town rushes to her defense and rebukes Pally. What would Pally do?

I can picture some results:

Pally attacks Succy while avoiding unnecessary collateral
Pally is convinced the whole town is evil and wastes it
Pally understands the town and lets Succy live... this once


Now, suppose Pally decides that ALL demons must be eliminated no matter what, would he be committing an evil act by attacking Succy (and possibly the town)? Assume the good deity, although he loathes to admit it, accepts that Succy is indeed not evil.

[Troacctid]

Trick question. A succubus is inherently evil.

[Frosty]

Paladins have Diplomacy (which doubles as Gather Info if we're talking about Pathfinder), so Pally should be able to hear some rumors of the awesomeness of this Succubus before attacking anyone.

As for what Pally might do, that depends on the individual person. Each paladin is different, but I think option 2 is too insane for any paladin to take. A paladin would never murder an entire town, even if he were convinced that the Succubus has charmed everyone in town. In which case he may choose to go find others who specialize in breaking enchantments.


Trick question. A succubus is inherently evil.
Actually...
Arushulae (http://www.ofdiceandpen.ca/2013/12/wrath-of-righteous-demons-heresy.html) and Eludecia (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/fc/20050824a) disagree with you.

[Hollysword]

Trick question. A succubus is inherently evil.

But her actual alignment is Good. Even the deity accepts that she's good, not evil. Is it an evil act to kill a good demon?


Paladins have Diplomacy (which doubles as Gather Info if we're talking about Pathfinder), so Pally should be able to hear some rumors of the awesomeness of this Succubus before attacking anyone.

As for what Pally might do, that depends on the individual person. Each paladin is different, but I think option 2 is too insane for any paladin to take. A paladin would never murder an entire town, even if he were convinced that the Succubus has charmed everyone in town. In which case he may choose to go find others who specialize in breaking enchantments.

Somehow I can picture Miko doing it... but assume Pally comes from an order of paladins that live to eliminate all demons and are made to despise all demons.

[The Glyphstone]

He might try and convince her to undergo a casting of Polymorph Any Object to become a regular humanoid. No longer a demon, no longer a problem.

[Frosty]

Wait, you're using Miko as an example for Paladins? :smallconfused: Remember how she became a Fighter with no Bonus Feats by the end?

And fine yes, Pally despise all demons. May kill Succy regardless of what the townsfolk say. May or may not lose powers for murdering a good aligned person. But that STILL doesn't translate into murdering the entire town. That's even beyond Miko levels.

[TheFamilarRaven]

Option 1 is in line with a Paladin of the ideals of this hypothetical order. He would still fall for killing her as she is in point of fact good aligned.

Option 2 seems less likely, as detect evil won't register on the towns people. (It will pick up the Demon though), Paladin falls after this one big time.

Option 3 is what responsible paladin would do. Even a skeptical one can have a cleric cast detect good to verify the alignment.

[Lokiron]

I'd picture Pally's first reaction would be to attack Succy.

Sounds like a good way to eventually fall. Anyway, if good demons are possible, this fiend hunter order should know about this phenomenon. I mean, if Succy is one in a thousand. Although, if she is one in a billion, it's practically different. Still, it is not really philosophically different. Pally is still assaulting an innocent person, and a Good innocent even. That's how you fall. Because it's evil.

And... Destroying the town? Seriously, does Pally really need Blackguard levels or something??

[Frosty]

Sounds like a good way to eventually fall. Anyway, if good demons are possible, this fiend hunter order should know about this phenomenon. I mean, if Succy is one in a thousand. Although, if she is one in a billion, it's practically different. Still, it is not really philosophically different. Pally is still assaulting an innocent person, and a Good innocent even. That's how you fall. Because it's evil.
To be fair, good demons would be practically unique. It would not be surprising that even an order that hunts fiends do not know this. Or, if they did hear rumors of this, dismiss the rumors as wishful thinking of the ignorant.

That said, Pally should be given a quest by the church of the Good Deity to 1) resurrect Succy and 2) take on whatever important task Succy had before she was dispatched. This is a good way for Pally to learn an important lesson.

The lesson being of course: "WHY DOESN'T MY CLASS HAVE DETECT GOOD?" :smalltongue: "Don't rush into judgement. There is a spark of hope in even the foulest places and beings."

[Troacctid]

But her actual alignment is Good. Even the deity accepts that she's good, not evil. Is it an evil act to kill a good demon?
Pick one: Demon or Good. You can't be both. Being a demon precludes being good.

[Andezzar]

To be fair, good demons would be practically unique. It would not be surprising that even an order that hunts fiends do not know this. Or, if they did hear rumors of this, dismiss the rumors as wishful thinking of the ignorant.denial is one way to deal with it, however another option would be to change their SOP is to not kill demons but to make them good, similar to Werebears in the Forgotten Realms. Unfortunately paladins don't have the necessary tools IIRC.

[Frosty]

Pick one: Demon or Good. You can't be both. Being a demon precludes being good.There are at least 2 examples of Good Demons between PF and 3.5. 3 if you count the Lawful Neutral Succubus named Fall-From-Grace (who happens to be Malconthet's daughter).

[Lord Raziere]

Pick one: Demon or Good. You can't be both. Being a demon precludes being good.

Note to self: Troacctid not a good GM for my "succubus spy from heaven" character, got it.

but outside of that your pretty much powerless in this, y'know that, right? People are probably going to keep pointing out that one Succubus paladin every time as evidence against you forever.

and then we have Tieflings, which raises the question: "how much demon-blood until they no longer have any potential to be good?" They're half-demon half mortal, does that mean the goodest they can be is Neutral? How demonic can they get until they can't be good? because what if somebody decides to be a tiefling, but in wanting to get the most out of having the aesthetics of a demon without being one to get around your limitation, wants demonic wings to complete the pseudo-succubus look?

[Metahuman1]

Here is how this goes.

Paladin uses's Detect Evil.


Because Succy is going to still ping Evil because of her Demon Heritage, even if she is in actual practice and by actual personal choice freaking Exhaulted Good, Pally Attacks her. Because he Used Detect Evil on a Demon, Demons being known for lying through there teeth with extreme convincingness, while she was trying to tell him she wasn't evil. Except is super awesome pally powers of Rightouness detected Evil Anyway. So he drew the obvious conclusion. She's lying through her teeth.

He then kills her with minimal Collateral, cause, hey, Demons charm and dupe people, not there fault really.









Paladin then falls because the Paladin Class is incredibly mindbogglingly awful like that.

[Inevitability]

Pick one: Demon or Good. You can't be both. Being a demon precludes being good.

What's your opinion on the dozens of confirmed fallen celestials? After all, being a celestial precludes being evil, right?

[John Longarrow]

Paladin from an order that hunts demons should have spell craft and knowledge(planes) as class skills and max ranks in both. Paladin would then know the following: 1) Succubi can change shape. 2) Succubi can charm at will. 3) Spells exist to block detect evil. 4) ANY IN GAME WAY a demon would not be evil.

Unless your game has a blanked "Outsiders have variable alignments" rule the paladin would be expected to kill the succubi while avoiding harming anyone else. Killing a known fiend would be a good act.

If your game DOES have a blanket "Outsiders have variable alignments" rule then the order would not exist.

Down side of having ONE good "Demon" that is still considered a demon; Paladin would have no reason to expect them to be anything besides evil. If Pally kills Succy and falls, well, the DM messed up big time. DM should have made it clear from the beginning that Demon =/= evil, so the order wouldn't exist.

[John Longarrow]

What's your opinion on the dozens of confirmed fallen celestials? After all, being a celestial precludes being evil, right?

You mean Devils? :smallsmile:

[Frosty]

Paladin from an order that hunts demons should have spell craft and knowledge(planes) as class skills and max ranks in both. Paladin would then know the following: 1) Succubi can change shape. 2) Succubi can charm at will. 3) Spells exist to block detect evil. 4) ANY IN GAME WAY a demon would not be evil.

Unless your game has a blanked "Outsiders have variable alignments" rule the paladin would be expected to kill the succubi while avoiding harming anyone else. Killing a known fiend would be a good act.

If your game DOES have a blanket "Outsiders have variable alignments" rule then the order would not exist.

Down side of having ONE good "Demon" that is still considered a demon; Paladin would have no reason to expect them to be anything besides evil. If Pally kills Succy and falls, well, the DM messed up big time. DM should have made it clear from the beginning that Demon =/= evil, so the order wouldn't exist.
Outsiders have ALWAYS had variable alignments since 3.5 It's just ridiculously extremely rare for any to vary beyond CE. If the paladin falls, the Atonement should be pretty easy to get, assuming the character feels remorse and actively works to right his wrongs.

Here is how this goes.

Paladin uses's Detect Evil.


Because Succy is going to still ping Evil because of her Demon Heritage, even if she is in actual practice and by actual personal choice freaking Exhaulted Good, Pally Attacks her. Because he Used Detect Evil on a Demon, Demons being known for lying through there teeth with extreme convincingness, while she was trying to tell him she wasn't evil. Except is super awesome pally powers of Rightouness detected Evil Anyway. So he drew the obvious conclusion. She's lying through her teeth.

He then kills her with minimal Collateral, cause, hey, Demons charm and dupe people, not there fault really.

Paladin then falls because the Paladin Class is incredibly mindbogglingly awful like that. Well, both Discern Lies and Zone of Truth are paladin spells...

[Troacctid]

What's your opinion on the dozens of confirmed fallen celestials? After all, being a celestial precludes being evil, right?
No longer celestials.


and then we have Tieflings, which raises the question: "how much demon-blood until they no longer have any potential to be good?" They're half-demon half mortal, does that mean the goodest they can be is Neutral? How demonic can they get until they can't be good? because what if somebody decides to be a tiefling, but in wanting to get the most out of having the aesthetics of a demon without being one to get around your limitation, wants demonic wings to complete the pseudo-succubus look?
They're not fiends; they can be whatever alignment they like.

[Inevitability]

No longer celestials.

Avamerin, on page 126 of Elder Evils, is a CE being with the (angel) subtype. How is he no celestial?

[Frosty]

Troacctid, in your opinion, do aligned Outsiders have Free Will? If the answer is "No", then how can any assignment of intent/morality be meaningful? It's like calling a Hurricane evil because it kills people.

[Esprit15]

Detect Evil exists for Paladins to know who needs redemption and who Smite Evil will work against. It is not a way to detect things that must be killed.

Does the Succubus go around disguised? Then how did the paladin know that she wasn't just a normal, Evil person? If not, why is a succubus walking around town undisguised?

[Troacctid]

Avamerin, on page 126 of Elder Evils, is a CE being with the (angel) subtype. How is he no celestial?
He's a former celestial.


Troacctid, in your opinion, do aligned Outsiders have Free Will? If the answer is "No", then how can any assignment of intent/morality be meaningful? It's like calling a Hurricane evil because it kills people.
Can a fire elemental choose to be water? *shrug*

[Manyasone]

Troacctid, in your opinion, do aligned Outsiders have Free Will? If the answer is "No", then how can any assignment of intent/morality be meaningful? It's like calling a Hurricane evil because it kills people.

Or any creature with innate poison... Like scorpions and vipers

[Lokiron]

Troacctid, in your opinion, do aligned Outsiders have Free Will? If the answer is "No", then how can any assignment of intent/morality be meaningful? It's like calling a Hurricane evil because it kills people.

Yes, and killing hurricanes is always a good act, because they are evil.

[Lokiron]

Here is how this goes.

Paladin uses's Detect Evil.


Because Succy is going to still ping Evil because of her Demon Heritage, even if she is in actual practice and by actual personal choice freaking Exhaulted Good, Pally Attacks her. Because he Used Detect Evil on a Demon, Demons being known for lying through there teeth with extreme convincingness, while she was trying to tell him she wasn't evil. Except is super awesome pally powers of Rightouness detected Evil Anyway. So he drew the obvious conclusion. She's lying through her teeth.

He then kills her with minimal Collateral, cause, hey, Demons charm and dupe people, not there fault really.









Paladin then falls because the Paladin Class is incredibly mindbogglingly awful like that.

I agree with this. The intelligence overwhelmingly points towards the action of killing Succy, but that is an evil act, and Pally falls. Point of view does not matter when dealing with the metaphysical fact that is alignment.
I don't think the villagers' objection matters, either, because they are easily charmed peasants. Pally (or other Order members) may have seen this scenario before, where they were right to kill the succubus pre-emptively to avoid her dangerous influence.

[Frosty]

I agree with this. The intelligence overwhelmingly points towards the action of killing Succy, but that is an evil act, and Pally falls. Point of view does not matter when dealing with the metaphysical fact that is alignment.
Yes, but point of view should matter when the paladin's god decides how difficult the atonement path should be.

[Lokiron]

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). She may not progress any farther in levels as a paladin. She regains her abilities and advancement potential if she atones for her violations (see the atonement spell description), as appropriate.


Reading the actual rule on falling, I'm now questioning my previous claim that Pally will fall for killing Succy.

There are three ways to fall:

Cease to be lawful good
Willfully commit an evil act
Grossly violate the code of conduct


Which point makes Pally fall in this case?

[zergling.exe]

Troacctid, in your opinion, do aligned Outsiders have Free Will? If the answer is "No", then how can any assignment of intent/morality be meaningful? It's like calling a Hurricane evil because it kills people.

Aligned Outsides do not have free will for alignment, they only comprehend their own alignment as a literal embodiment of it. The reason they are still CE or LG is so that Blasphemy and Holy Word don't hit them for being neutral. Now if you use the rituals from Savage Species to remove the sub type, then they can be whatever alignment they want.

Now bringing up the not compliant ones... the writers aren't infallible.

[John Longarrow]

Points 2 and 3 are out.
Not willingly committing evil and not violating code to kill demons.

[TheFamilarRaven]

2. Willfully commit an evil act.

Killing a good creature for misguided reasons is still willingly killing an innocent. This isn't a case of the Pally being tricked into slaughtering an innocent. The scenario seems to be that this Succy has a decent reputation, operates in the open, and is actually good aligned. Does the succubus register as evil? Of course! She has the [Evil] subtype, it's unavoidable. But it's really easy to verify that Succy is also good by finding a 1st level clerics and ask them to cast Detect Good.

Edit: A more pressing question is. Does smite evil work off alignment, subtype, or both? If the first, then when the Pally goes to Smite Evil on Succy and it doesn't work ....

Figured it out. :smallredface:

[INoKnowNames]

A Paladin meets a good succubus. I'm pretty sure that's how tieflings originated. :smallwink:

[John Longarrow]

2. Willfully commit an evil act.

Killing a good creature for misguided reasons is still willingly killing an innocent. This isn't a case of the Pally being tricked into slaughtering an innocent. The scenario seems to be that this Succy has a decent reputation, operates in the open, and is actually good aligned. Does the succubus register as evil? Of course! She has the [Evil] subtype, it's unavoidable. But it's really easy to verify that Succy is also good by finding a 1st level clerics and ask them to cast Detect Good.

Hmm... Interesting point. So the whole order of fiend killers immediately falls because their basic tenant is to kill fiends. Succubi (charm, high charisma, high social skills) MIGHT be good so killing ANY of them MIGHT be a willful evil act.

OK, so you've just proven the order can't exist. That's because no Paladin could use the other 99.9999999999% of the time when the succubi with the good reputation that goes around in the open is actually up to something totally evil (like trying to become a Lilitu) by misleading people. Since they are really good even though they detect as EVIL (or if they use a simple spell to NOT detect as evil, or an item that makes their alignment register otherwise).

If we assume this is an evil act because the Paladin was expecting deceit where it almost always exists, we take the entire alignment structure and say "Well, toss it. Everyone can be CE just for killing the wrong monster". More to the point as a game this means you prohibit paladins since they have to check the alignment of every monster they fight BEFORE the fight otherwise they have committed an evil act.

Sorry, your argument turns into "Paladins can't exist since detect evil is not perfect". Paladin killing what he believes is an evil being =/= willful evil act.

[zergling.exe]

2. Willfully commit an evil act.

Killing a good creature for misguided reasons is still willingly killing an innocent. This isn't a case of the Pally being tricked into slaughtering an innocent. The scenario seems to be that this Succy has a decent reputation, operates in the open, and is actually good aligned. Does the succubus register as evil? Of course! She has the [Evil] subtype, it's unavoidable. But it's really easy to verify that Succy is also good by finding a 1st level clerics and ask them to cast Detect Good.

Edit: A more pressing question is. Does smite evil work off alignment, subtype, or both? If the first, then when the Pally goes to Smite Evil on Succy and it doesn't work ....

Except that detect good can be fooled by keeping an item that gives off an aura of Good on your person.

I believe that smite evil will trigger off the [Evil] subtype, even if the creature is somehow otherwise not evil.

[Hollysword]

Detect Evil exists for Paladins to know who needs redemption and who Smite Evil will work against. It is not a way to detect things that must be killed.

Does the Succubus go around disguised? Then how did the paladin know that she wasn't just a normal, Evil person? If not, why is a succubus walking around town undisguised?

She's undisguised because she doesn't have to be disguised. The town already knows she's not evil, and she's part of the community already.

[Mordaedil]

A lot of you seem to play D&D in really boring ways, just so it is said.

If I was playing the Pally in a campaign with my DM, I'd be very cautious of said Succy and I would possibly stay in town for roughly a month keeping her under close observation before moving on. Things would happen during said month that would convince Pally to go either with one option or the other.

Slaying an evil creature on sight isn't how I play paladins. Slaying creatures that do not fight back is not honorable according to my paladins. Depending on my level as a paladin, I would cast Augery to gauge what actions I ought to take and let that inform my decisions.

Depending on circumstances I might insist she travel with me so that I am sure she will not harm the villagers.

[TheFamilarRaven]

Except that detect good can be fooled by keeping an item that gives off an aura of Good on your person.


Except the aura is clearly coming from the item? Unless it's like a blindingly good item, in which case how is an evil creature holding it?





Sorry, your argument turns into "Paladins can't exist since detect evil is not perfect". Paladin killing what he believes is an evil being =/= willful evil act.


Sorry, I prefer my Paladins to act when there is no reasonable doubt. Succubus out it the open with a great reputation is suspicious, sure. But it's a mere DC 25 Sense Motive ... not even a spell, a sense motive check to detect enchantment effects. 15 if it's the effects of Dominate. It would be simple for the paladin to hang out and investigate before going full Leeroy Jenkins at the first sign of a succubus. And since the Succubus is not actually doing anything evil, the Paladin would not uncover anything malicious. Also, as a Paladin, if you suspected charms and domination, wouldn't you not immediately attack this demon on sight in case they start using innocent people a shields? That's like superhero 101

[Kelb_Panthera]

Pick one: Demon or Good. You can't be both. Being a demon precludes being good.


Aligned Outsides do not have free will for alignment, they only comprehend their own alignment as a literal embodiment of it. The reason they are still CE or LG is so that Blasphemy and Holy Word don't hit them for being neutral. Now if you use the rituals from Savage Species to remove the sub type, then they can be whatever alignment they want.

Now bringing up the not compliant ones... the writers aren't infallible.

In point of fact, this is not true. Even creatures whose alignment is "always <X>" are able to be swayed to other alignments, although it is vanishingly rare for this to happen (MM 305). No exemption is made to this rule for fiends and, in fact, the entry specifically mentions creatures native to planes that might predispose them to a given alignment. Between this and the half-dozen or so official examples of celestials or fiends whose alignment is contrary to, or even opposite from, their subtype; it seems patently obvious that what you've positted here is incorrect. More on this in a moment.


Or any creature with innate poison... Like scorpions and vipers

They're specifically exempt from the rule that using poisons that damage ability scores is an evil act. If you're going to bag on the rule, at least get it right.


Now then, to answer the OP's question.

