Setting the Tone (Vol. 1): The Pit Fiend Versus a Level 1 Party

[Derpaligtr]

I'm out.

Don't want to deal with this site anymore :smallsigh:

[Greywander]

Keep all the Pit Fiend's stats and abilities the same, there is no need to change them. Players may think that you've downgraded the pit fiend, gave it 1 hp, or set the encounter up to be winnable via combat in some ridiculous way... Nope.
Not via combat, but you've set up a clear way to "beat" the encounter. The players may or may not catch on and play along, but the fact is, all you've done is lay down a railroad for them to follow. If they encounter another pit fiend later on, nothing they learned from this encounter will help them.

Something I'd rather see is an open-ended situation where the PCs have plenty of tools at their disposal to use to win an "impossible" fight. Have them collapse structures, use traps against their enemies, or otherwise fight smarter not harder. Heck, give them a village of 4 HP commoners, maybe 20 or 30 of them, and let the party train and equip them to help defend the town against either a horde of monsters or one big monster.

[Derpaligtr]

Not via combat, but you've set up a clear way to "beat" the encounter. The players may or may not catch on and play along, but the fact is, all you've done is lay down a railroad for them to follow. If they encounter another pit fiend later on, nothing they learned from this encounter will help them.

Something I'd rather see is an open-ended situation where the PCs have plenty of tools at their disposal to use to win an "impossible" fight. Have them collapse structures, use traps against their enemies, or otherwise fight smarter not harder. Heck, give them a village of 4 HP commoners, maybe 20 or 30 of them, and let the party train and equip them to help defend the town against either a horde of monsters or one big monster.

You don't do the same thing over and over, as I pointed out under the WARNING section.

This is an early on teaching encounter that shows not everything is a bag of HP to be slaughtered. You can't teach that lesson if you allow it to be a bag of hp that can be slaughtered like you're suggesting.

Anything can be a rail road, if that is what you want to call it. Forcing PCs into encounters is a rail road. Allowing characters to get out of encounters can be a railroad. Besides, a railroad is only used as a negative term if it isn't fun or interesting.

All published materials or games with an overarching plot are technically railroads (basically any non-sandbox game), but the way you spruce up the encounters between point A and B makes it ok to be on those tracks.

The issue with your example is that it boils down to "bag of HP". You aren't teaching them that combat isn't the only solution. Actually, you're teaching them that combat is the only solution. Sometimes, you need to use your head and not fight. Sometimes you need to use your head and run away. Sometimes you need to sacrifice something or someone. Combat is not the only solution to a role playing game.

[Greywander]

This is an early on teaching encounter that shows not everything is a bag of HP to be slaughtered.
Ah, okay, now it makes a bit more sense. I was thinking in terms of, "you can't just attack every monster because you will die. You have to be smart about dealing with powerful monsters." What you're aiming for is a different, yet related lesson, "combat isn't always the answer, or at least not the only answer."

[MaxWilson]

Example Boon: As a reaction to taking the attack action you may quickly stow your weapon, if any, and pull you your instrument for a quick solo. You may choose to stow your instrument after the quick solo (think Bill and Ted doing the Air Guitar with the music but your character pulls out an instrument).

*nasty evil DM grin*

Give them the chance to join a diabolical cult and gain a diabolical boon from Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes. Like for instance Mephistopheles' crazy-strong cult boon: advantage on saves vs. spells and temp HP equal to the spell's level whenever you save successfully against a spell.

Naturally there are strings attached: they may occasionally be asked to do certain things in order to remain in favor with the cult.

[JackPhoenix]

You aren't teaching them combat isn't the only solution either. You're teaching them that they have to do as you say, or else. You spring riddiculously powerful enemy on them without warning, punish them if they try to do anything but the one single allowed action, and don't even have the ***** to kill them if they decide to attack anyway, to the point of cheating to have them survive (because a single attack from a pit fiend can easily do enough damage to instagib level 1 character through massive damage, not to mention the suggestion that 5d10 damage from the Geas will never kill the characters). It's a GM power trip with no option for creative solutions, no chance to retreat or avoid the encounter.

The players may not even be familiar with Tenacious D.

And forcing the *players* to sing? That's outright crime against humanity.

[Derpaligtr]

Ah, okay, now it makes a bit more sense. I was thinking in terms of, "you can't just attack every monster because you will die. You have to be smart about dealing with powerful monsters." What you're aiming for is a different, yet related lesson, "combat isn't always the answer, or at least not the only answer."