What, exactly, the paladin does would be determined by his character. Paladins that are prone to smite-on-site behavior don't last long so I wouldn't expect Pally to just march into town, holy avenger swinging. Even just pragmatically, that's a quick road to getting skewered with so many fiends being shape-shifty, possessy, and charming.

If Pally is a green-horn on his first crusade, maybe he does go in there and lay steel to flesh. If that's the case; he's very, very lucky. Being a fiend, she's certainly done -something- to warrant execution. Moreover purging the evil she's made of from the mortal realm is a good act. Finally, being an eternal creature of evil, she -will- fall back to her nature eventually unless she's slain. Her death or banishment from the mortal realm is a necessity just not definitely a "right now" necessity. I'd certainly give Pally's player a pass for these reasons but there's an argument to be made for a fall; just a weak one, IMO.

Presuming the townsfolk did, somehow, come to know of Pally's intention; he'd certainly be convinced to lower his blade but, hopefully, also up his guard. Succy's influence over the townsfolk gives Pally every reason to stop and reconsider his actions. Maybe the intel was wrong, maybe she's cursed by something powerfully evil (or just clever enough to misdirect good into killing its own); worse, maybe she's not alone. Maybe the influence over the townsfolk isn't hers but the machinations of her master (demons sometimes have loose hierarchies) or compatriots. Whatever the case, further investigation is not just warranted but demanded by the situation. Worst case, Pally is a hot-head that doesn't bother to scan anyone and just starts swinging. He falls, hard, and probably ends up being lynched by the townsfolk for his crimes.

Finally, perhaps he does find himself convinced that this abomination is what it appears to be; reformed (albeit inevitably temporary). Even so, the responsible thing to do is to sit tight and keep an eye on her until the order can send someone to take over surveilance so that the Pally can move on to more pressing matters. When she finally does turn back to her nature; as she must; Pally, one of his bretheren, or their successors (we could be talking centuries later, here) can be recalled to do what must be done.

Does this adequately answer your question?

[John Longarrow]

Sorry, I prefer my Paladins to act when there is no reasonable doubt. Succubus out it the open with a great reputation is suspicious, sure. But it's a mere DC 25 Sense Motive ... not even a spell, a sense motive check to detect enchantment effects. 15 if it's the effects of Dominate. It would be simple for the paladin to hang out and investigate before going full Leeroy Jenkins at the first sign of a succubus. And since the Succubus is not actually doing anything evil, the Paladin would not uncover anything malicious. Also, as a Paladin, if you suspected charms and domination, wouldn't you not immediately attack this demon on sight in case they start using innocent people a shields? That's like superhero 101

Except OP didn't specify a superhero. OP specified


Lets say there's a paladin (we'll call him Pally) of an order that despises fiends, and has made it his life's work to eliminate all demons from the world.

Paladin belongs to an order that despises fiends and has made it his life's work to eliminate all demons from the world.

OP kinda dictated how this was going to go down from the first post. I'd also have to assume said Paladin would be smart enough to realize that deceitful evil doesn't NEED to charm or dominate when high diplomacy will work just fine.

Sorry, but if the Paladin doesn't try to rid the world of demons either they are not playing the character OR the OP overstated their desire to remove said demons. Course if you think the OP came up with a Paladin unlike how you play, that's fine.

[Lokiron]

If Pally is a green-horn on his first crusade, maybe he does go in there and lay steel to flesh. If that's the case; he's very, very lucky. Being a fiend, she's certainly done -something- to warrant execution. Moreover purging the evil she's made of from the mortal realm is a good act. Finally, being an eternal creature of evil, she -will- fall back to her nature eventually unless she's slain. Her death or banishment from the mortal realm is a necessity just not definitely a "right now" necessity.

What are you basing this on?

[Kelb_Panthera]

What are you basing this on?

The nature of probability. Absent something killing her, she has an infinite period of time to be tempted (consequence of immortality). Given that there's a non-zero probability of her falling in any given instance and an infinite number of instances, she -must- fall. It's not a matter of "if" but merely "when."

[Lokiron]

The nature of probability. Absent something killing her, she has an infinite period of time to be tempted (consequence of immortality). Given that there's a non-zero probability of her falling in any given instance and an infinite number of instances, she -must- fall. It's not a matter of "if" but merely "when."

If so, that is true for every immortal creature. Unless you can conclude a zero probability.

[Spellbreaker26]

I mean, it depends on the cosmology of the campaign world.

A) Angels and Demons/Devils/Whatever
-In some campaign worlds the reason angels can become demons but not the other way around is because when an angel makes the decision to fall it makes it with full knowledge of the consequences, and therefore has no possibility of redemption. In the same way that animals are unaligned celestials have one-way alignments.
-Even if demons can be redeemed, Pally might not be aware of that. Perhaps it has never happened, perhaps his church isn't fully aware that demons have a choice, perhaps his god doesn't care whether the demon is acting good or evil it needs to be purged (knowing his god would be helpful for this thought exercise)

B) Redemption
-There's a temptation to see this as a point of prejudice - the paladin is persecuting someone based on actions other than her own. But "demons = evil" isn't a stereotype. The paladin hasn't been brainwashed into believing they're evil, they are almost always a complete threat to the happiness of mortals in almost any campaign world. This isn't some foreigner he's suspicious of, this is finding out a village is harboring a former war criminal. Potentially one who has been committing evil deeds for centuries or longer. Even a truly repentant person doesn't get to pick their own punishment; the paladin would be well within his rights to smite-on-sight.

[Kelb_Panthera]

If so, that is true for every immortal creature. Unless you can conclude a zero probability.

Yes, and? Every celestial will fall from grace for a time, every fiend will see the light for a while, and they'll all return to their nature eventually unless the eternal war between good and evil lays them low. The trick is that the probability of being slain is usually -much- higher than the probability of turning against their nature. Death almost always occurs first, thus the "always <X>" alignment.

[digiman619]

Yes, and? Every celestial will fall from grace for a time, every fiend will see the light for a while, and they'll all return to their nature eventually unless the eternal war between good and evil lays them low. The trick is that the probability of being slain is usually -much- higher than the probability of turning against their nature. Death almost always occurs first, thus the "always <X>" alignment.

Ah, the "die a hero" argument.

[Esprit15]

I understand the idea that because they are demons, they can only play good for a while, but I disagree. There is an entire class of devil that was originally angels, and they don't make frequent returns to being celestial. I don't see why the same can't be true for a demon becoming Good and staying that way. Given an infinite amount of time, as you posit, they can become entrenched in any alignment, Good or Evil.

If the paladin is hooked on the idea that the wage of sin is death, and there is no way to repent, then they are likely going to fall from paladinhood when they inevitably go too far. Part of being Good is knowing that death is not the only penance that can be made. If the succubus is never going to die of old age, then they are able to atone for the rest of their existence. That has to count for something. Heck, the paladin can report this to their church and make sure that they are still on the right path.

If they want to spend the rest of their life atoning for what they did, is that worse than killing them?

[Spellbreaker26]

I understand the idea that because they are demons, they can only play good for a while, but I disagree. There is an entire class of devil that was originally angels, and they don't make frequent returns to being celestial. I don't see why the same can't be true for a demon becoming Good and staying that way. Given an infinite amount of time, as you posit, they can become entrenched in any alignment, Good or Evil.

If the paladin is hooked on the idea that the wage of sin is death, and there is no way to repent, then they are likely going to fall from paladinhood when they inevitably go too far. Part of being Good is knowing that death is not the only penance that can be made. If the succubus is never going to die of old age, then they are able to atone for the rest of their existence. That has to count for something. Heck, the paladin can report this to their church and make sure that they are still on the right path.

If they want to spend the rest of their life atoning for what they did, is that worse than killing them?

A] The succubus could have been committing evil deeds for centuries. We don't just let criminals roam free if they say they're sorry. She could have potentially earned the death penalty several times and at the very least should be imprisoned for her crimes.
B] She might be genuinely repentant now but as a demon is highly likely to fall again. The paladin's mercy could very well have consequences.
C] No matter how sorry you are you don't get to choose your punishment. Society does that.

[Lokiron]

C] No matter how sorry you are you don't get to choose your punishment. Society does that.

Pleading guilty sometimes reduces the sentence, though. It's a detail, but somewhat related.

[Esprit15]

A] The succubus could have been committing evil deeds for centuries. We don't just let criminals roam free if they say they're sorry. She could have potentially earned the death penalty several times and at the very least should be imprisoned for her crimes.
B] She might be genuinely repentant now but as a demon is highly likely to fall again. The paladin's mercy could very well have consequences.
C] No matter how sorry you are you don't get to choose your punishment. Society does that.

A) We do however imprison them, and often let them out on parole when well behaved. Given that even without trial she is working to be good, that at least suggests she is not deserving of death.
B) Anyone is able to fall in the right circumstances. Hence my suggestion to have her kept under watch.
C) Yes. Why can't we choose "Not death"?

[Kelb_Panthera]

I understand the idea that because they are demons, they can only play good for a while, but I disagree. There is an entire class of devil that was originally angels, and they don't make frequent returns to being celestial. I don't see why the same can't be true for a demon becoming Good and staying that way. Given an infinite amount of time, as you posit, they can become entrenched in any alignment, Good or Evil.

But these are almost always cosmically notable events; the fall of Asmodeus and his host for example. Even then, they usually adapt to their new home-plane and cease to be what they were before in time. A fiend on the material has more effect on its surroundings than vice-versa, per BoVD effects of lingering evil. If Elucidea or the OP's Succy found themselves spending a few centuries on mount celestia then you might have something. Some random berk town on the prime, nah.


If the paladin is hooked on the idea that the wage of sin is death, and there is no way to repent, then they are likely going to fall from paladinhood when they inevitably go too far. Part of being Good is knowing that death is not the only penance that can be made. If the succubus is never going to die of old age, then they are able to atone for the rest of their existence. That has to count for something. Heck, the paladin can report this to their church and make sure that they are still on the right path.

Proportionality is an important aspect of a good character meteing out punishment to villains. A paladin who thinks killing everything that pings on the old evil-dar or that he catches red-handed in any minor violation is one that will fall in short order and has a fair shot at becoming a blackguard. You've definitely got that right.

That a lone succubus will be able to resist its own nature indefinitely without some force intervening and changing that nature stretches belief beyond the breaking point. There are natural (undefined) forces that can change that nature and mortal magic can do the trick easy enough but left untended this problem -will- come back to bite her.


If they want to spend the rest of their life atoning for what they did, is that worse than killing them?

There's nothing wrong with supporting them while they're on the straight-and-narrow but they -will- stray from that path unless they stop being fiends.

[Hollysword]

How about a succubus who just came to be, wound up in the material plane by accident before her evil nature took hold (possibly an unintended side effect of a spell cast by a wizard somewhere..., but that's not important), she saw how nice everyone in the village is to each other and sees the beauty in it. What's keeping her from falling into evil again: Love for the townsfolk.

[Esprit15]

That a lone succubus will be able to resist its own nature indefinitely without some force intervening and changing that nature stretches belief beyond the breaking point. There are natural (undefined) forces that can change that nature and mortal magic can do the trick easy enough but left untended this problem -will- come back to bite her.


See, you say that, but again:


Arushulae (http://www.ofdiceandpen.ca/2013/12/wrath-of-righteous-demons-heresy.html) and Eludecia (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/fc/20050824a) disagree with you.
Granted, one is more of a hypothetical NPC, with one version absolutely falling, while the other sticks by their changed persona. Still, the fact that the game designers made them suggests that even demons are redeemable.

[John Longarrow]

I think something is getting missed in this thread and that it has wandered far from the original question.

The Paladin in question, Pally, belongs to an order that hunts and destroys fiends. Pally has dedicated his life to this work.

If Pally was a Hellreaver instead of a Paladin would there be a question as to his actions? From the brief description given it sounds like this is a prestige class for him.

[John Longarrow]

How about a succubus who just came to be, wound up in the material plane by accident before her evil nature took hold (possibly an unintended side effect of a spell cast by a wizard somewhere..., but that's not important), she saw how nice everyone in the village is to each other and sees the beauty in it. What's keeping her from falling into evil again: Love for the townsfolk.

Has Pally has made it his life's work to eliminate all demons from the world? If so this isn't about Succy at all. Its about Pally and his reaction. Depends a lot on his background and experience. If he's seen his family killed off one by one by a Succubi, he'd have little desire to leave a town in the same fate.

If Pally didn't make it his life's work to eliminate all demons then there are other option.

[Inevitability]

He's a former celestial.

I'm going to give you this one, but even if he's not a celestial he's still a planetar; his statblock and all descriptive text confirm that. In other words, even after turning good, a succubus would still be a succubus.

Therefore, good succubi can exist, in contrast to your initial statement that succubi can only be evil.

[Lokiron]

I think something is getting missed in this thread and that it has wandered far from the original question.

The Paladin in question, Pally, belongs to an order that hunts and destroys fiends. Pally has dedicated his life to this work.

If Pally was a Hellreaver instead of a Paladin would there be a question as to his actions? From the brief description given it sounds like this is a prestige class for him.

I think people agree that Pally has completely free agency. What is being discussed is which actions would lead to falling. This hinges of the setting specific definitions of demons' characteristics and the metaphysical facts of the alignment system. In short, only an authority on the setting can answer. Which is why these alignment debates always derail and why some classes' overly tight connection to alignment is often a problem. The OP romanticizes an individual's struggle to overcome inherited negative tendencies. It's a common trope.

Depending on setting, the fiend-hunting order could be a force of Good, or a trap leading paladins to frequently fall. A DM presenting the former, but twisting it to become the latter, is a jerk trapping a player to fall, perhaps to claim moral superiority over the player. This is a jerk-move because the morality of D&D is utterly and completely fictional. It has some resemblence of real life morality, and even that is not agreed upon by, more or less wise, people who spend their lives thinking, reading, and writing about this. Beyond the similarities are things like [Evil] and [Good] ([Chaos][Law]) spells and creature types, which have massive influence on what anyone can do. Even mundanes like Barbarians are chained by this metaphysical reality.

The more I think about it, the more the OP's dilemma looks like a collision between two settings' realities. Unless, Succy is truly unique, some sort of messiah, I think Pally's order should be so informed as to not employ a kill-on-sight policy.

I see two scenarios:

Succy is not unique: Pally's order then has knowledge, and Pally behaves accordingly. Pally only falls if played by a stupid player (and stupid != uninformed!!).
Succy is truly unique: Pally is right to strike, and does not fall. In terms of narrative, Pally may fail to kill Succy. I mean, why have a uniquely Good succubus, and then have her die so easily? Pally's player should receive hints here, like Smite not working.

[Kelb_Panthera]

See, you say that, but again:

Granted, one is more of a hypothetical NPC, with one version absolutely falling, while the other sticks by their changed persona. Still, the fact that the game designers made them suggests that even demons are redeemable.

I'm familiar. Anyone is "redeemable" as long as they have int 3 or better. The problem is whether or not the redemption will stick and for how long. For mortals, "the rest of their life" isn't all that long; a few decades, maybe even a century or two but they don't have to oppose their own nature to be good either, in most cases. An immortal is looking at perhaps millions or even -billions- of years and fiends must contend with their very makeup to be not-evil.


I think something is getting missed in this thread and that it has wandered far from the original question.

The Paladin in question, Pally, belongs to an order that hunts and destroys fiends. Pally has dedicated his life to this work.

If Pally was a Hellreaver instead of a Paladin would there be a question as to his actions? From the brief description given it sounds like this is a prestige class for him.

The only difference class makes is that paladins can fall while most other classes can't. What's good and evil by RAW doesn't change.

If it were a non-pally hellreaver, maybe he goes in half-cocked and wrecks the whole town without immediately finding himself powerless but an alignment shift will become obvious when he gets enough XP to level and can't advance hellreaver. One that would be inclined to butcher a town on the -assumption- that they're a bunch of mad cultists won't stay good for too long.

[Spellbreaker26]

A) We do however imprison them, and often let them out on parole when well behaved. Given that even without trial she is working to be good, that at least suggests she is not deserving of death.
B) Anyone is able to fall in the right circumstances. Hence my suggestion to have her kept under watch.
C) Yes. Why can't we choose "Not death"?

She's hiding out in a village; I've been trying not to use this analogy, but it's like when they found that old German guy who used to be a former guard at Auschwitz. This is a small town; they likely don't have the resources to imprison a powerful demon. If she's truly repentant she would have given herself up to the people she's hurt for retribution, not skulked away in a hamlet.


How about a succubus who just came to be, wound up in the material plane by accident before her evil nature took hold (possibly an unintended side effect of a spell cast by a wizard somewhere..., but that's not important), she saw how nice everyone in the village is to each other and sees the beauty in it. What's keeping her from falling into evil again: Love for the townsfolk.

You've encountered the redemption paradox; how can you tell a redemption story if you make it not her fault? There's no value in a redemption story if the person to be redeemed had no choice in his/her morality. Besides, if she loves the townspeople so much then she's being extremely selfish because her very presence puts them in danger of her either falling again and wreaking havoc or holy orders going after a demon and potentially causing collateral damage. Going down this route kills any interesting aspects of the story.

If you want the story to be something other than a paladin trap then you do have a great third option; have a geas or binding spell or whatever put on the succubus forcing her to serve the paladin. Then she can really atone for her sins and can do it buddy cop style; if she ever falls he can kill her and the only one she puts in danger is a holy warrior prepared to die anyway.

[Xuldarinar]

Lets say a paladin meets Eludecia (the fabled Succubus Paladin), and use her for the example.



Pally attacks Eludecia. It is not treated as an evil act, because she is fiend. That being said, their deity might get upset with them.

[John Longarrow]

If it were a non-pally hellreaver, maybe he goes in half-cocked and wrecks the whole town without immediately finding himself powerless but an alignment shift will become obvious when he gets enough XP to level and can't advance hellreaver. One that would be inclined to butcher a town on the -assumption- that they're a bunch of mad cultists won't stay good for too long.

Not sure where you get that a hellreaver would wreck the town... Nothing in my post makes that assumption. Hellreaver would take the outsider OUT hard, but has no reason to cause collateral damage.

Course if you were setting up a strawman I'd suggest hitting burning man instead. Much bigger party! :D

[Crake]

Sounds like a good way to eventually fall. Anyway, if good demons are possible, this fiend hunter order should know about this phenomenon. I mean, if Succy is one in a thousand. Although, if she is one in a billion, it's practically different. Still, it is not really philosophically different. Pally is still assaulting an innocent person, and a Good innocent even. That's how you fall. Because it's evil.

And... Destroying the town? Seriously, does Pally really need Blackguard levels or something??

Considering the abyss, and the demons spawned from it are infinite, one in a billion of all demons being good means there are still an infinite amount of good demons out there.


He might try and convince her to undergo a casting of Polymorph Any Object to become a regular humanoid. No longer a demon, no longer a problem.

Polymorph any object is actually a really horrible method to achieve this, because it's one errant dispel, antimagic field or null magic zone from being completely undone. Better off with the savage species ritual that will remove an alignment subtype, or becoming a divine minion of a good god.


Note to self: Troacctid not a good GM for my "succubus spy from heaven" character, got it.

but outside of that your pretty much powerless in this, y'know that, right? People are probably going to keep pointing out that one Succubus paladin every time as evidence against you forever.

and then we have Tieflings, which raises the question: "how much demon-blood until they no longer have any potential to be good?" They're half-demon half mortal, does that mean the goodest they can be is Neutral? How demonic can they get until they can't be good? because what if somebody decides to be a tiefling, but in wanting to get the most out of having the aesthetics of a demon without being one to get around your limitation, wants demonic wings to complete the pseudo-succubus look?

No, half demon/half mortals are half fiends (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/halfFiend.htm). And even half fiends don't actually have the evil subtype and thus are not fiends, and are capable of easily changing their alignment.


Except the aura is clearly coming from the item? Unless it's like a blindingly good item, in which case how is an evil creature holding it?

Not if you use an irresistible misdirection (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/misdirection.htm)


Honestly, the answer ultimately comes down to DM and setting. Some DMs like Troccatid will insist that all demons are evil no contest, and that if a demon ever went good, he would lose his alignment subtype and thus no longer ping on detect evil (I had a DM like this once). There is no raw answer, because ultimately good and evil are subjective and the game expects them to be objective truths, so in your game, the objective truth of good and evil will be based on your DM.

[Zanos]

Your obsession with good Succubi is worrying, OP. This is the third topic about them? You can avoid all these goofy questions by just using cute half-fiend or tiefling girls instead.


Paladin then falls because the Paladin Class is incredibly mindbogglingly awful like that.
I'm not sure about that. Even a LG Succubus is considered Evil as well as Good because of their subtype, and I'm pretty sure destroying fiends is always a Good act. Their very existence invites Evil into the material plane on the cosmic scale, so even if they devote their existence to altruism, they still need to be purged. For the Emperor.


Honestly, the answer ultimately comes down to DM and setting. Some DMs like Troccatid will insist that all demons are evil no contest, and that if a demon ever went good, he would lose his alignment subtype and thus no longer ping on detect evil (I had a DM like this once). There is no raw answer, because ultimately good and evil are subjective and the game expects them to be objective truths, so in your game, the objective truth of good and evil will be based on your DM.
Only good and evil are subjective. Good and Evil are objective, tangible planar forces.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Not sure where you get that a hellreaver would wreck the town... Nothing in my post makes that assumption. Hellreaver would take the outsider OUT hard, but has no reason to cause collateral damage.

Course if you were setting up a strawman I'd suggest hitting burning man instead. Much bigger party! :D

Then you weren't paying close enough attention to the OP. It was his suggestion that the heroic character might raise arms against the townsfolk if they tried to intervene in his actions against "Succy." It certainly wouldn't be a -good- action to take but it -might- be acceptable depending on the reaver's personality. Good men make mistakes. Brash good men sometimes make -terrible- mistakes.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Here is how this goes.

Paladin uses's Detect Evil.


Because Succy is going to still ping Evil because of her Demon Heritage, even if she is in actual practice and by actual personal choice freaking Exhaulted Good, Pally Attacks her. Because he Used Detect Evil on a Demon, Demons being known for lying through there teeth with extreme convincingness, while she was trying to tell him she wasn't evil. Except is super awesome pally powers of Rightouness detected Evil Anyway. So he drew the obvious conclusion. She's lying through her teeth.

He then kills her with minimal Collateral, cause, hey, Demons charm and dupe people, not there fault really.









Paladin then falls because the Paladin Class is incredibly mindbogglingly awful like that.

This says volumes more about your experience with DM's that hate paladins than it does about the paladin class or the nature of good and evil as described by the RAW.

The bold just makes me feel sad for you.

[Crake]

Only good and evil are subjective. Good and Evil are objective, tangible planar forces.

I was talking about in real life. Translated into the game, your DM's ideas of good and evil become the in game objective truth.

[hamishspence]

I'm not sure about that. Even a LG Succubus is considered Evil as well as Good because of their subtype, and I'm pretty sure destroying fiends is always a Good act.

Maybe an act can be both? A Paladin of Tyranny (SRD) slaying a Fiend who has embarked on the path of redemption, for evil reasons, falling - but conversely, a standard Paladin who does the same thing, even for good reasons, also Falling - because the act is technically still Murder, Harming An Innocent, etc?

[John Longarrow]

Then you weren't paying close enough attention to the OP. It was his suggestion that the heroic character might raise arms against the townsfolk if they tried to intervene in his actions against "Succy." It certainly wouldn't be a -good- action to take but it -might- be acceptable depending on the reaver's personality. Good men make mistakes. Brash good men sometimes make -terrible- mistakes.

Yep. OP did... I didn't.

So you could have said "What if the reaver were given the OPs three options?" That would make sense. I never indicated either would just go killing the locals. Course if YOU want to, that's up to you.... You can be the murderer who just slaughters the town folks like the OP put it.

[Zanos]

I was talking about in real life. Translated into the game, your DM's ideas of good and evil become the in game objective truth.
If your DM ignores what the books say about Good and Evil, sure.

Maybe an act can be both? A Paladin of Tyranny (SRD) slaying a Fiend who has embarked on the path of redemption, for evil reasons, falling - but conversely, a standard Paladin who does the same thing, even for good reasons, also Falling - because the act is technically still Murder, Harming An Innocent, etc?
Possible, although personally I wouldn't make a Paladin of either stripe fall for that. It reeks of a trap.

[Necroticplague]

BoED, at least in the relevant section I can find, seems to be clear on this issue: The fact the succubus is [Evil] is irrelevant if they haven't done something. Even if she was Evil, simply being Evil isn't a crime worth death (BoED, page 9). Violence without provocation can't be good. Violence is to be used to prevent evil from occurring, so unless you have good reason to believe they're up to something, you're not justified in attacking them. Personally, I don't think the "given infinite time...." argument is sufficient proof to justify it. Part of Good also involves mercy and compassion for life, traits at odd with killings those who aren't doing anything wrong.
That being said, I tend to have Paladins work on codes that are a bit looser than normal, so this wouldn't be an insta-fall, but it would definitely be a black mark on their record. Even if they weren't a paladin, this would be a mark towards moving to LN if they were LG (They're displaying their obedience to their code by slaying her, while ignoring the moral good principles of compassion and mercy).

[Crake]

If your DM ignores what the books say about Good and Evil, sure.

The books only cover niche examples like "poison is always evil", which I personally think is stupid, because dex and str poison could easily be described and numbing and paralysis poison, thus ignoring the "needless suffering" part of the statement, hell, even con poison doesn't necessarily have to involve suffering.

There is no comprehensive, catch-all guide for what is good and evil in the books, and even if there was, those themselves would be the subjective views of the writers.

[hamishspence]

BoED, at least in the relevant section I can find, seems to be clear on this issue: The fact the succubus is [Evil] is irrelevant if they haven't done something. Even if she was Evil, simply being Evil isn't a crime worth death (BoED, page 9).

True - the problem is that its predecessor BoVD (admittedly 3.0) had a line saying:

"Destroying a fiend is always a good act. Allowing one to exist (let alone helping or associating with one in any way) is clearly evil".



Hence the "Paladin of Tyranny/Slaughter falls for killing fiends even for evil reasons" hypothetical.

[Zanos]

The books only cover niche examples like "poison is always evil", which I personally think is stupid, because dex and str poison could easily be described and numbing and paralysis poison, thus ignoring the "needless suffering" part of the statement, hell, even con poison doesn't necessarily have to involve suffering.

There is no comprehensive, catch-all guide for what is good and evil in the books, and even if there was, those themselves would be the subjective views of the writers.
It's stupid if you take it to be a reflection of real world morality. It's tremendously poor at that.



True - the problem is that its predecessor BoVD (admittedly 3.0) had a line saying:

"Destroying a fiend is always a good act. Allowing one to exist (let alone helping or associating with one in any way) is clearly evil".



Hence the "Paladin of Tyranny/Slaughter falls for killing fiends even for evil reasons" hypothetical.
BoVD also states that an [Evil] Outsider simply existing for an extended period of time is sufficient to taint an area with Lasting Evil, which among other nasty things, causes psychological disorders in people near the area. So she doesn't have to do anything at all to commit an Evil act.

So the proposed village is filled with insane cultists!

[hamishspence]

I'd rule that if she comes into possession of something (including a class feature) that generates a Good Aura as powerful as her Evil aura and keeps it on her at all times - the two will cancel out.

BoED and BoVD don't always mirror each other exactly - but that basic idea I think, would work.

[Spellbreaker26]

Even if you ignore the evil aura just the fact that the Succubus is putting the townsfolk in danger by being there is pretty major.

[Lokiron]

Basically, for the scenario to not be completely contrary to the usual premise of D&D settings' alignment systems, you need to revamp the settings alignment system. This can only be done in a way that is transparent to the players, or you're effectively screwing them.

[Necroticplague]

BoVD also states that an [Evil] Outsider simply existing for an extended period of time is sufficient to taint an area with Lasting Evil, which among other nasty things, causes psychological disorders in people near the area. So she doesn't have to do anything at all to commit an Evil act.

So the proposed village is filled with insane cultists!

That's a variant rule, and thus not the default. As shown by it being in Chapter 2: Variant Rules.

[hamishspence]

Even if you ignore the evil aura just the fact that the Succubus is putting the townsfolk in danger by being there is pretty major.

To atone for past evils, requires a certain amount of do-gooding.

If the wrath of a paladin is such a danger to the innocent townsfolk, then they're not really living up to the paladin ideal.
Basically, for the scenario to not be completely contrary to the usual premise of D&D settings' alignment systems, you need to revamp the settings alignment system. This can only be done in a way that is transparent to the players, or you're effectively screwing them.

Not really. MM 3.5 is pretty explicit on the possibility of redeemed fiends. And paladin orders devoted to destroying fiends, also make sense. Thus, the possibility of this kind of collision is not that contrary to D&D alignment systems in general.

[Esprit15]

I think the conclusion we have come to is that this is highly DM dependent, since the rules abound with contradictions (killing fiends is always good, killing for being Evil is not Good, all creatures can be redeemed, some evil acts are irredeemable, LG succubi can exist and are approved of by Good outsiders, fiends just existing brings Evil into the world). All of these things have textural evidence to support them.

[hamishspence]

I think the conclusion we have come to is that this is highly DM dependent, since the rules abound with contradictions (killing fiends is always good, killing for being Evil is not Good, all creatures can be redeemed, some evil acts are irredeemable, LG succubi can exist and are approved of by Good outsiders, fiends just existing brings Evil into the world). All of these things have textural evidence to support them.

Indeed. And even BoED, the most "mercy & forgiveness"-centric book, has that line "Evil outsiders are best slain or at least banished, and only a naive fool would try to convert them".

It's just that in this universe, naive fools sometimes succeed.

Not unique to 3rd ed either - there were plenty of 2nd ed references to redeemed fiends, in the Planescape setting.

[Zanos]

That's a variant rule, and thus not the default. As shown by it being in Chapter 2: Variant Rules.
Fair enough.


Not really. MM 3.5 is pretty explicit on the possibility of redeemed fiends. And paladin orders devoted to destroying fiends, also make sense. Thus, the possibility of this kind of collision is not that contrary to D&D alignment systems in general.
What's MM say about redeemed fiends? BoED says that fiends are immune to the conventional method of redemption, althoughI suppose a 3.5 book would supersede that.

[hamishspence]

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/typesSubtypes.htm#evilSubtype

Evil Subtype
A subtype usually applied only to outsiders native to the evil-aligned Outer Planes. Evil outsiders are also called fiends. Most creatures that have this subtype also have evil alignments; however, if their alignments change, they still retain the subtype.

"Most" not being "All". Thus, nonevil fiends are to be expected.

BoED says that fiends are immune to the conventional method of redemption, althoughI suppose a 3.5 book would supersede that.

BoED is 3.5 - though it's one of the earliest. BoVD however is 3.0.

The Diplomacy method doesn't work - others, more "roleplay" than "mechanics" can though.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Yep. OP did... I didn't.

So you could have said "What if the reaver were given the OPs three options?" That would make sense. I never indicated either would just go killing the locals. Course if YOU want to, that's up to you.... You can be the murderer who just slaughters the town folks like the OP put it.

You positted only a change in class. Absent any other indication, why wouldn't you be talking about the same circumstances?

As for the odd attempt at character assassination, why? We're discussing hypothetical characters that live in a wold vastly different from our own. Imagining how different outlooks and personalities interact with different scenarios is kinda the whole point. I've never hurt anyone* but some of the characters I've played have. Just as often they do it to protect innocents as they do to exploit them. It's a game. Chill.


*No one that didn't have it coming, anyway.

[Spellbreaker26]

To atone for past evils, requires a certain amount of do-gooding.

If the wrath of a paladin is such a danger to the innocent townsfolk, then they're not really living up to the paladin ideal.



Perhaps, but she's not putting any safeguards in place for the harm she could cause in her little Marie Antonette moment.

As for paladins, it doesn't have to be a paladin that causes collateral damage. Far more likely are pitchfork wielding villagers or a less scrupulous member of a holy order going after her.

[Lokiron]

Not really. MM 3.5 is pretty explicit on the possibility of redeemed fiends. And paladin orders devoted to destroying fiends, also make sense. Thus, the possibility of this kind of collision is not that contrary to D&D alignment systems in general.

Fair enough. Really, I'm just worried that this could turn into a "gotcha!". A paladin shouldn't, IMO, fall because a DM and a player disagree on what is and what isn't a willing evil act. Paladins should fall when:

You're a fiction writer, and there is no player
The player, knowingly, drives the character to its logical consequence of his personality/conviction
The player is an idiot and does something obviously evil, like killing a beggar for stealing an apple from an orchard where the apples would otherwise rot

[hamishspence]

Perhaps, but she's not putting any safeguards in place for the harm she could cause in her little Marie Antonette moment.

As for paladins, it doesn't have to be a paladin that causes collateral damage. Far more likely are pitchfork wielding villagers or a less scrupulous member of a holy order going after her.

We know she's specifically proven to the whole village she's not Evil - what other safeguards does she "need" to put in place?

[Spellbreaker26]

We know she's specifically proven to the whole village she's not Evil - what other safeguards does she "need" to put in place?

Safeguards against:

A] Falling again. Are there any magic wards that will restrain her if she performs an evil act? Are the villagers aware of what to do if she starts killing them? I'd like to know if the villagers actually know that she's a demon because that's pretty important.

B] Being controlled. What if an evil mage uses some spell to bind a fiend to his will, and chooses her either because she's the closest or because her being Good makes her a target he picks her. If she wasn't there the village wouldn't be put on the map in this sense.

[Lokiron]

Safeguards against:
B] Being controlled. What if an evil mage uses some spell to bind a fiend to his will, and chooses her either because she's the closest or because her being Good makes her a target he picks her. If she wasn't there the village wouldn't be put on the map in this sense.

Not sure that point is really fair. Her being there might save the village from orc raiders.

[Esprit15]

Not sure that point is really fair. Her being there might save the village from orc raiders.

Yeah. Any powerful character is a danger to those around them.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Safeguards against:

A] Falling again. Are there any magic wards that will restrain her if she performs an evil act? Are the villagers aware of what to do if she starts killing them? I'd like to know if the villagers actually know that she's a demon because that's pretty important.

OP said they know at some point. In any case, the only steps that can actually safeguard this essentially render the OP's question moot since she won't be a fiend anymore. They might be beyond her means though. Type change rituals and high-level spellcasting ain't cheap.


B] Being controlled. What if an evil mage uses some spell to bind a fiend to his will, and chooses her either because she's the closest or because her being Good makes her a target he picks her. If she wasn't there the village wouldn't be put on the map in this sense.

This, however, is unreasonable. This is hardly a vulnerability unique to outsiders. If anything, they're less vulnerable than a humanoid in this regard. She poses no more danger to the town than any other powerful being of any type would.

[tomandtish]

Honestly, the answer ultimately comes down to DM and setting. Some DMs like Troccatid will insist that all demons are evil no contest, and that if a demon ever went good, he would lose his alignment subtype and thus no longer ping on detect evil (I had a DM like this once). There is no raw answer, because ultimately good and evil are subjective and the game expects them to be objective truths, so in your game, the objective truth of good and evil will be based on your DM.

Crake is exactly right. They are objective truths, but only within each specific setting (each DM's world). From setting to setting, they can differ wildly. My definition of Good and Evil will probably differ from his at least a little, and both will differ from yours.

The only answer that matters is your DM's. That's why it's always good to have a general discussion about alignments (and a more specialized one if you play a character with a code of conduct) before session one starts.

[Spellbreaker26]

Fair enough; I still think this is one of those "moral problems" that only makes sense in the DM's head because when game time actually happens the paladin does the sensible thing and hits the "gotcha!" moment. If I heard "there's this Succubus doing charity work in a small town" that would say "evil cult" to me, because in game you can't afford to take the risk that she's the billion in one exception.

[hamishspence]

I tend to think of it the other way round - unredeemed succubi aren't going to pull the "redeemed succubus" stunt - they always hide their demonicness.

The paladin investigating anyway is fine - but ignoring all the evidence and assuming the worst, is not.

[Spellbreaker26]

I tend to think of it the other way round - unredeemed succubi aren't going to pull the "redeemed succubus" stunt - they always hide their demonicness.

The paladin investigating anyway is fine - but ignoring all the evidence and assuming the worst, is not.

That's true, but then I would just assume out of character that the GM was trying to trick us and in character that it was either a stupid demon or a monumentally dumb group of villagers. Remove the impossible and whatever remains, however improbable, is the truth. A paladin of an anti-demon order is going to think that a redeemed demon is either impossible or at least much less likely than a dumb demon or a dumb village (I've just realized that if the demon was actually bad this is basically the DnD version of the Wicker Man).

Even if he does loads of research, in most fantasy settings he's still well within his rights to banish or summarily execute the demon for either crimes committed or being a danger to the populace.

What's funny is that it would be a decent situation if you had a regular non-demon, non-sexy criminal in disguise as a regular villager and the paladin aware from vague rumours. That way there's still pressure to kill him/her, but there's a better case for the person being redeemable and safe to leave there.

[hamishspence]

in most fantasy settings he's still well within his rights to banish or summarily execute the demon for either crimes committed or being a danger to the populace.

I don't know about most. How often does it come up, that a paladin summarily executes a redeemed (or partially redeemed) fiend, and gets off scot-free because they were "within their rights to do it"?

[Ninjaxenomorph]

I think we're ignoring Succy's agency in this. We can probably assume that she knows how unusual her situation is, and how suspicious it looks. She might even know of the paladin's order. Also, in Pally's defense, slaying her wouldn't actually kill her, it would banish her back to the Abyss. Whether this would be effectively killing her, setting her 'back to normal' is up to the GM.

Also, she might defend herself, rather than let herself be slain. Self-defense isn't evil, though she might want to atone if she kills him. Also possible is her just flying over his head and trying to talk him down. If he's unlucky with saves, he might even be Dominated or Charmed; those can also be used to force at least a temporary stalemate. Enough to perhaps make him contact his god for advice.

[Coidzor]

I would say that, being as she's still made out of pure chaotic evil, this is a rare case where killing a good-aligned person wouldn't register for paladin-falling, what with her existence causing a general protection fault in the multiverse.

Also, the name. Ye gads. :smallyuk:


I don't know about most. How often does it come up, that a paladin summarily executes a redeemed (or partially redeemed) fiend, and gets off scot-free because they were "within their rights to do it"?

I'd say that in most settings, fiends are one of the few cases where a Paladin can KOS. I'd also say that in most settings, a redeemed fiend is impossible both in terms of the paradox and in terms of not actually being possible to encounter for real, not even in unique cases, or it's one where the multiverse or local cognizant morality core doesn't care about the redeemed or partially redeemed part, just the fiend part.

[Segev]

The thread title does remind me of the "Woman seeks good man" sort of "dating personals."

Joking aside, however, a smart paladin isn't going to out-and-out assault the succubus once he sees the town rising to her defense. Not unless they're acting in fanatically suicidal ways. If nothing else, the Lawful side of "Lawful Good" says that you respect an area's laws if they're not causing immediate harm, and murdering somebody just because they ping as "Chaotic Evil" on various alignment detecting magics is generally unlawful.

It is the paladin's duty to protect people from evil. That is the imprimatur under which they destroy evil. If the succubus isn't clearly responsible for some immediate harm to others, and the town is so clearly against executing her, the Lawful side of things should give him pause, and he should be investigating.

I mean, even if she's every bit as evil as he thinks she is, an obvious succubus like this operating in the open with this particular cover could be a hint at something much worse hiding in the shadows, and he should investigate before acting.

If she's good, she won't take advantage of his guard being down. Of course, his guard won't be down, so if she does anything to try to take advantage of it, he'll know she's evil and deal with her accordingly. Demons are on thin ice; they're fiends, and so guilty until proven innocent. This stems from being literally physically made of solidified evil.

[Frosty]

In the case of an actual LG succubus with paladin classes, remember that the succubus has now done enough good to be judged WORTH by (at least) the objective forces of Good and (if she is a paladin of a specific deity) a god. Worthy to be a champion of Good.

Of course, proving that to Sir Smites-a-lot may be more difficult. The ultimate point is, killing someone because they MIGHT do more evil later is horrible, and probably fall worthy. It's worse than Minority Report.

[hamishspence]

I'd also say that in most settings, a redeemed fiend is impossible both in terms of the paradox and in terms of not actually being possible to encounter for real, not even in unique cases

Keep in mind that this is D&D. It crops up a bit more often than it might in "fantasy fiction".

[Andezzar]

I tend to think of it the other way round - unredeemed succubi aren't going to pull the "redeemed succubus" stunt - they always hide their demonicness.I'm not so sure. Jarlaxle did the redeemed surface drow routine in one of the Drizzt novels.


The paladin investigating anyway is fine - but ignoring all the evidence and assuming the worst, is not.Exactly.

[Spellbreaker26]

The problem is we don't know what cosmology we're using!

Is the demon an angel fallen from grace a la the traditional interpretation?

Is the demon made of pure evil human emotions a la 40K?

Is the demon just an extra-dimensional creature a la Buffy?

The second one not only demands kill on sight it also means that there's ZERO possibility of redemption.

The third one means no kill on sight and the chance of redemption is much closer to that of humanoids that are commonly evil (like orcs).

The first one is generally kill on sight unless you allow for it to go the other way.

That's three different situations (and there are almost certainly more!) that all have completely different moral responses to a succubus claiming to be redeemed. Really, it's much easier to use groups like orcs and hobgoblins that simply have a propensity towards evil rather than make your players try and figure out which campaign setting their own most resembles.

[Coidzor]

Keep in mind that this is D&D. It crops up a bit more often than it might in "fantasy fiction".

I was talking about D&D, but since you mention it, I'd argue it's more like the other way around, since D&D people like OP can get a fetish for this sort of thing or coming up with their own special snowflake for their home game.

[Andezzar]

Number two (irredeemable fiends) contraddicts the RAW, so that cannot be the case in D&D:
Always: The creature is born with the indicated alignment. The creature may have a hereditary predisposition to the alignment or come from a plane that predetermines it. It is possible for individuals to change alignment, but such individuals are either unique or rare exceptions
and

Evil Subtype: A subtype usually applied only to outsiders native to the evil-aligned Outer Planes. Evil outsiders are also called fiends. Most creatures that have this subtype also have evil alignments; however, if their alignments change, they still retain the subtype.

[Inevitability]

Also, in Pally's defense, slaying her wouldn't actually kill her, it would banish her back to the Abyss. Whether this would be effectively killing her, setting her 'back to normal' is up to the GM.

Somehow I doubt the essence of a redeemed succubus is going to survive for long if it ends up back home.

[Bohandas]

Regardless of direct consequences for killing the succubus, paladins are also required to abide by the laws of non-evil jurisdictions

[Spellbreaker26]

Regardless of direct consequences for killing the succubus, paladins are also required to abide by the laws of non-evil jurisdictions

Many of which are going to include "kill demons, anyone found summoning a demon or worshipping evil gods is to be burnt at the stake".

[Klara Meison]

Pick one: Demon or Good. You can't be both. Being a demon precludes being good.

I am unaware of any rule precluding demons from having a Good allignment in Pathfinder. Is that a 3.5/3.0 thing?

[Zanos]

I am unaware of any rule precluding demons from having a Good allignment in Pathfinder. Is that a 3.5/3.0 thing?
Not explicitly, but Demons are physically composed of cosmic Evil in both settings. You can't get any more Evil. Much like a vampire that's beautiful and walks in daylight in a setting where vampires are nearly universally ugly and immolated in sunlight, you better have a damn good justification.

[Ninjaxenomorph]

If this is PF, assuming you don't deviate from the standard setting assumptions too much, a LG demon can ABSOLUTELY exist. Ragathiel is an Empyreal Lord that is an ascended archdevil. It is, however, known that the act of ascending is long, arduous, and thankless, and they may have to fight their impulses for the rest of their existence, but then what is more good: being born into virtue, or being born in vileness and defying your nature?

[Klara Meison]

Not explicitly, but Demons are physically composed of cosmic Evil in both settings. You can't get any more Evil. Much like a vampire that's beautiful and walks in daylight in a setting where vampires are nearly universally ugly and immolated in sunlight, you better have a damn good justification.

That's not really a rule, I don't think? I seem to remember seeing at least 2 examples of Good demons in published adventures is all, so I was wondering if there was an actual rule preventing that somewhere.

[Jack_McSnatch]

Not explicitly, but Demons are physically composed of cosmic Evil in both settings. You can't get any more Evil. Much like a vampire that's beautiful and walks in daylight in a setting where vampires are nearly universally ugly and immolated in sunlight, you better have a damn good justification.

I've been seeing this a lot, and examples were already provided. I would just like to say that if angels -beings composed of pure law and goodness- can fall, there's nothing stopping demons from rising

[Frosty]

If this is PF, assuming you don't deviate from the standard setting assumptions too much, a LG demon can ABSOLUTELY exist. Ragathiel is an Empyreal Lord that is an ascended archdevil. It is, however, known that the act of ascending is long, arduous, and thankless, and they may have to fight their impulses for the rest of their existence, but then what is more good: being born into virtue, or being born in vileness and defying your nature?

Technically, ragathiel is the SON of an archdevil, rather than being one formerly himself. But, your point stands.

[Zanos]

That's not really a rule, I don't think? I seem to remember seeing at least 2 examples of Good demons in published adventures is all, so I was wondering if there was an actual rule preventing that somewhere.
It's not a rule, but establishing that x is y and then introducing a bunch of examples of x not being y cheapens both x and y. (And reeks of suedom, but that's another topic.)

I've been seeing this a lot, and examples were already provided. I would just like to say that if angels -beings composed of pure law and goodness- can fall, there's nothing stopping demons from rising
Fair example, but it's easier to fall to Evil than to rise to Good. Evil is a corrupting force, and even Angels are tempted to use Evils methods. Furthermore, Evil and Good actions don't cancel each other out. If you murder one person in cold blood and save ten others from the same fate, it doesn't cleanse you. Put more simply, it's easier to make an oil slick than to clean one.

[Andezzar]

Not explicitly, but Demons are physically composed of cosmic Evil in both settings.Please quote that rule, especially for 3.5. The Evil subtype at least says no such thing, merely that creatures with the subtype are native to the lower planes.

[Frosty]

Easy and hard is fine to talk about, but at least you admit it's possible. And at least in the established official PF world, that is certainly the case.

[Zanos]

Please quote that rule, especially for 3.5. The Evil subtype at least says no such thing, merely that creatures with the subtype are native to the lower planes.
For Demons, at least, FC I has a lot to say:

Formation and Promotion
Most scholarly documents and experts agree that demons form out of the raw chaos of the Abyss, though many diverge from there.

Outside the Abyss: If a demon is killed on another plane, its body eventually returns to the Abyss—unless trapped through magical means, such as a dimensional anchor spell. (See the Demonic Death Throes sidebar for more details on how demon bodies sometimes disappear.) No matter what happens to the demon’s body, if it is killed outside the Abyss, its “essence” falls back into the raw chaos of the Abyss, where it is then be reformed as a new demon.

Aging
As for the rest of the life cycle, demons do not grow old, and they do not die of anything remotely resembling natural causes. At best, they return to the unformed Abyss and their essence becomes part of the evil and chaos of the plane. At worst, who knows . . . ?

Reproduction
Some demons can have sex if they choose (though not all of them have the necessary “equipment”), but it is not necessary for procreation, since new demons are formed directly from the chaos of the Abyss. Demons that can have sex usually do so only as a means to create half-fi ends, though such creatures can be created in other ways (through arcane magic or curses).



Easy and hard is fine to talk about, but at least you admit it's possible. And at least in the established official PF world, that is certainly the case.
I admit that it's possible for an [Evil] Outsider to have a Good alignment. But I argue against the overuse of characters that defy established, mechanically enforced sterotypes. And that regardless of their alignment, [Evil] outsiders invite Evil by just existing. There's a cosmic war going on, and Demons had their side picked for them. Such creatures, if they exist at all, should be extraordinarily rare, and it would absolutely not be Evil to destroy them.

For reference, the OP had a previous thread suggesting that every community would have some kind of Succubus just hanging out with the townsfolk.

[Andezzar]

And at least in the established official PF world, that is certainly the case.
In 3.5 it is as well (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/fc/20050824a). And unlike the non-evil assassin it is not an April's fools joke.

[Spellbreaker26]

In 3.5 it is as well (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/fc/20050824a). And unlike the non-evil assassin it is not an April's fools joke.

It should be noted that for the example you posted, she went and got angelic help to try and become good, rather than just hanging around a village putting the inhabitants in danger from her slipping. In addition, she's probably doing more good hunting evil than she would if, again, she were just hanging around some hamlet.

I would like to know what the villager's response to all this is. While clearly they haven't run her out of town, is she merely tolerated? Does she have some friends and some enemies? Is she on her way to being worshiped as a minor nature spirit? (which would be the best possible result, as it both distances her from the town and allows her to protect it).

[Klara Meison]

It's not a rule, but establishing that x is y and then introducing a bunch of examples of x not being y cheapens both x and y. (And reeks of suedom, but that's another topic.)

Fair example, but it's easier to fall to Evil than to rise to Good. Evil is a corrupting force, and even Angels are tempted to use Evils methods. Furthermore, Evil and Good actions don't cancel each other out. If you murder one person in cold blood and save ten others from the same fate, it doesn't cleanse you. Put more simply, it's easier to make an oil slick than to clean one.

Wait, so they have estabilished that? I thought there wasn't any rule about it?

>it's easier to fall to Evil than to rise to Good

Hmm, I didn't hear about that either before, but it would make sense given the context. Is that a rule then?

[exelsisxax]

For Demons, at least, FC I has a lot to say:

I admit that it's possible for an [Evil] Outsider to have a Good alignment. But I argue against the overuse of characters that defy established, mechanically enforced sterotypes. And that regardless of their alignment, [Evil] outsiders invite Evil by just existing. There's a cosmic war going on, and Demons had their side picked for them. Such creatures, if they exist at all, should be extraordinarily rare, and it would absolutely not be Evil to destroy them.

For reference, the OP had a previous thread suggesting that every community would have some kind of Succubus just hanging out with the townsfolk.

OP certainly has a thing for non-evil evil beings, but you are conversely conflating origin with morality. Fully self-aware and sentient beings cannot be alignment restricted. The mental faculties of such beings makes them moral actors, which cannot be constrained by any means other than reduction of those faculties. Demons and devils are usually going to be evil, but it has everything to do with a lack of care for others that is inculcated by the hells and abyss, not with constituent essence.

[Spellbreaker26]

OP certainly has a thing for non-evil evil beings, but you are conversely conflating origin with morality. Fully self-aware and sentient beings cannot be alignment restricted. The mental faculties of such beings makes them moral actors, which cannot be constrained by any means other than reduction of those faculties. Demons and devils are usually going to be evil, but it has everything to do with a lack of care for others that is inculcated by the hells and abyss, not with constituent essence.

I'm pretty sure demons and devils are evil because they are made out of pure liquid evil. I've only got the 5e monster manual on hand, but "the embodiment of chaos and evil- engines of
destruction barely contained in monstrous form... Possessing no compassion, empathy, or mercy, they exist only to destroy." would indicate that it's not so much a product of their environment the way, say, a hobgoblin or orc might be and more an aspect of their being that they must eternally fight were one to ever try and be good.

[exelsisxax]

I'm pretty sure demons and devils are evil because they are made out of pure liquid evil. I've only got the 5e monster manual on hand, but "the embodiment of chaos and evil- engines of
destruction barely contained in monstrous form... Possessing no compassion, empathy, or mercy, they exist only to destroy." would indicate that it's not so much a product of their environment the way, say, a hobgoblin or orc might be and more an aspect of their being that they must eternally fight were one to ever try and be good.

The bold cannot be necessarily true for fully sentient and self-aware being. It may be true about individuals, but even being literally made of evil can't preclude a good moral alignment. If it is impossible for a balor to be anything but evil, the only reason is that balor do not qualify for personhood. They are beings that appear to be people, but are actually unintelligent or nonsentient. That really doesn't fly with succubi, who are generally portrayed as the least inhuman of any demons or devils, to the point where, again, they canonically can become good.

[Karl Aegis]

I see an outsider on the Material Plane I kill it. Doesn't matter if it's a Good or an Evil act, they have plenty of other places to be. You want me to believe there is something typically evil that's actually Good around here, give me something like a Fiendish Bugbear that somehow isn't mugging you for drug money.

[Telonius]

A Paladin that doesn't take care to pick their targets carefully is not going to remain a Paladin for very long. For Demons and Devils, "guilty until proven innocent" is a reasonable rule of thumb. But if the Paladin has any evidence that something is unusual, they'd better investigate before smiting. Having an entire town vouch for a Succubus would probably qualify as evidence that something is unusual. Just as a default, though, a Paladin (or anybody else) would be safe to assume that a Succubus wants to drain your body and doom your soul, not necessarily in that order.

If lots of Good Succubi start appearing, it would be something for the Paladin to immediately bring to the attention of the head of their order. Something's clearly going wonky with the universal order, and it would need investigation. Even a single instance of it would be unusual enough to investigate thoroughly. If it's "for real," the Paladin would probably want to help out as much as possible. If it's possible for even a Succubus to choose Good, that would be a great inspiration to creatures who aren't even made of Evil. And if it's not for real, the Paladin would be close by for quick smiting if she ever slips up.

[Echch]

...I don't see the problem.
The Paladin reduces the Succubus to 0 hp, sending her back to the Abyss. No actual "death" involved. The only thing that happened was him removing an Evil-Subtyped creature from the material plane in the same way a banishment would, and as banishement isn't inherently "evil", I'd say sending an Outsider back the mundane way isn't either.

And unless combat takes so long that the entire town can join in (one or two people could still be a charmed alibi), which shouldn't happen, there is no way for him to know the Succubi is good, so it's not like he had any reason to believe this specific Succubus would be different. I know I'm kinda arguing for racism here, but in D&D it's kinda clear cut.

[Klara Meison]

...I don't see the problem.
The Paladin reduces the Succubus to 0 hp, sending her back to the Abyss. No actual "death" involved. The only thing that happened was him removing an Evil-Subtyped creature from the material plane in the same way a banishment would, and as banishement isn't inherently "evil", I'd say sending an Outsider back the mundane way isn't either.

And unless combat takes so long that the entire town can join in (one or two people could still be a charmed alibi), which shouldn't happen, there is no way for him to know the Succubi is good, so it's not like he had any reason to believe this specific Succubus would be different. I know I'm kinda arguing for racism here, but in D&D it's kinda clear cut.

A single casting of Detect Charm would be enough for him to know people weren't charmed. I don't really get how someone can argue that the paladin "has no way to know" the succubus isn't an evil manipulative mastermind when they have that as a lv1 spell on their spell list.

[Inevitability]

A single casting of Detect Charm would be enough for him to know people weren't charmed. I don't really get how someone can argue that the paladin "has no way to know" the succubus isn't an evil manipulative mastermind when they have that as a lv1 spell on their spell list.

A 3.5 alternative: Protection From Evil. If a villager doesn't significantly change in behavior after being hit with the spell, they probably weren't charmed to begin with.

[Frosty]

A single casting of Detect Charm would be enough for him to know people weren't charmed. I don't really get how someone can argue that the paladin "has no way to know" the succubus isn't an evil manipulative mastermind when they have that as a lv1 spell on their spell list. to be fair, succubus are masters at manipulation. So it would be prudent for the paladin to remain suspicious regardless.


...I don't see the problem.
The Paladin reduces the Succubus to 0 hp, sending her back to the Abyss. No actual "death" involved. The only thing that happened was him removing an Evil-Subtyped creature from the material plane in the same way a banishment would, and as banishement isn't inherently "evil"well in pathfinder at least that's not how it work. A slain succubus in the material realm is just that. Slain. It is murder.

[asnys]

If I was running the game, I would say that a "good succubus" isn't a succubus any more. What they turn into depends on how they turned good, but I'd restat them as some kind of celestial. Unlike a human or an elf, there's no soul/body distinction for an outsider; their "body" is their soul. So if their soul changes, then their body changes, too. I don't know if that accords with what the D&D fluff says, but that's how I would rule it if I was DMing.

[Troacctid]

I'm going to give you this one, but even if he's not a celestial he's still a planetar; his statblock and all descriptive text confirm that. In other words, even after turning good, a succubus would still be a succubus.

Therefore, good succubi can exist, in contrast to your initial statement that succubi can only be evil.
Is an ice beast fire elemental still a fire elemental? Maybe nominally, but if it's made out of ice instead of fire, hasn't it lost the primary defining trait that made it a fire elemental?


The problem is we don't know what cosmology we're using!
In traditional D&D cosmology, Good and Evil are elemental forces, and fiends are literally made of and powered by Evil. Even if a fiend is affected by a Helm of Opposite Alignment and becomes good, it still retains its evil subtype and has a tainting effect on the balance of Good and Evil in the universe.

[kellbyb]

If I was running the game, I would say that a "good succubus" isn't a succubus any more. What they turn into depends on how they turned good, but I'd restat them as some kind of celestial. Unlike a human or an elf, there's no soul/body distinction for an outsider; their "body" is their soul. So if their soul changes, then their body changes, too. I don't know if that accords with what the D&D fluff says, but that's how I would rule it if I was DMing.

It's not. The rules are pretty clear that an outsider with the [evil] subtype that becomes good keeps the classification.

[Klara Meison]

A 3.5 alternative: Protection From Evil. If a villager doesn't significantly change in behavior after being hit with the spell, they probably weren't charmed to begin with.

Doesn't actually cancel Charm spells, I think, only Domination ones. May be wrong.

[Klara Meison]

to be fair, succubus are masters at manipulation. So it would be prudent for the paladin to remain suspicious regardless.

Probably. They shouldn't just stab them on sight though.

[Spellbreaker26]

The problem with detect charm and whatnot is that a Succubus doesn't have to use magic to be charming. For *ahem* obvious reasons even the least of the succubi would be able to get a few malleable villagers on her side with a little cajoling.

What I want to know is why "as a group" they didn't chase her out of town as soon as they found out who she was. If I saw a whole town unanimously rising to defend a fiend from a holy paladin I would assume that they were charmed, however, and wouldn't bother to check. There's no way there weren't some priests or elders who would have put up with an honest-to-god demon in their town. Villagers have rioted over perfectly innocent foreigners, do you think they're going to give it a pass when it's an actual spawn of hell?

On the subject of charms, how many people would all risk their lives at once against what is probably the equivalent of an officer of the law in your town? You might protest but you wouldn't all gang up on him and get slaughtered. If people protested but were clearly afraid to intervene when I then that, on the other hand, would give me pause, because they clearly cared about her but didn't have a death wish.

[Frosty]

For Demons, at least, FC I has a lot to say:



I admit that it's possible for an [Evil] Outsider to have a Good alignment. But I argue against the overuse of characters that defy established, mechanically enforced sterotypes. And that regardless of their alignment, [Evil] outsiders invite Evil by just existing. There's a cosmic war going on, and Demons had their side picked for them. Such creatures, if they exist at all, should be extraordinarily rare, and it would absolutely not be Evil to destroy them.

For reference, the OP had a previous thread suggesting that every community would have some kind of Succubus just hanging out with the townsfolk. A succubus in every major city probably isn't that far fetched. I can imagine them being in disguise and gathering intel to share with each other or with their overlord or something.

[VoxRationis]

Succubi are known for being persuasive. It would not be difficult for one to endear themselves to a small town with some choice words, penitent bleating, and subtle manipulation of Madonna-whore expectations. Being convinced in such a way would not fall under mind control or charm effects per se, but would be nonetheless effective. A paladin would not be amiss in thinking "Oh, we've got a town of Stephanie Meyer fans here—I'd better find a way to convince them of the righteous path before I kill the demon who's been misleading them." Unless you're pulling a Joss Whedon and the succubus is intentionally a metaphor for something else, 99.999% of the time, this would be the correct response, and the paladin has no way of knowing otherwise. Succubi take on fair and pleasing forms, both physically and socially, in order to lead people astray. Her apparent good behavior now is most likely a front to allow her to gradually corrupt the town, possibly over a period of decades, into becoming a beachhead for the forces of the Abyss.

[Zanos]

Wait, so they have estabilished that? I thought there wasn't any rule about it?

>it's easier to fall to Evil than to rise to Good

Hmm, I didn't hear about that either before, but it would make sense given the context. Is that a rule then?
What are you asking me is a rule?

As for the easier to fall to Evil part, I'm fairly certain there's entire sections on it on BoED, BoVD, and FC I and II. The corruption rules are pretty specific that even if you do enough Good to move away from an Evil alignment, your soul is probably still condemned to hell.

OP certainly has a thing for non-evil evil beings, but you are conversely conflating origin with morality. Fully self-aware and sentient beings cannot be alignment restricted. The mental faculties of such beings makes them moral actors, which cannot be constrained by any means other than reduction of those faculties. Demons and devils are usually going to be evil, but it has everything to do with a lack of care for others that is inculcated by the hells and abyss, not with constituent essence.
I'm not conflating anything. The books say Outsiders are made out of Evil. Furthermore, Outsiders are not people. Trying to treat them like they are is fallacious. I don't know where you're getting your philosophy that sentient beings can't have any restrictions on their morality.

The bold cannot be necessarily true for fully sentient and self-aware being.
What? Of course it can. Elementals are sentient and self-aware. But as long as we're comparing Demons to People, which you really shouldn't do, there are a variety of real world conditions that prevent people from experiencing remorse or empathy from birth, but those people are still sentient.

It may be true about individuals, but even being literally made of evil can't preclude a good moral alignment. If it is impossible for a balor to be anything but evil, the only reason is that balor do not qualify for personhood. They are beings that appear to be people, but are actually unintelligent or nonsentient. That really doesn't fly with succubi, who are generally portrayed as the least inhuman of any demons or devils, to the point where, again, they canonically can become good.
Succubi are as Evil as Balors, although the Balor is probably better at it just from the fact that it's significantly more powerful.

Doesn't actually cancel Charm spells, I think, only Domination ones. May be wrong.
In 3.5 it does, in Pathfinder it grants a second save.


Probably. They shouldn't just stab them on sight though.
I disagree. Evil outsiders are one of the few corner cases where Paladins shouldn't have to ask questions.


A succubus in every major city probably isn't that far fetched. I can imagine them being in disguise and gathering intel to share with each other or with their overlord or something.
No, but a Good succubus in literally every settlement with multiple in big cities is. As I mentioned to the OP, if you want a creature in your settlements that has a social bias against it despite being kind at heart, you can use creatures descended from fiends. At least there you have the justification that the bias might not be entirely justified.

[exelsisxax]

A foetus is human, a foetus is not a person. A succubus is not a human, but are generally depicted as people. Personhood is a level of cognitive capabilities that can support full sentience and self-awareness.

Humans that don't fit that criteria aren't people. Lacking empathy and regret don't automatically make you evil, nor are they disqualifying for personhood.

If balors aren't people, they aren't evil. They're merely [Evil]. Basically, meat golems with "hate everything harcore" as the primary order.

[Spellbreaker26]

Succubi are as Evil as Balors, although the Balor is probably better at it just from the fact that it's significantly more powerful.



No, but a Good succubus in literally every settlement with multiple in big cities is. As I mentioned to the OP, if you want a creature in your settlements that has a social bias against it despite being kind at heart, you can use creatures descended from fiends. At least there you have the justification that the bias might not be entirely justified.

I agree with most of your comment, but on these two:

A] Succubi have more examples of being non-evil (the aforementioned paladin, plus I think the cleric in Planescape Torment was a Lawful Neutral Succubus and I'm kinda surprised she hasn't been mentioned yet). This is because they are prettier than Balors, basically.

B] As for creatures descended from fiends, you actually have to go a generation or two down because I'm pretty sure cambions/half-fiends are always evil as well having pushed out the child's soul before it was born and taken over the body completely.

[exelsisxax]

I agree with most of your comment, but on these two:

A] Succubi have more examples of being non-evil (the aforementioned paladin, plus I think the cleric in Planescape Torment was a Lawful Neutral Succubus and I'm kinda surprised she hasn't been mentioned yet). This is because they are prettier than Balors, basically.

B] As for creatures descended from fiends, you actually have to go a generation or two down because I'm pretty sure cambions/half-fiends are always evil as well having pushed out the child's soul before it was born and taken over the body completely.

B: which universe? I know FR half-fiends can have souls. There was the alu-fiend that acidentally the spellplague or time of troubles, I can't remember which, partly through soul-switching shenanigans.

[Troacctid]

Succubi take on fair and pleasing forms, both physically and socially, in order to lead people astray. Her apparent good behavior now is most likely a front to allow her to gradually corrupt the town, possibly over a period of decades, into becoming a beachhead for the forces of the Abyss.
That would be my conclusion too. The succubus is lying.


Succubi are as Evil as Balors, although the Balor is probably better at it just from the fact that it's significantly more powerful.
Technically, I believe balors have the stronger evil aura, so they are more evil.

[Spellbreaker26]

B: which universe? I know FR half-fiends can have souls. There was the alu-fiend that acidentally the spellplague or time of troubles, I can't remember which, partly through soul-switching shenanigans.

Huh. I was sure I read that somewhere. Went through the 5e monster manual again but all it says is that:

"Cambions grow into ruthless adults
whose wickedness and perversion horrifies even the
most devoted mortal parent. Even as a youth, a cambion
identifies its rightful place as an overlord of mortals."

I could have sworn it said somewhere that it overtakes them before the baby's been born. Either way, like demons it's pretty rare for a cambion to be non-evil.

[Frosty]

I agree with most of your comment, but on these two:

A] Succubi have more examples of being non-evil (the aforementioned paladin, plus I think the cleric in Planescape Torment was a Lawful Neutral Succubus and I'm kinda surprised she hasn't been mentioned yet). This is because they are prettier than Balors, basically.

B] As for creatures descended from fiends, you actually have to go a generation or two down because I'm pretty sure cambions/half-fiends are always evil as well having pushed out the child's soul before it was born and taken over the body completely. I did mention it in my first post iirc. Fall from Frace isn't GOOD though, but is still a relevant example.

[Spellbreaker26]

I did mention it in my first post iirc. Fall from Frace isn't GOOD though, but is still a relevant example.

Sorry, must have missed that. I just thought she would have gotten mentioned more because she was a character in one of the games as opposed to a thought exercise like the paladin succubus (and also has a more interesting character concept overall).

[Zanos]

A foetus is human, a foetus is not a person. A succubus is not a human, but are generally depicted as people. Personhood is a level of cognitive capabilities that can support full sentience and self-awareness.

Humans that don't fit that criteria aren't people. Lacking empathy and regret don't automatically make you evil, nor are they disqualifying for personhood.

If balors aren't people, they aren't evil. They're merely [Evil]. Basically, meat golems with "hate everything harcore" as the primary order.
I assumed you meant people in the sense that they had a similar thought process to humans, not in the philosophical sense of personhood. The philosophical state of being a "person" is long debated and has no real consensus. I don't believe that having your choices restricted to a subset of what is "normally" available renders a creature non-sentient. It can still be a rationally agent within it's more limited options.

I've also never argued that it's impossible for a fiend to become Good, only that even if they're Good, their very existence is Evil, so destroying them is always the Good thing to do.


I agree with most of your comment, but on these two:
A] Succubi have more examples of being non-evil (the aforementioned paladin, plus I think the cleric in Planescape Torment was a Lawful Neutral Succubus and I'm kinda surprised she hasn't been mentioned yet). This is because they are prettier than Balors, basically.

B] As for creatures descended from fiends, you actually have to go a generation or two down because I'm pretty sure cambions/half-fiends are always evil as well having pushed out the child's soul before it was born and taken over the body completely.
A) As crappy as this sounds, this is because people don't want to copulate with Balors. Generally. I did very much enjoy Planescape: Torment, but Planescape is inherently a very exotic setting. They don't really go in depth with Fall-From-Grace's character to explain why she isn't Evil, though. Although Planescape is a very good example of why destroying fiends is so important, considering what happens to planes that have too much of an alignment in them.

B)Half-Fiends are "Always Evil", but don't have the Evil subtype. So you might want to go another generation, yeah. I don't know a ton about the makeup of half-fiends, to be honest.

[exelsisxax]

"killing demons is always good" is not something that good people practice, it's what lawful stupid people do.

In fact, this is a case where killing the demon is extraordinarily lawful stupid. It'll just be reformed into a new demon(depending on the setting) - one that's probably not good, because most demons aren't. Good job, you've increased the number of evil entities in the cosmos.

[Inevitability]

Is an ice beast fire elemental still a fire elemental? Maybe nominally, but if it's made out of ice instead of fire, hasn't it lost the primary defining trait that made it a fire elemental?

Ice Beast can't be applied to a [Fire] creature, so this particular point is invalid already.

That said, the defining trait of a demon isn't that it's a chaotic evil creature, it's that it's a [Chaotic], [Evil] creature. The first would prevent good demons; the second wouldn't.

[Spellbreaker26]

"killing demons is always good" is not something that good people practice, it's what lawful stupid people do.

In fact, this is a case where killing the demon is extraordinarily lawful stupid. It'll just be reformed into a new demon(depending on the setting) - one that's probably not good, because most demons aren't. Good job, you've increased the number of evil entities in the cosmos.

You've removed something that is actively corrupting the physical plane with its very presence. Whether her intentions were good or not she was negatively affecting the lives of those people. If this was "killing orcs is always good" or "killing teiflings is always good" then you'd have a point, but demons aren't just usually evil, they're *unclean* -they damage everything around them on the material plane. if the succubus wanted to do good she would reside on another plane where the effects wouldn't be so bad instead of going all Marie Antoinette on us.

[exelsisxax]

You've removed something that is actively corrupting the physical plane with its very presence. Whether her intentions were good or not she was negatively affecting the lives of those people. If this was "killing orcs is always good" or "killing teiflings is always good" then you'd have a point, but demons aren't just usually evil, they're *unclean* -they damage everything around them on the material plane. if the succubus wanted to do good she would reside on another plane where the effects wouldn't be so bad instead of going all Marie Antoinette on us.

So which setting is that? I've never heard it before.

[Spellbreaker26]

So which setting is that? I've never heard it before.






BoVD also states that an [Evil] Outsider simply existing for an extended period of time is sufficient to taint an area with Lasting Evil, which among other nasty things, causes psychological disorders in people near the area. So she doesn't have to do anything at all to commit an Evil act.



Yeah, as the bad book says...

[Frosty]

You've removed something that is actively corrupting the physical plane with its very presence. Whether her intentions were good or not she was negatively affecting the lives of those people. If this was "killing orcs is always good" or "killing teiflings is always good" then you'd have a point, but demons aren't just usually evil, they're *unclean* -they damage everything around them on the material plane. if the succubus wanted to do good she would reside on another plane where the effects wouldn't be so bad instead of going all Marie Antoinette on us.

You have no proof that demons have "evil radiation" that harms others that by their presence. At least not for 3.5 and PF.

BoVD is 3.0

[Zanos]

Yeah, as the bad book says...
As someone else pointed out, that's a variant rule. But the BoVD also says in non-variant rules that alignment is objective, Evil and Good are cosmic forces, destroying fiends is always Good, and consorting with fiends is always Evil.


BoVD is 3.0
It's valid for 3.5 unless contradicted, which it generally is not. It's also given legitimacy by being mentioned several times in BoED as a companion book.

[exelsisxax]

Yeah, as the bad book says...

If D&D settings actually worked like that book says they'd be almost unrecognizable. There's a reason FR doesn't actually work like that. But, is that for evil only, or all alignments? Is lasting law a thing? If so, all outsiders need to be killed or banished on sight.

[Zanos]

If D&D settings actually worked like that book says they'd be almost unrecognizable. There's a reason FR doesn't actually work like that. But, is that for evil only, or all alignments? Is lasting law a thing? If so, all outsiders need to be killed or banished on sight.
Considering that there's a (popular) Faerun specific prestige classes that, in lore, focuses on closing planar breaches, it probably does.

[Spellbreaker26]

I can just imagine a rogue wizard summoning a bunch of Modrons in order to alter his classroom and boost his student's math scores.

[asnys]

I can just imagine a rogue wizard summoning a bunch of Modrons in order to alter his classroom and boost his student's math scores.

Hmm... Do you know where I could buy a scroll of gate, and what the gp-to-USD conversion ratio is?

[Frosty]

Let's assume for the moment that in the setting the OP is asking his question about, that evil outsiders do not cause harm with their mere literal presence. Is it still ok to just slaughtered any that you see?

[Inevitability]

Let's assume for the moment that in the setting the OP is asking his question about, that evil outsiders do not cause harm with their mere literal presence. Is it still ok to just slaughter any that you see?

Well, the main justification for evil outsiders being bad even when not doing evil just went away, so I'd say it's not okay anymore.

[LoyalPaladin]

Hey. It's your paladin speaking. It's been a while since I've been in this subforum. But I'm here now and that's what is important. :smallwink:


Lets say there's a paladin (we'll call him Pally) of an order that despises fiends, and has made it his life's work to eliminate all demons from the world. He comes to a town and spots a succubus (we'll call her Succy) in town. I'd picture Pally's first reaction would be to attack Succy. However, Succy is actually a good succubus, and has been living in the town and helping around, and the whole town knows that she's not evil. So the town rushes to her defense and rebukes Pally. What would Pally do?
First of all, any paladin worth his salt knows better than to "smite first and ask questions later". Detect evil is a filter for evil, not a foolproof security system. You use it to find threats and resolve them. It was mentioned before, but paladins make good faces because they get diplomacy as a class skill and they need charisma to function. So it's not outlandish to believe even a fairly gruff paladin wouldn't at least offer some fighting words before the smiting began. In which case, the paladin would be able to obtain information that gave him a reason not to start hacking the fiend to pieces.


I can picture some results:

Pally attacks Succy while avoiding unnecessary collateral
Pally is convinced the whole town is evil and wastes it
Pally understands the town and lets Succy live... this once

These are not even close to the variety of results that could happen. You could have everything from cold blooded murder to the paladin offering to teach the succubus the ways of good. Paladins, like so many other classes, come in a variety of flavors. An order of paladins that follow ideals to the point of hack'n'slash murder sprees sounds like a paladin of slaughter to me, but plenty of DM's let things like that count as LG because they are heretics have some issue with paladins in general.


Now, suppose Pally decides that ALL demons must be eliminated no matter what, would he be committing an evil act by attacking Succy (and possibly the town)? Assume the good deity, although he loathes to admit it, accepts that Succy is indeed not evil.
Lots of things here. The paladin isn't just committing an evil act, he's pulling a Miko and committing straight up murder. Fall him by all accounts. Evil act, murder, disgracing his order, disobeying his god, etc.

I don't say that lightly, by the way. There are very few occasions I'd say it is okay to fall a paladin.


He might try and convince her to undergo a casting of Polymorph Any Object to become a regular humanoid. No longer a demon, no longer a problem.
The Ritual of Alignment (Savage Species, Page 148) would allow the succubus to change her type to [Good] Outsider.


Wait, you're using Miko as an example for Paladins? :smallconfused: Remember how she became a Fighter with no Bonus Feats by the end?
Valid statement above. Miko is a terrible example of a good person, she can't even hold a candle to what a paladin should be.


Because Succy is going to still ping Evil because of her Demon Heritage, even if she is in actual practice and by actual personal choice freaking Exhaulted Good, Pally Attacks her. Because he Used Detect Evil on a Demon, Demons being known for lying through there teeth with extreme convincingness, while she was trying to tell him she wasn't evil. Except is super awesome pally powers of Rightouness detected Evil Anyway. So he drew the obvious conclusion. She's lying through her teeth.

He then kills her with minimal Collateral, cause, hey, Demons charm and dupe people, not there fault really.
Paladins have great saves and Sense Motive as a class feature. They're given plenty more tools than just Detect Evil, so I'd offer that a paladin who jumps to that conclusion so fast is not putting all his effort into his occupation.

I'd also offer that I, and a lot of other paladin players, like to prestige into Fist of Raziel. I only mention this because it gives you pretty great coverage against mind effecting effects. But that's just mechanically speaking, so it is less important to the topic at hand.


Paladin then falls because the Paladin Class is incredibly mindbogglingly awful like that.
Paladin really didn't luck out in 3.5, unfortunately. The class is tier 5 on its own and game with a handy self-destruct button which is even worse. But I think any decent GM can handle a paladin player well enough to not destruct their class because he stepped on a bug that happened to be a celestial horsefly. I've played paladins with great GM's and terrible GM's, so that's speaking from experience.

[Spellbreaker26]

Let's assume for the moment that in the setting the OP is asking his question about, that evil outsiders do not cause harm with their mere literal presence. Is it still ok to just slaughtered any that you see?

a] The vast majority of fiends will have committed crimes enough to earn the death penalty five times over, over the course of centuries.
b] The number of fiends that have become non-evil is small enough to count on one hand, whereas the number of evil fiends is virtually limitless

Even then... even considering the tiny proportion of good fiends... is it right to condemn one for the sake of the many?

Considering that they just go off to hell to rematerialise... safety first. Smite away, pally.

[exelsisxax]

Let's assume for the moment that in the setting the OP is asking his question about, that evil outsiders do not cause harm with their mere literal presence. Is it still ok to just slaughtered any that you see?

Depends if they are sentients or not. If outsiders are golems, destroying any of them is not inherently anything. If they are fully sentient beings with free will, it's definitely not good to kill them whenever possible. That's just fantastic racism.

The only way there is any real argument is if there is some sort of weirdness about their free will or lack of it. Like: succubi are fully sentient, but basically under a continuous dominate that makes them do evil things. So they could be good while [Evil]. Does preventing harm justify killing someone who is good?

[Zanos]

Let's assume for the moment that in the setting the OP is asking his question about, that evil outsiders do not cause harm with their mere literal presence. Is it still ok to just slaughtered any that you see?
It depends. If you use objective morality, there's still a cosmic war between Good and Evil. And even if they do Good, they're still physically composed of Evil, and should probably be destroyed.

If you play with subjective morality or in a setting what there isn't a cosmic war between Good and Evil...maybe. Demons are duplicitous by their very nature, encountering one that is not Evil is extraordinarily unlikely, and left to their own devices they can inflict tremendous harm. Would I risk letting it live? No, probably not.

[Klara Meison]

a] The vast majority of fiends will have committed crimes enough to earn the death penalty five times over, over the course of centuries.
b] The number of fiends that have become non-evil is small enough to count on one hand, whereas the number of evil fiends is virtually limitless

Even then... even considering the tiny proportion of good fiends... is it right to condemn one for the sake of the many?

Considering that they just go off to hell to rematerialise... safety first. Smite away, pally.

>The vast majority of fiends will have committed crimes enough to earn the death penalty five times over, over the course of centuries.

Death penalty isn't even legal in most countries, so murdering succubus while she isn't actively doing anything dangerous would be a crime.

>Considering that they just go off to hell to rematerialise

Not in Pathfinder. Dead while called=dead forever. Also, Abyss, not Hell, different planes.

[Zanos]

>The vast majority of fiends will have committed crimes enough to earn the death penalty five times over, over the course of centuries.

Death penalty isn't even legal in most countries, so murdering succubus while she isn't actively doing anything dangerous would be a crime.
Unless you're playing some d20 modern analogue, it not being legal today shouldn't really be relevant. In any case, the existence of creatures from another plane that live to torment us would probably make most countries rethink their stance on that...

[Spellbreaker26]

>The vast majority of fiends will have committed crimes enough to earn the death penalty five times over, over the course of centuries.

Death penalty isn't even legal in most countries, so murdering succubus while she isn't actively doing anything dangerous would be a crime.

>Considering that they just go off to hell to rematerialise

Not in Pathfinder. Dead while called=dead forever. Also, Abyss, not Hell, different planes.

The death penalty does not exist in many modern societies. In the sort of society DnD has, it's likely to be far more common, owing to a lack of jail space and a need to make examples of people. Also, it's even less likely to be a crime than an evil act. No sane good king is going to have demons given the same rights as humanoids. The only people going to get punished would probably be the town for harboring a demon.

Didn't know that about pathfinder.

[Frosty]

Beyond that, consider the harm you might do by killing this good demon.

Succy is probably guilt-ridden, and would likely go to great lengths to help others (which also has the side effect of proving to others she has reformed). Imagine the good she can do, either by using her vast array of abilities to combat evil directly, or by spying on demonic forces and reporting back to the Crusading Army of Good.

Is it possible that it is Just to kill Succy? Possibly, depending on your system of ethics. Might more total Good be done if she is allowed to live (provided she is monitored and mentored)? Very possibly!

You decide what's mOre importanf: vengeance for the past victims of the succubus, or the well-being of the people that succy can help from here on out.

[Sheogoroth]

Given the circumstances, I'd say he's in the green no matter what he chooses.
Arguably, even if he knew it was a good succubus, he could kill it for the good of all paladins so they could purge evil without their consciences being bothered with- "perhaps, this one could be saved?"

Though it depends on where alignment in your game lands on the Intention Vs. Outcome Axis.

[Spellbreaker26]

Beyond that, consider the harm you might do by killing this good demon.

Succy is probably guilt-ridden, and would likely go to great lengths to help others (which also has the side effect of smprlvog to others she has reformed). Imagine the good she can do, either by using her vast array of abilities to combat evil directly, or by spying on demonic forces and reporting back to the Crusading Army of Good.

Is it possible that it is Just to kill Succy? Possibly, depending on your system of ethics. Might more total Good be done if she is allowed to live (provided she is monitored and mentored)? Very possibly!

You decide what's mOre importanf: vengeance for the past victims of the succubus, or the well-being of the people that succy can help from here on out.

She hasn't sought out mentorship and she isn't monitored. Let's lowball it for the Succubus (I refuse to call her by that name on grounds that it's too funny).
One thousand years old, one hundred people killed.

Then she just moves to a small village and settles down; miraculously the townsfolk do not try to beat her to death or ask for help, not even the religious types.

She just lives there, a potential threat if this mass murderer ever slips back into the role she was literally made for.

She hasn't:
A] Handed herself over to the authorities for her numerous crimes. Would she get executed? Maybe, but that's the consequences for killing people.
B] Sought out someone to help her master her evil side. She needs a Yoda or an uncle Iroh, but she hasn't got one unless the village has one.
C] Started working for the Army of Good in any capacity.

She's not atoning for her sins, she's running from them, hiding in a village. Like I said previously, this is like finding out your next door neighbour was the guard from Auschwitz. She could have been a model citizen for twenty years but she's still evading punishment.

[Zanos]

You decide what's mOre importanf: vengeance for the past victims of the succubus, or the well-being of the people that succy can help from here on out.
I don't consider it vengeance, it's a matter of pragmatism. What are the chances this demon is actually Good? What are the consequences of letting it be? Minuscule and tremendous, respectively.

[Frosty]

I don't consider it vengeance, it's a matter of pragmatism. What are the chances this demon is actually Good? What are the consequences of letting it be? Minuscule and tremendous, respectively. Thad why, before the paladin has fully investigated the situation, he shouldn't act rashly and needs to demand that the succubus surrender herself into custody, allow herself to be interrogated with all sorts of divination magic, and possibly accept a Mark of Justice. With enough magic it is possible to see if the Succubus really wants to be good. Any reformed succubus would understand why mortals would be suspicious and would be willing to go through these hassles.


She hasn't sought out mentorship and she isn't monitored. Let's lowball it for the Succubus (I refuse to call her by that name on grounds that it's too funny).
One thousand years old, one hundred people killed.

Then she just moves to a small village and settles down; miraculously the townsfolk do not try to beat her to death or ask for help, not even the religious types.

She just lives there, a potential threat if this mass murderer ever slips back into the role she was literally made for.

She hasn't:
A] Handed herself over to the authorities for her numerous crimes. Would she get executed? Maybe, but that's the consequences for killing people.
B] Sought out someone to help her master her evil side. She needs a Yoda or an uncle Iroh, but she hasn't got one unless the village has one.
C] Started working for the Army of Good in any capacity.

She's not atoning for her sins, she's running from them, hiding in a village. Like I said previously, this is like finding out your next door neighbour was the guard from Auschwitz. She could have been a model citizen for twenty years but she's still evading punishment. ahh I see the disconnect. See, as far as I understand it, in order for a succubus to achieve the good alignment, she would've needed to already have done MANY good deeds, or else she drifts into Neutral at best. See, I am assuming bay Succy here has been actively atoning, and still is when Sir Smites-a-lot finds her in this village.

[hamishspence]

Or, focusing more on attitude than acts - the succubus needed to have an attitude toward Other People that fits very well into Good - very altruistic, very respectful of life, very compassionate - which would imply great remorse for all past evil deeds, and great determination to atone for them.

We know from the OP that they are not just "living there" they are "helping around" as well:


However, Succy is actually a good succubus, and has been living in the town and helping around, and the whole town knows that she's not evil. So the town rushes to her defense and rebukes Pally.

[Spellbreaker26]

Just asking, if Succubi can atone you do realize that opens the door for a balor to just wander into a random village and go "Fear not, stout yeomen, I no longer wish to oppress the souls of the innocent and now intend to become a mere citizen farmer tilling a small plot of land."

[Zanos]

Thad why, before the paladin has fully investigated the situation, he shouldn't act rashly and needs to demand that the succubus surrender herself into custody, allow herself to be interrogated with all sorts of divination magic, and possibly accept a Mark of Justice. With enough magic it is possible to see if the Succubus really wants to be good. Any reformed succubus would understand why mortals would be suspicious and would be willing to go through these hassles.
That sounds like it requires a lot of time and resources, while the next hamlet over is having issues with being raided by a red dragon. You have to allocate resources in ways that are reasonable, and introducing a mind control demon to some of the more higher ranking members of my organization on the only technically existent chance she isn't Evil doesn't sound like wise allocation.

[Frosty]

Just asking, if Succubi can atone you do realize that opens the door for a balor to just wander into a random village and go "Fear not, stout yeomen, I no longer wish to oppress the souls of the innocent and now intend to become a mere citizen farmer tilling a small plot of land."nore likely the Balor would go fight his former comrades instead of wasting his time farming (he doesn't even need food). And yes, Succubi CAN atone. This is canon.
That sounds like it requires a lot of time and resources, while the next hamlet over is having issues with being raided by a red dragon. You have to allocate resources in ways that are reasonable, and introducing a mind control demon to some of the more higher ranking members of my organization on the only technically existent chance she isn't Evil doesn't sound like wise allocation.
You have a perfect first test. Ask the succubus to help you stop the red dragon. Look. The succubus can get away whenever she wants if she isn't good. She has teleport at will after all. But if she's willing to risk her own physical safety to help others? That should give Pally some good for thought.

[hamishspence]

Balors are too proud to humble themselves like that. Humility tends to be associated with good - and beings that evil are not going to be able to convincingly fake it.

[Aetis]

Has anyone mentioned the Tales of Wyre (https://leagueofimaginaryheroes.wordpress.com/2009/03/22/sepulchraves-tales-of-wyre/)?

It would be very relevant to this topic.

[Spellbreaker26]

That sounds like it requires a lot of time and resources, while the next hamlet over is having issues with being raided by a red dragon. You have to allocate resources in ways that are reasonable, and introducing a mind control demon to some of the more higher ranking members of my organization on the only technically existent chance she isn't Evil doesn't sound like wise allocation.

To be fair he could try and get an angel in to try and check her out. Though that opens the unfortunate prospect of the succubus possibly causing the angel to fall if she is indeed evil.

[Spellbreaker26]

nore likely the Balor would go fight his former comrades instead of wasting his time farming (he doesn't even need food). And yes, Succubi CAN atone. This is canon.

Why does the Balor have to fight the good fight and the Succubus gets to lay about at home? This is what I mean, fighting fellow demons is the path of atonement, not lounging about (and Succubi don't need food either).

[hamishspence]

The OP mentions that the paladin's god knows the succubus is not evil and (reluctantly) accepts this.

Getting in touch with said deity might be a little tricky - cleric with Commune spell maybe?
fighting fellow demons is the path of atonement, not lounging about
There are many ways to atone. "Helping commoners" might not be glamorous - but that doesn't mean it's not important.

[Frosty]

Why does the Balor have to fight the good fight and the Succubus gets to lay about at home? This is what I mean, fighting fellow demons is the path of atonement, not lounging about (and Succubi don't need food either). I would expect the succubus to actively fighting evil as well. I assume Succy is doing that for his community. If she isn't, someone needs to remind her that she owes it to the world.

That said, one can fight evil in more ways than physical fights. What if, using her abilities, she can end corruption by exposing leaders who are taking bribes? When a better leader is chosen, she may have helped lower the income inequality in that town.

[Zanos]

You have a perfect first test. Ask the succubus to help you stop the red dragon. Look. The succubus can get away whenever she wants if she isn't good. She has teleport at will after all. But if she's willing to risk her own physical safety to help others? That should give Pally some good for thought.
Taking unscrupulous allies into dangerous combats is a real good way to get yourself killed. Although I am imagining a slapstick where all these creatures tell the Paladin they're not Evil, only for the Paladin to form some motley band of Evil creatures who are trying to not have their cover blown as the Paladin moves to the next totally not Evil creature.

[Spellbreaker26]

The OP mentions that the paladin's god knows the succubus is not evil and (reluctantly) accepts this.

Getting in touch with said deity might be a little tricky - cleric with Commune spell maybe?
There are many ways to atone. "Helping commoners" might not be glamorous - but that doesn't mean it's not important.

*Then why can't the Balor do that*

Yeah, Balors are proud - but this entire thread is based on the assumption that demons can break stereotype. Heck, Fall-From-Grace from P:T is *chaste*.

So why can't the Balor become a farmer if he finds a way to turn the fire aura off? Could it be that it's ridiculous to imagine a murderous demon lounging around a town helping grannies cross the street? Because I think so! I think it's just what Twilight did to vampires potentially happening to demons.

[Frosty]

Taking unscrupulous allies into dangerous combats is a real good way to get yourself killed. Although I am imagining a slapstick where all these creatures tell the Paladin they're not Evil, only for the Paladin to form some motley band of Evil creatures who are trying to not have their cover blown as the Paladin moves to the next totally not Evil creature. hen ask the succubus to fight it alone. The point is, there are ways to verify her intent. And a reformed demon is a BIG DEAL. If it's true, she is a beacon of hope for many others.

[Spellbreaker26]

hen ask the succubus to fight it alone. The point is, there are ways to verify her intent. And a reformed demon is a BIG DEAL. If it's true, she is a beacon of hope for many others.

Not for other demons. If she really existed they'd burn her at the stake. I know I know, fire immunity. But they would find a way.
Because a good demon would be a total insult to their way of life and they'd find a way to stamp it out.

[Lord Raziere]

This scenario doesn't seem wise from the viewpoint a succubus seeking redemption: a bunch of random mortals isn't going to help you stay alive and redeemed. Pragmatically speaking, this shouldn't be happening for a paladin to pragmatically go and kill her in the first place. For a demon like a succubus, the only choice is to go straight to the top to get properly redeemed. You either put your chances upon the beings of pure Good letting you live and try to work to be good, or they kill you and thus you see exactly what Pure Good thinks of you trying to mend your ways.

Because pragmatically speaking, the redeemed succubus would KNOW that this kind of mortal and village thing would only lead to a paladin coming to kill her because they lived for centuries, she probably has heard tales of Succubi corrupting villages, the succubus in question while good, is still someone tempered by centuries of demonic scheming, backstabbing and whatnot. She KNOWS exactly what it means to have questionable loyalties, face paranoia because of what you are and potentially get killed because you MIGHT be working for the other side, why?

Because she is from the Abyss. Where demons constantly fight for power to rule all of hell for their own selfish gain. The demonic lords? They don't trust succubi either. They could be working for ANOTHER demonic lord and feeding info. The demonic lord your working for might send you to spy on another demonic lord. THAT demonic lord might in turn send you to spy on the demonic lord you originally are spying for. and so on and so forth. This whole discussion is talking as if the Succubi's life isn't one of constant paranoia, backstabbing and narrowly evading death because she is pretty and charming. Her first assumption on getting out should be: Paladins are going to come and kill me, no matter what I say. Anything else is being incredibly naive for a succubus.

Such a demon will recognize that: the paladins won't accept me. random village will be suspicious. Can't go back to lower planes, because I wanted to escape them and be good. Therefore her quest is to find a place to be safe at all amidst a constantly ongoing cosmic war where she is basically the lower planes version of spy/saboteur that everyone knows to never trust. Her pragmatic response would be to hide her identity anyways out of fear. Though she might disguise herself as a Tiefling. Those while outcasts are generally accepted demonic-blooded people that are tolerated, and it would provide a lot of plausibility for why she knows so much about the Lower Planes. As always, the best way to hide the truth is with a grain of it. And it gets the adventurers your traveling with get used to you over time, because lets face it: your not adventuring out of choice. Your adventuring because adventurers are the only ones crazy enough to ever potentially accept you.

When dealing with the Lower Planes, cynicism is always best after all.

[Jack_McSnatch]

It depends. If you use objective morality, there's still a cosmic war between Good and Evil. And even if they do Good, they're still physically composed of Evil, and should probably be destroyed.

By this logic, it would be an evil act to kill a fallen angel, as they are still creatures made of distilled good.

Edit: oh damn, this was late. I didn't realize we were on page 7

[Frosty]

Not for other demons. If she really existed they'd burn her at the stake. I know I know, fire immunity. But they would find a way.
Because a good demon would be a total insult to their way of life and they'd find a way to stamp it out.

Well yea, all the other demons will be tying to kill her to capture her to reconvert her to evil. That's what makes this redemption attempt even more noble (and more difficult)

[Illven]

Not for other demons. If she really existed they'd burn her at the stake. I know I know, fire immunity. But they would find a way.
Because a good demon would be a total insult to their way of life and they'd find a way to stamp it out.

Tanari are immune to electricity typically. Not fire.

Though burning at the stake wouldn't overcome her likely fire resistance.

[Frosty]

Tanari are immune to electricity typically. Not fire.

Though burning at the stake wouldn't overcome her likely fire resistance.

Succubus are immune to both fire and electricity.

[Spellbreaker26]

They'd find a way.

[hamishspence]

*Then why can't the Balor do that*

Yeah, Balors are proud - but this entire thread is based on the assumption that demons can break stereotype. Heck, Fall-From-Grace from P:T is *chaste*.

So why can't the Balor become a farmer if he finds a way to turn the fire aura off?

I was thinking more of demons faking being redeemed by pretending to have decided to take up farming.

[Spellbreaker26]

I was thinking more of demons faking being redeemed by pretending to have decided to take up farming.

No, I was totally serious. The fact that it was so ridiculous that you would assume I was joking just proves my point, a demon trying to redeem itself in so mundane a way is definitely going to get smited by a paladin.

[hamishspence]

Other way round I think - an open-minded paladin would conclude "too ridiculous for a demon to think of faking - thus more likely to be true."

The trope here would be Appeal To Audacity:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AppealToAudacity

[Troacctid]

The OP mentions that the paladin's god knows the succubus is not evil and (reluctantly) accepts this.

Getting in touch with said deity might be a little tricky - cleric with Commune spell maybe?
There are many ways to atone. "Helping commoners" might not be glamorous - but that doesn't mean it's not important.
Phylactery of Faithfulness (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm#phylacteryofFaithfulness)

[Xuldarinar]

*Then why can't the Balor do that*

Yeah, Balors are proud - but this entire thread is based on the assumption that demons can break stereotype. Heck, Fall-From-Grace from P:T is *chaste*.

So why can't the Balor become a farmer if he finds a way to turn the fire aura off? Could it be that it's ridiculous to imagine a murderous demon lounging around a town helping grannies cross the street? Because I think so! I think it's just what Twilight did to vampires potentially happening to demons.

Thing is, statistically speaking, there are balors that are.


You have an infinite number of demons, with a finite statistical probability that any given one of these demons will 'break character' to one alignment or another.

Even if there are only ω0 demons, rather than higher levels, we know there have to be. There mere presence of a succubus paladin shows there is a probability. It could be a 1 x -(10^10^10^10^100) percent chance, and the balor you described would still be inevitable.

[LoyalPaladin]

Why does the Balor have to fight the good fight and the Succubus gets to lay about at home? This is what I mean, fighting fellow demons is the path of atonement, not lounging about (and Succubi don't need food either).
I would like to watch a sitcom about a succubus that lives the life of a typical 80's housewife. I think this would be hilarious.

Succubus: My cookies burned again!
Husband: Well you can't cook them with hellfire.
*canned laughter*


They'd find a way.
If she weighs the same as a duck...


Phylactery of Faithfulness (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm#phylacteryofFaithfulness)
Seconded.

[Virdish]

Thing is, statistically speaking, there are balors that are.


You have an infinite number of demons, with a finite statistical probability that any given one of these demons will 'break character' to one alignment or another.

Even if there are only ω0 demons, rather than higher levels, we know there have to be. There mere presence of a succubus paladin shows there is a probability. It could be a 1 x -(10^10^10^10^100) percent chance, and the balor you described would still be inevitable.

In fact there are an infinite number of redeemed demons no matter how rare an occurrence it is. If there is one then there is an infinite set.

[Esprit15]

B] Sought out someone to help her master her evil side. She needs a Yoda or an uncle Iroh, but she hasn't got one unless the village has one.

The paladin should happily take up that mantle, then.

"Look, I'm not saying I trust you. I hope you're not offended by that - it's just an occupational hazard. But, you seem like you want to do Good. Now it's going to take more than not doing evil and being nice to a small town to atone for your past, but it can be done. We all have the potential for both great Good and great Evil in us, even the aligned outsiders.

How about you come with my adventuring party and me? If you truly want to become Good, then that means more than just kindness. It means being altruistic. Self sacrificing. Being a shining example of what the world ought to be."

The paladin should see this as a great opportunity, just as much as any devil would see a moment of weakness in them as a chance at his soul. If the succubus truly wants to be Good, then show them. Let some amount of time studying under a paladin and fighting alongside them stand as why they should go through the Ritual of Alignment.

Killing enemies should be the resort when there is no hope of redemption. Making an ally should be taken whenever available. If she falls in battle, she died trying to further the cause of Good. If she dies in the ritual, she was unworthy.

[Segev]

Taking unscrupulous allies into dangerous combats is a real good way to get yourself killed. Although I am imagining a slapstick where all these creatures tell the Paladin they're not Evil, only for the Paladin to form some motley band of Evil creatures who are trying to not have their cover blown as the Paladin moves to the next totally not Evil creature.This sounds like a hilariously awesome anime starring a guile hero paladin who either fakes being an innocent doofus or is openly clever but still determinedly innocent and trusting. (But verifying and frightfully insightful.)


I would like to watch a sitcom about a succubus that lives the life of a typical 80's housewife. I think this would be hilarious.

Succubus: My cookies burned again!
Husband: Well you can't cook them with hellfire.
*canned laughter*

Absent the implications that she's recovering from evil (or hiding evil tendencies), this kind-of is the plot to Bewitched.

[Zanos]

By this logic, it would be an evil act to kill a fallen angel, as they are still creatures made of distilled good.

Edit: oh damn, this was late. I didn't realize we were on page 7
I wouldn't contest that, although it depends on whether or not similar language exists that conveys that they are made of physical Good.

Thing is, statistically speaking, there are balors that are.


You have an infinite number of demons, with a finite statistical probability that any given one of these demons will 'break character' to one alignment or another.

Even if there are only ω0 demons, rather than higher levels, we know there have to be. There mere presence of a succubus paladin shows there is a probability. It could be a 1 x -(10^10^10^10^100) percent chance, and the balor you described would still be inevitable.
This isn't how infinities work. There is a set of infinite numbers that contains no odd numbers, just as there is a set of infinite demons that contains no Good demons. Since I'm assuming it takes an outsider force acting upon a Demon for it to be Good, and outside forces are non-infinite, then the number of Good demons is finite. As there are infinite demons and finite Good demons, the chance of a random demon actually being Good approaches or is equal to 0.

Furthermore, Fiendish Codex I suggests that there is an undiscovered upper limit to to the number of planes in the abyss.

Otherwise:
There is a non-zero chance that a Good demon exists.
Since infinite Demons exist, infinite Good demons exist.
There is a non-zero chance that a Good demon exists that wants to be my BFF exists.
I have infinite Demon BFFs.

[Telonius]

This sounds like a hilariously awesome anime starring a guile hero paladin who either fakes being an innocent doofus or is openly clever but still determinedly innocent and trusting. (But verifying and frightfully insightful.)

So basically a campaign starring Carrot and the Night Watch? :smallbiggrin:

[Frosty]

Hmm..why isn't a phylactey a standard class feature for a paladin? It seems so obvious...

[Hurnn]

But her actual alignment is Good. Even the deity accepts that she's good, not evil. Is it an evil act to kill a good demon?



Somehow I can picture Miko doing it... but assume Pally comes from an order of paladins that live to eliminate all demons and are made to despise all demons.

Yes. There is literally no room for debate in this with the d&D alignment system, it is very absolutist.

[Frosty]

But paladins don't fall unless they willfully commit an evil act. Does it count as willfully if the paladin didn't know it'd be an evil act?

[hamishspence]

There's always grey areas, even in D&D.

Motive for killing a good being, matters.

BoED example of a grey area "what happens when you kill a good person whose nation is at war with yours"?


However, killing a being that you know to be Good, because they also happen to be a demon - sounds to me like it would rule out certain traditionally nonevil motives. "Protecting others" doesn't really apply well. "Punishment for past crimes" is problematic when it's clear the character has no idea what those crimes are and is just guessing.
But paladins don't fall unless they willfully commit an evil act. Does it count as willfully if the paladin didn't know it'd be an evil act?

Going by the atonement spell description, "Unwittingly committing an evil act" still counts as something that might need atoning for.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/atonement.htm

[Snowbluff]

Paladins have Diplomacy (which doubles as Gather Info if we're talking about Pathfinder), so Pally should be able to hear some rumors of the awesomeness of this Succubus before attacking anyone.

As for what Pally might do, that depends on the individual person. Each paladin is different, but I think option 2 is too insane for any paladin to take. A paladin would never murder an entire town, even if he were convinced that the Succubus has charmed everyone in town. In which case he may choose to go find others who specialize in breaking enchantments.


Actually...
Arushulae (http://www.ofdiceandpen.ca/2013/12/wrath-of-righteous-demons-heresy.html) and Eludecia (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/fc/20050824a) disagree with you.

Unless they lose [evil] they still count as evil. :p

[hamishspence]

Unless they lose [evil] they still count as evil.

Only for the purposes of things like the Detect Evil spell.

[Frosty]

Actually no. A succubus paladin of exaltedness would be affected by smite evil and magic circle against evil, etc. they still count as their subtype for the purposes of game effects, regardless of their personal convictions.

They are also subject to Smite Good, magic circle against Good, etc. they've got it rough.

[Necroticplague]

I wouldn't contest that, although it depends on whether or not similar language exists that conveys that they are made of physical Good.

This isn't how infinities work. There is a set of infinite numbers that contains no odd numbers, just as there is a set of infinite demons that contains no Good demons. Since I'm assuming it takes an outsider force acting upon a Demon for it to be Good, and outside forces are non-infinite, then the number of Good demons is finite. As there are infinite demons and finite Good demons, the chance of a random demon actually being Good approaches or is equal to 0. At least you me save the trouble by pointing out the assumptions you made. What makes you think either is true? Falls-from-grace is entirely LN of her own accord, and last I checked, the Upper Planes are as infinitely big as the Lower ones.

[hamishspence]

Actually no. A succubus paladin of exaltedness would be affected by smite evil and magic circle against evil, etc. they still count as their subtype for the purposes of game effects

That was what I was thinking of as "things like the detect evil spell" - rules mechanics based.

[Frosty]

Speaking of punishment for past crimes, is a paladin allowed to just go around killing people who have committed grave crimes? Are they Judge jury and executioner assuming they are not in an uncivilized area of the world?

[Troacctid]

Speaking of punishment for past crimes, is a paladin allowed to just go around killing people who have committed grave crimes? Are they Judge jury and executioner assuming they are not in an uncivilized area of the world?
What? No! Of course not. Why would you do that?

[Frosty]

What? No! Of course not. Why would you do that?
Because other posters have used that as justification on why a succubus can be murdered even if reformed. They said that her past crimes is justification enough.

[hamishspence]

She may not even remember many of them - if we're using the "some demons were mortals who became demons after death" model.

[Frosty]

In pathfinder, most demons were once mortals, and they usually can't remember much about their mortal loves. However, they would've had many crimes done as a demon anyways.

[Necroticplague]

Speaking of punishment for past crimes, is a paladin allowed to just go around killing people who have committed grave crimes? Are they Judge jury and executioner assuming they are not in an uncivilized area of the world?

No. Acting like that shows a blatant disrespect for life not in keeping with Good, and a blatant disrespect for authority and traditions in keeping with Lawful.

As BoED points out, mercy and compassion, even for those who have wronged you, is part of good. Vengeance is not.So the most good thing is to capture them, so that they can be redeemed.

Not to mention, killing people who commit grave crimes is exactly how you get some nasty forms of undead, just to provide more pragmatic reasons to save violence until every other option is exhausted.

[Coidzor]

Thing is, statistically speaking, there are balors that are.

The much simpler alternative is that unique cases are just that. Unique.

[Spellbreaker26]

It won't make you fall though. It might not be the best possible action but killing people for committing grave crimes when there isn't a law to punish them can't be an evil act, there's no way, neutral at worst.

But the reason I put it as a point is that in a good realm it is very likely that killing fiends is not only not against the law but also that harboring them is.

I mean, honestly if you want to make a good succubus you can. (If you want to make it nearly impossible for paladins not to fall, you can do that too.) But this needs to be communicated to the players somehow because otherwise they're going to turn up with the traditional (read: sensible) view of demons and kill whatever brainwashed this village without a second thought because they weren't willing to risk their character over the minuscule possibility that a being literally made of evil from the pits of the abyss with powers specifically relating to deception has good intentions.

[Frosty]

Which is why the fiend shouldn't hide and should come clean with a good authority?

[Spellbreaker26]

Which is why the fiend shouldn't hide and should come clean with a good authority?

As an outsider the fiend should go to an angel rather than hang around a village; which as I have stated previously is hugely selfish and moronic for numerous reasons
A] It puts the villagers in danger of her
B] It potentially puts the villagers at odds with each other
C] It very likely puts the villagers in the sights of the kingdom and the church, neither of whom are going to risk anything based on the slim chance that she's good
D] It's far from the most efficient way to atone and she could be doing a lot more good on the front lines
E] It's avoiding punishment

To be honest, if someone told me about this and didn't specify that she was good I would have assumed Neutral. She isn't doing any more evil but she isn't really helping either.

[Kelb_Panthera]

BoVD is 3.0

This is non-argument. 3.0 and 3.5 are the same game. If something hasn't been updated, it still applies in its 3.0 form. I don't know why people think this is a valid argument.


I don't consider it vengeance, it's a matter of pragmatism. What are the chances this demon is actually Good? What are the consequences of letting it be? Minuscule and tremendous, respectively.

Pragmatism doesn't necessarily make an action jive with the intended alignment of the action. In the case of slaying fiends, the probability of them actually being innocent is approaching 0 to such a degree that you can get away with it but if Pally -is- wrong, he still falls just like willfully killing any other innocent. For Succy to actually be innocent stretches credibility to the point that I'd call it a GM trap but it's not stictly impossible.


Just asking, if Succubi can atone you do realize that opens the door for a balor to just wander into a random village and go "Fear not, stout yeomen, I no longer wish to oppress the souls of the innocent and now intend to become a mere citizen farmer tilling a small plot of land."

Yep. That'd be hilarious. Of course, he's still smite-fodder since he's almost certainly earned it a thousand times over but it is a thing that could happen, abusrd as it is.


Speaking of punishment for past crimes, is a paladin allowed to just go around killing people who have committed grave crimes? Are they Judge jury and executioner assuming they are not in an uncivilized area of the world?

If a Paladin is in a settlement that he does not believe to be corrupted by evil, the code calls on him to respect the local laws. If, however, obeying the law conflicts with the code or if the law-giving body is corrupted by evil then the paladin is bound by the same code to do what is right in spite of the law. His duty as a paladin supercedes any temporal authority where that authority fails to meet the standards of the cosmic forces of good and law, in that order.

In a nutshell, if the authorities fail to execute justice then the paladin becomes judge, jury, and executioner.


If a succubus is living openly in the community, any reasonable person (nevermind paladin) would conclude that the community has been corrupted by evil unless shown some -substantial- evidence to the contrary.

[Zanos]

Pragmatism doesn't necessarily make an action jive with the intended alignment of the action. In the case of slaying fiends, the probability of them actually being innocent is approaching 0 to such a degree that you can get away with it but if Pally -is- wrong, he still falls just like willfully killing any other innocent. For Succy to actually be innocent stretches credibility to the point that I'd call it a GM trap but it's not stictly impossible.
It doesn't, in fact being pragmatic to the exclusion of all else is usually Neutral to Evil. But that was part of a response to a hypothetical regarding whether or not I though it was morally correct from a real world standpoint to kill a succubus in the presented scenario.

Back to objective magic cosmic alignment, the books are pretty explicit that destroying fiends is a Good act, so I don't think the Paladin can fall for that, unless the act is both Good and Evil at the same time, which I admitted earlier in the thread was possible, but also stated making a Paladin fall for it rank of a trap.

[Frosty]

It rfeels wrong that the objective force of a good in the world would rather have a dead fiend than a good fiend.

[Zanos]

It rfeels wrong that the objective force of a good in the world would rather have a dead fiend than a good fiend.
Good...fiend? Are you confused imperial citizen? That sounds an awful lot like heresy.

[Deophaun]

In point of fact, this is not true. Even creatures whose alignment is "always <X>" are able to be swayed to other alignments, although it is vanishingly rare for this to happen (MM 305). No exemption is made to this rule for fiends and, in fact, the entry specifically mentions creatures native to planes that might predispose them to a given alignment. Between this and the half-dozen or so official examples of celestials or fiends whose alignment is contrary to, or even opposite from, their subtype; it seems patently obvious that what you've positted here is incorrect.
By RAW, yes. But... RAW is stupid.

Really, these are creatures formed of Good and Evil. When they change alignments--sincerely change alignments--it's such an impossible event that they should cease being what they are and become something new. The Demon becomes a Celestial and the Celestial becomes a Demon. The given scenario shouldn't be possible.

So yeah, my opinion on this matter is to say "screw RAW," if the Paladin comes across a good succubus, he kills the good succubus, because the good part is always an act, no matter how many i's are dotted and t's crossed in your century-long investigation. Heck, a succubus that is legitimately acting good without backstabbing others is committing evil by misleading those around her into thinking that succubae aren't necessarily evil monsters by default and they can be trusted. If that weren't true, she wouldn't be a succubus; such is the nature of their evil.

Not useful for a rules discussion, but there you go.

[Kelb_Panthera]

It rfeels wrong that the objective force of a good in the world would rather have a dead fiend than a good fiend.

Gotta stretch your mind a bit. Evil is more than just bad behavior in D&D. It is as much a physical phenomenon as gravity but it is -also- anathema to everything that is positive in mortal minds; love, mercy, respect for life, fairness and everything else of that ilk.

The physical evil that fiends are made of damage the energies that flow into and from mortal minds when they interact with these ideas. If a world is dog-piled by enough real, physical evil then the whole thing can be dragged physically into one of the lower planes where all of its inhabitants will be tormented and consumed by the natives, body and soul.

The same goes for the other three, for that matter. Each is anathema to its opposite number and too much condemns the world to oblivion on the outer planes. Some of those oblivions are more pleasant than others but it is what it is. They must be kept in balance for the sake of all mortals.

[Kelb_Panthera]

By RAW, yes. But... RAW is stupid.

Really, these are creatures formed of Good and Evil. When they change alignments--sincerely change alignments--it's such an impossible event that they should cease being what they are and become something new. The Demon becomes a Celestial and the Celestial becomes a Demon. The given scenario shouldn't be possible.

So yeah, my opinion on this matter is to say "screw RAW," if the Paladin comes across a good succubus, he kills the good succubus, because the good part is always an act, no matter how many i's are dotted and t's crossed in your century-long investigation. Heck, a succubus that is legitimately acting good without backstabbing others is committing evil by misleading those around her into thinking that succubae aren't necessarily evil monsters by default and they can be trusted. If that weren't true, she wouldn't be a succubus; such is the nature of their evil.

Not useful for a rules discussion, but there you go.

The problem with this is that, absent any indication to the contrary in the OP, we have no reason to assume the game functions any differently from how the rules say it does.

If the OP or his DM took your houserule here to be true in his game, then there would be nothing to discuss. It makes the very premise of the OP not work. You can't meet a good succubus if there's no such thing.

The rules being what they are, and being taken as such by the OP, is part of the premise of the hypothetical. If you don't like it, you don't have to participate and you certainly don't have to adopt it for your own table but saying "It doesn't work like that" when it clearly does adds nothing to the discussion.

Now, presuming that RAW -is- being run as-is in this scenario, do you have any thoughts on what a paladin would or should do when meeting a succubus that is genuinely good in-spite of her inherently evil nature?

[Eisfalken]

This is non-argument. 3.0 and 3.5 are the same game. If something hasn't been updated, it still applies in its 3.0 form. I don't know why people think this is a valid argument.

Yeah, I never got this either. The rules for updating to 3.5 even specifically stated that unless the 3.0 rules are directly contradicted or altered, they stand as-is. For you to try and dismiss something due to version number, without a clear argument to say why it was abolished or altered in 3.5, means you are in fact contradicting RAW.


Pragmatism doesn't necessarily make an action jive with the intended alignment of the action. In the case of slaying fiends, the probability of them actually being innocent is approaching 0 to such a degree that you can get away with it but if Pally -is- wrong, he still falls just like willfully killing any other innocent. For Succy to actually be innocent stretches credibility to the point that I'd call it a GM trap but it's not stictly impossible.

Total agreement here. I think the main issue here is that people think a paladin can't fail if he "means" well. Totally false. A paladin's views do not alter his divine connection, otherwise he wouldn't be held to the Lawful Good standard of behavior; he could just do whatever he wanted to, and as long as the ends justify the means, his alignment wouldn't matter.

This doesn't mean he's 100% screwed forever. Guess what? There's this little spell called atonement that allows him to get back on the straight an narrow. The downside here for you rules lawyers is that the DM has a lot of input on what he views as "fallen" behavior, and what corrects it. So arguing about this here on the forum is almost an exercise in futility: you are best served talking it out with the DM to see where their head is at on slaying a Good-aligned fiend without checking them first.

My take on this from past experience is that the paladin does still fall, but since his mistake was born out of ignorance rather than malice, the atonement isn't going to be arbitrarily difficult to deal with. For me, I'd make the paladin have to rescue some kind of "evil" offspring from a fallen celestial trying to buy his way back into grace with violence, or some other similar morality play. It should mainly be a great RP opportunity, one which can be done while moving the game adventure along (though I'd always be delighted the more a player wants to delve into the whole thing; it's how you get stories like the rather unique and interesting "lamia paladin" I read about on 1d4chan).


If a Paladin is in a settlement that he does not believe to be corrupted by evil, the code calls on him to respect the local laws. If, however, obeying the law conflicts with the code or if the law-giving body is corrupted by evil then the paladin is bound by the same code to do what is right in spite of the law. His duty as a paladin supercedes any temporal authority where that authority fails to meet the standards of the cosmic forces of good and law, in that order.

In a nutshell, if the authorities fail to execute justice then the paladin becomes judge, jury, and executioner.

On the other hand, if there is a fiend in the community and the community clearly isn't being subverted, spiritually or otherwise, then the paladin would be wise to consider the possibility that this fiend may actually be seeking some kind of redemption.

When you say this thing is a GM trap, that's not entirely accurate. First off, even since 2nd edition, there have been given examples of fiends who, through some truly unique and/or cataclysmic event, suddenly decided to seek themselves a new way of life. I recall there was even a 3rd edition succubus who did precisely that after an honest conversion through the efforts of a paladin (as in, none of this cheap sanctify the wicked crap). Is it a one-in-a-billion occurrence? Sure is. What's one-billionth of an infinite multiverse, though? This doesn't mean a paladin is damned utterly for not realizing the chance of a reformed fiend isn't mathematically 0, just means he loses his powers until he realizes that Good can overcome almost anything... including being a fiend.

Secondly, let's not forget that it is well-known that celestials go in the opposite directly themselves, falling to Evil. Saying one can occur but the other can't doesn't really make much sense, strictly speaking. Why are creatures infused with ultimate Good even able to choose something else? Because in that infinite multiverse we just spoke of, anything can and at some point will happen. In fact, this is cannon, given FC2. It doesn't mean that redeemed fiends are more common, and there could probably be something said of the fact that it seems easier for celestials to fall than it is for fiends to rise up.


If a succubus is living openly in the community, any reasonable person (nevermind paladin) would conclude that the community has been corrupted by evil unless shown some -substantial- evidence to the contrary.

Uh, yeah, it's called turn on detect evil, see if the community at large is evil, specifically the local clerics. If the local cleric of Pelor is talking to a succubus in the open, and that cleric neither scans as Evil nor has lost his powers, then chances are close to 100% you're dealing with a redeemed fiend there.

I think it really all boils down to being Lawful Good vs. Lawful Stupid. If your paladin proceeds wisely and slow, he won't make the mistake of mowing down a good creature whose only crime is being an exceptional individual. It really doesn't take a genius to figure it out. Just someone who asks the right questions before rolling initiative.

[Zanos]

Uh, yeah, it's called turn on detect evil, see if the community at large is evil, specifically the local clerics. If the local cleric of Pelor is talking to a succubus in the open, and that cleric neither scans as Evil nor has lost his powers, then chances are close to 100% you're dealing with a redeemed fiend there..
RAW, association with fiends is Evil, so (throwing out any weird fan theories about Pelor), the Cleric would actually lose his powers.

[Frosty]

Except that associating with evil to redeem them is clearly allowed. It's one of the two general exceptions.

[Deophaun]

The problem with this is that, absent any indication to the contrary in the OP, we have no reason to assume the game functions any differently from how the rules say it does.
Which is why I said it's not useful for a rules discussion. It's a normative argument of how the game should be, not how it is.

Now, presuming that RAW -is- being run as-is in this scenario, do you have any thoughts on what a paladin would or should do when meeting a succubus that is genuinely good in-spite of her inherently evil nature?
Obviously, the succubus exists to present a scenario where the paladin will fall. Thus, the succubus is committing an evil act. It is therefore permissible for the paladin to slay her. The paladin does not fall.

Maybe not completely blue text...

[Necroticplague]

RAW, association with fiends is Evil, so (throwing out any weird fan theories about Pelor), the Cleric would actually lose his powers.

The Cleric code isn't nearly as restrictive as the Paladin code. Simply an Evil act or two won't stop a cleric, as long as they remain within one step of their god. Even if associating with w fiend is an even act, it isn't a gross violation.

[Zanos]

Except that associating with evil to redeem them is clearly allowed. It's one of the two general exceptions.
Redemption specifically calls out that Outsiders with the Evil subtype can't be redeemed with the old fashioned "have a chat with them" method.

The Cleric code isn't nearly as restrictive as the Paladin code. Simply an Evil act or two won't stop a cleric, as long as they remain within one step of their god. Even if associating with w fiend is an even act, it isn't a gross violation.
Long term, knowing association is probably going to upset your deity, and may eventually be enough to shift your alignment to Evil. If the cleric wasn't NG to begin with, a single step down would break his divine connection as well.

[GilesTheCleric]

I don't think anyone has yet linked Jowgen's Redeemery (www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?410846-The-Redeemery-A-protocol-for-reliable-large-scale-conversion-from-Evil-to-Good&p=19141646&viewfull=1#post19141646), an excellent resource for some of the paladin's options in this scenario.

[Zanos]

I don't think anyone has yet linked Jowgen's Redeemery (www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?410846-The-Redeemery-A-protocol-for-reliable-large-scale-conversion-from-Evil-to-Good&p=19141646&viewfull=1#post19141646), an excellent resource for some of the paladin's options in this scenario.
One of my favorite examples of how Good is not good, actually.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Total agreement here. I think the main issue here is that people think a paladin can't fail if he "means" well. Totally false. A paladin's views do not alter his divine connection, otherwise he wouldn't be held to the Lawful Good standard of behavior; he could just do whatever he wanted to, and as long as the ends justify the means, his alignment wouldn't matter.

BoED does make it clear that intent matters when determining how an action affects a character's alignment. In this case, the intent to punish a fiend for the sins that its kind revel in the same way a pig revels in mud and to protect the townspeople it has obviously deceived when he goes in for the smite is definitely relevant. If she is, in fact, guilty of those sins that basically all demons are then being punished for that is acceptable.


This doesn't mean he's 100% screwed forever. Guess what? There's this little spell called atonement that allows him to get back on the straight an narrow. The downside here for you rules lawyers is that the DM has a lot of input on what he views as "fallen" behavior, and what corrects it. So arguing about this here on the forum is almost an exercise in futility: you are best served talking it out with the DM to see where their head is at on slaying a Good-aligned fiend without checking them first.

This is true and part of why I strongly advise any player that wishes to be a paladin to sit down with their DM before hand and hash out what idiosyncracies he has as far as such things go.

That said, there -is- a set of guidelines presented in BoVD and BoED that lay out a fairly clear picture that only gets wonky on these odd little corner cases.


My take on this from past experience is that the paladin does still fall, but since his mistake was born out of ignorance rather than malice, the atonement isn't going to be arbitrarily difficult to deal with. For me, I'd make the paladin have to rescue some kind of "evil" offspring from a fallen celestial trying to buy his way back into grace with violence, or some other similar morality play. It should mainly be a great RP opportunity, one which can be done while moving the game adventure along (though I'd always be delighted the more a player wants to delve into the whole thing; it's how you get stories like the rather unique and interesting "lamia paladin" I read about on 1d4chan).

I'd be more than a tad miffed about my paladin falling over having slain a succubus. For her to be -genuinely- innocent of the kind of actions that would warrant her head being separated from her shoulders stretches credibility -way- beyond the breaking point for me. Just being a good succubus in the first place warrants the most thorough of investigations to verify and it is a thing that -will- change unless she's a unique creature that the chaos spat out differently from all of her kind.

It -is- possible but so incredibly improbable that I don't think it's unreasonable to expect the DM to be a bit heavy-handed with the clue-by-four if he wants having her ganked to be unacceptable.


On the other hand, if there is a fiend in the community and the community clearly isn't being subverted, spiritually or otherwise, then the paladin would be wise to consider the possibility that this fiend may actually be seeking some kind of redemption.

Isn't it? Fiends are crafty buggers. Open ingratiation may simply be the first step before trying to establish a cult of Grazz't. The nature of the creature in question makes giving it the benefit of the doubt incredibly dangerous almost to the point of madness.


When you say this thing is a GM trap, that's not entirely accurate. First off, even since 2nd edition, there have been given examples of fiends who, through some truly unique and/or cataclysmic event, suddenly decided to seek themselves a new way of life. I recall there was even a 3rd edition succubus who did precisely that after an honest conversion through the efforts of a paladin (as in, none of this cheap sanctify the wicked crap). Is it a one-in-a-billion occurrence? Sure is. What's one-billionth of an infinite multiverse, though? This doesn't mean a paladin is damned utterly for not realizing the chance of a reformed fiend isn't mathematically 0, just means he loses his powers until he realizes that Good can overcome almost anything... including being a fiend.

That's not what I said. I said it -becomes- a DM trap if the paladin falls and couldn't have reasonably expected to fall even by metagame logic. We're still talking about a game here and by the rules, the creature in question would have to have subverted its very nature from the moment of its creation which is more likely by far to have happened untold eons ago than a week ago tuesday.

If the intel that informed Pally of the succubus presence didn't include something pretty serious about the situation being odd, or the townsfolk don't intervene, or the DM doesn't do some -serious- RP, or something along that line and he just lets me get to her and bring her down, only to strip my powers for the trouble. The DM and I would probably have words.

This can be done well and be a very intriguing scenario but if it's done half-cocked it's going to be unmemorable at best and cause a problem at worst. That's all I'm trying to get at.


Secondly, let's not forget that it is well-known that celestials go in the opposite directly themselves, falling to Evil. Saying one can occur but the other can't doesn't really make much sense, strictly speaking. Why are creatures infused with ultimate Good even able to choose something else? Because in that infinite multiverse we just spoke of, anything can and at some point will happen. In fact, this is cannon, given FC2. It doesn't mean that redeemed fiends are more common, and there could probably be something said of the fact that it seems easier for celestials to fall than it is for fiends to rise up.

First, I doubt it's that well known in-world. Even then, it's so rare as to be the stuff of legends even amongst the celestials themselves. I've never said that either can't happen; just that it's so vanishingly rare as to be incredible for the purpose of giving it much weight when making a decision, absent any other mitigating factors.


Uh, yeah, it's called turn on detect evil, see if the community at large is evil, specifically the local clerics. If the local cleric of Pelor is talking to a succubus in the open, and that cleric neither scans as Evil nor has lost his powers, then chances are close to 100% you're dealing with a redeemed fiend there.

Useful idiots are useful and idiotic. Smart fiends shift people towards their ethical part of the alignment spectrum before trying to move them to evil.

People that are lost to hedonism and apathy to others' well-being, even if they would normally never hurt anyone, is like a powder keg waiting for a spark. One trigger event could bring the whole thing crashing into anarchy and blood-shed.

People that are unflinchingly obedient to any idea, even one spun as being for the greater good, can be swayed to do truly monstrous things with relative ease.


I think it really all boils down to being Lawful Good vs. Lawful Stupid. If your paladin proceeds wisely and slow, he won't make the mistake of mowing down a good creature whose only crime is being an exceptional individual. It really doesn't take a genius to figure it out. Just someone who asks the right questions before rolling initiative.

I don't disagree but at the same time there's nothing stupid about killing a fiend 99.9999999999999% of the time. That's honestly not nearly enough 9's but there's a character limit. To be punished for something that is so obviously sensible without some significant mitigating factor is just bad DM'ing.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Which is why I said it's not useful for a rules discussion. It's a normative argument of how the game should be, not how it is.

The underlined is your subjective opinion. I strongly disagree. The rules as they are create an interesting framework from which to tell exactly the kind of stories those two books were created to facilitate and these odd little corner cases make for some very interesting exploration of the objective morality posed by the game.

That said, there are very few aspects of the game on which there is nigh-unanimous consensus on what the rules -should- be and so arguing from a position of what should be doesn't hold much weight unless you're talking about something like drown-healing or monks being proficient with unarmed strikes.

The reason we stick to RAW is because it's a baseline we don't have to agree on. It's what's written, like it or not, and it's what -everyone- has available to start from. If you want to make specific exceptions, say so in the OP of a thread. If you want to say something is not to your taste and you think it ought to be different, say that rather than making a spurious claim about what actually is.

EDIT:

How do I keep hitting these lulls in the flow of the conversation. :smallannoyed: I'm not -trying- to double post.

[Frosty]

Kelb, I agree that this needs to be a carefully crafted RP encounter with multiple opportunities for the paladin to think, "Hmm...this situation seems different than the others. Fiends don't generally act in this manner."

And perhaps, if the paladin gave it thorough thought but still made the wrong decision, perhaps even then it's not a Fall, but some agent of the good deity comes down and lectures the paladin and then gives the paladin a quest to restore the succubus? Instant plot hook!

[Seto]

Has anyone mentioned the Tales of Wyre (https://leagueofimaginaryheroes.wordpress.com/2009/03/22/sepulchraves-tales-of-wyre/)?

It would be very relevant to this topic.

My thought exactly.
OP, you're basically describing the premise of the Tales of Wyre. A Paladin meets a Succubus who claims to repent. He refers to his superiors, which sparks a schism in his Church, and this one event actually ripples into the entire multiverse turning on its head.
What starts out as your dilemma quickly turns into a fantasy book, or even series of books. The world-building is spectacularly complex (with a monotheistic society and a lot of attention paid to extraplanar intrigues, it varies quite a lot from your standard D&D world). The story has a clear theological and philosophical bent, though, and goes into mysticism in much detail. I happen to enjoy it and think it's a fascinating read, but it's not everyone's thing.

The answer to the OP, in a nutshell, being: if he's a true Paladin, he'll recognize the Goodness of whatever Good creature he meets and respect it.

[VoxRationis]

Isn't it? Fiends are crafty buggers. Open ingratiation may simply be the first step before trying to establish a cult of Grazz't. The nature of the creature in question makes giving it the benefit of the doubt incredibly dangerous almost to the point of madness.

This is very true. Where does everyone think these demon-worshipping apocalypse cults come from, anyway? They don't start with the elevator pitch "Have you ever felt like you could use more hellfire in your life?" Succubi are glamorous, and the idea of them being good is so attractive (mostly because they are attractive—we see similar things with other lovely monsters like vampires and drow) that a whole sort of subgenre regarding the concept has appeared, and they're not even real. Such is their power of seduction. In D&D, detection-fooling magic and demon lords smart enough to understand the concept of a "sleeper agent" are both more common than redeemed fiends. A paladin really questioning whether the succubus is evil or not should suggest exile to some plane where it can't get up to any mischief, but allowing it to continue to exist in a village with minimal oversight is astoundingly stupid.

[Snowbluff]

I think cleric's get significantly more leeway than paladins. They can be a whole step away from their deity in alignment, right?

My thought exactly.
OP, you're basically describing the premise of the Tales of Wyre. A Paladin meets a Succubus who claims to repent. He refers to his superiors, which sparks a schism in his Church, and this one event actually ripples into the entire multiverse turning on its head.
What starts out as your dilemma quickly turns into a fantasy book, or even series of books. The world-building is spectacularly complex (with a monotheistic society and a lot of attention paid to extraplanar intrigues, it varies quite a lot from your standard D&D world). The story has a clear theological and philosophical bent, though, and goes into mysticism in much detail. I happen to enjoy it and think it's a fascinating read, but it's not everyone's thing.


Proposal: Don't read it. If it causes such a mess, the obvious solution is to kill the succubus immediately in order to prevent such an incident. Even if you fall, you've cut the Gordian Knot, and you'd be remiss not to.

[Necroticplague]

Personal feelings on likelihood of a fiend being in a society and not be up to no good. :
Fiends are sapient organisms. As a result, they can perform basic reasoning. Because they can do this, they can be made to realize compliance with a society's rules benefits them, if only from an entirely selfish viewpoint (i.e, "If I hold off on murdering people on a whim, I get protection from others killing me on a whim!"). As a result, even if they are Evil, it's entirely reasonable to live within a society and not actively harming it, because doing so benefits the fiend. As long as the society is such that violations and rewards are sufficiently certain/beneficial, it's easy to integrate any manner of sapient creatures in society in a positive manner. It's a bit harder for ones that can't do much in the way of reasoning, but conditioning can perform much of the same effect. Since foocubi aren't particularly powerful evil creatures, an average village shouldn't have much trouble with this,for the ones that lack the means to deal with such a minor threat as this would be wiped out by how vicious and dangerous some hostile non-sapients can be.

[Frosty]

umm...I think you underestimate succubi. In some ways hey are the most dangerous fiends. Most fiends can only kill you. A succubus can manipulate you into losing your soul or worse.

[137beth]

Sounds like a good way to eventually fall. Anyway, if good demons are possible, this fiend hunter order should know about this phenomenon. I mean, if Succy is one in a thousand. Although, if she is one in a billion, it's practically different. Still, it is not really philosophically different. Pally is still assaulting an innocent person, and a Good innocent even. That's how you fall. Because it's evil.

And... Destroying the town? Seriously, does Pally really need Blackguard levels or something??
A lot of people can't seem to distinguish between Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil...

umm...I think you underestimate succubi. In some ways hey are the most dangerous fiends. Most fiends can only kill you. A succubus can manipulate you into losing your soul or worse.
But presumably a good succubus wouldn't:smallconfused:

[Kelb_Panthera]

Personal feelings on likelihood of a fiend being in a society and not be up to no good. :
Fiends are sapient organisms. As a result, they can perform basic reasoning. Because they can do this, they can be made to realize compliance with a society's rules benefits them, if only from an entirely selfish viewpoint (i.e, "If I hold off on murdering people on a whim, I get protection from others killing me on a whim!"). As a result, even if they are Evil, it's entirely reasonable to live within a society and not actively harming it, because doing so benefits the fiend. As long as the society is such that violations and rewards are sufficiently certain/beneficial, it's easy to integrate any manner of sapient creatures in society in a positive manner. It's a bit harder for ones that can't do much in the way of reasoning, but conditioning can perform much of the same effect. Since foocubi aren't particularly powerful evil creatures, an average village shouldn't have much trouble with this,for the ones that lack the means to deal with such a minor threat as this would be wiped out by how vicious and dangerous some hostile non-sapients can be.

Given the state of reality, I'm going to conclude that while this conceivably -could- happen, it's definitely not something to anticipate. Humans, who have no particular tendency toward chaos or evil as a race, can't even reliably act in such a reasonable manner when emotional response overwhelms critical faculties.

Here we're talking about a being whose very physical makeup is comprised of the very energies generated by dark deeds and mayhem who was born/created to tempt basically anything temptable into self-destruction. They're described as having difficulty containing their urges to create some mayhem and horror now for the sake of creating lots later. Everything that they are pushes them to be the very antithesis of a paladin. It's gonna take a -lot- more than a bit of logic to keep one in control of themself.

Worse, they don't actually need anything from the community. They don't require food and their natural resistances make exposure mostly a non-issue. I'm reminded of the proverb, "Idle hands are the devil's playthings." If she's not getting near constant positive reinforcement, temptation will start taking heavy swings at her and basic survival needs aren't gonna cut it.


umm...I think you underestimate succubi. In some ways hey are the most dangerous fiends. Most fiends can only kill you. A succubus can manipulate you into losing your soul or worse.

In fairness, that's mostly just demons. Most devils that have an int score want to get you damned before they arrange your death barring special circumstances. Yugoloths do whatever is most pragmatic to thier larger goals.

[Snowbluff]

umm...I think you underestimate succubi. In some ways hey are the most dangerous fiends. Most fiends can only kill you. A succubus can manipulate you into losing your soul or worse.

I think most demons and devils have a good abilities for manipulation.

[Xar Zarath]

if you want some ideas on how to RP this redemption thing, look to none other than Tales of Wyre by Sepulchrave.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?58227-Tales-of-Wyre

At first it starts out with the whole redemption aspect but then turns it up to 11 with wars, demons and gods.

Other than that, I would say yes the succubus can be redeemed if the demon wants to be redeemed and the pally is willing. Makes for a great campaign beginning.

[Snowbluff]

At first it starts out with the whole redemption aspect but then turns it up to 11 with wars, demons and gods.


Eleven wars. Kill the succubus.

[Deophaun]

The underlined is your subjective opinion. I strongly disagree.
No, it's not. A normative argument is an argument about should:

adjective
1.
of or relating to a norm, especially an assumed norm regarded as the standard of correctness in behavior, speech, writing, etc.
2.
tending or attempting to establish such a norm, especially by the prescription of rules:
normative grammar.
3.
reflecting the assumption of such a norm or favoring its establishment:
a normative attitude.
You can disagree with the argument, but you don't get to disagree about what the argument is.

Well, I guess you would be making a normative argument about the normative argument... but that still doesn't change the definition of normative.

The rules as they are create an interesting framework from which to tell exactly the kind of stories those two books were created to facilitate and these odd little corner cases make for some very interesting exploration of the objective morality posed by the game.
Actually, it's very narrow: everything is anthropomorphized to a fault. You see the same blinkered statement about how sapience or sentience means free will when it's based entirely on an observable sample size of one with no actual reflection, no questioning. As such, there is nothing to explore what it means to be the physical embodiment of an ideal: you can just throw "wuv" or "hat" or "sawwrow" into the mix and get whatever the heck you want out the end. Good succubae! Evil solars! Apathetic demons! Because they're just like people!

Boring.

That said, there are very few aspects of the game on which there is nigh-unanimous consensus on what the rules -should- be
Hence the use of the word "argument." Do you know how English works?

[Necroticplague]

It's gonna take a -lot- more than a bit of logic to keep one in control of themself. Obviously. That's why the punishment/reward structure needs to exist.


Worse, they don't actually need anything from the community. They don't require food and their natural resistances make exposure mostly a non-issue. I'm reminded of the proverb, "Idle hands are the devil's playthings."
There are benefits a society can provide beyond basic survival needs. Like the fact that they can be protected under the law, which is a major advantage compared to constantly having to constantly guard everything they consider 'theirs' themselves. And similarly, being part of a society can give you accesses to more resources, like information or lower cost materials. Easier to do an honest days work and store the proceeds in your house than to steal the money, and then forever have to remain vigilant of reprisal or having it stolen from you in turn.