Yeah. The biggest problem with D&D is that it is mostly a combat game that rewards combat... But then throws a little bit of other stuff in there. Many people (coughDMscough) want that other stuff to be a bigger part of the game... But... When creating characters the players are conditioned that combat is like 75% of the game.

At the first or second levels of each class, how many classes get features that spefifically have no combat related abilities?

The Druid gets Druidic, the ranger gets favored enemy and natural explorer, and the rogue gets theives cant...

The Ranger is considered bad by many because all it gets at first level are these options. Maybe every class should only gets ribbon/non-combat options at first level...

Side Note: If Jack of All Trades didn't apply to combat related skills (Athletics, Acrobatics, Hide, Perception, etc...) I would add it on the above list. It's on the fence and a weird feature.

So, just creating a character conditions players that combat is king.

Which is fine if you want it to be. However many DMs don't and you need a way to set the tone :smallcool.



*nasty evil DM grin*

Give them the chance to join a diabolical cult and gain a diabolical boon from Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes. Like for instance Mephistopheles' crazy-strong cult boon: advantage on saves vs. spells and temp HP equal to the spell's level whenever you save successfully against a spell.

Naturally there are strings attached: they may occasionally be asked to do certain things in order to remain in favor with the cult.



"Oh yes" - Professor Farnsworth



You aren't teaching them combat isn't the only solution either. You're teaching them that they have to do as you say, or else. You spring riddiculously powerful enemy on them without warning, punish them if they try to do anything but the one single allowed action, and don't even have the ***** to kill them if they decide to attack anyway, to the point of cheating to have them survive (because a single attack from a pit fiend can easily do enough damage to instagib level 1 character through massive damage, not to mention the suggestion that 5d10 damage from the Geas will never kill the characters). It's a GM power trip with no option for creative solutions, no chance to retreat or avoid the encounter.

The players may not even be familiar with Tenacious D.

And forcing the *players* to sing? That's outright crime against humanity.

You would only be right if this is the only sort of encounter you send at them.

You do not do that. I point this out.

Sometimes you need to get in line and do what you're told. Sometimes you need to be sneaky. Sometimes you need to use brute force. You always need to use your head and judge each situation differently. This shows you will not always be sending bags of HP at the players.

Side note, the Pit Fiend is allowed to hold back their melee attacks and not kill.

Knocking a Creature Out
"Sometimes an attacker wants to incapacitate a foe, rather than deal a killing blow. When an attacker reduces a creature to 0 hit points with a melee attack, the attacker can knock the creature out. The attacker can make this choice the instant the damage is dealt. The creature falls Unconscious and is stable."

The pit fiend doesn't have to kill them. He wants "the best song in the world" for whatever reason and killing everyone in the world doesn't get him the best song in the world. Maybe the Pit Fiend is working alone and had a prophecy that this group would create the "best song in the world".

You don't need to be a fan of tanacious to know the troupe of "versus the devil". Pops up in pop culture from time to time.

[JackPhoenix]

You would only be right if this is the only sort of encounter you send at them.

You do not do that. I point this out.

Sometimes you need to get in line and do what you're told. Sometimes you need to be sneaky. Sometimes you need to use brute force. You always need to use your head and judge each situation differently. This shows you will not always be sending bags of HP at the players.

Here's the thing: your scenario doesn't give the players a chance to use their heads. They'll either go with the only allowed option, or get punished, no matter what they try... no chance to run, no hope to win a fight, no option to "get sneaky"... you've even underlined the last part. They don't get a warning that they may meet the devil if they go that road (in which case, whatever happens is on them if they'll go there anyway), he'll just appear out of nowhere. Even worse, they'll arbitrary fail at whatever unrelated task they currently are working on.

Even Johnny had the choice of declining the bet when he met the Devil in Georgia.


Side note, the Pit Fiend is allowed to hold back their melee attacks and not kill.

"Massive damage can kill you instantly. When damage reduces you to 0 hit points and there is damage remaining, you die if the remaining damage equals or exceeds your hit point maximum."

There's no choice about that. The pit fiend may want to knock them out, but if they take twice their max HP in damage (assuming they weren't injured before), they'll die anyway.

[Derpaligtr]

Here's the thing: your scenario doesn't give the players a chance to use their heads. They'll either go with the only allowed option, or get punished, no matter what they try... no chance to run, no hope to win a fight, no option to "get sneaky"... you've even underlined the last part. They don't get a warning that they may meet the devil if they go that road (in which case, whatever happens is on them if they'll go there anyway), he'll just appear out of nowhere. Even worse, they'll arbitrary fail at whatever unrelated task they currently are working on.

Even Johnny had the choice of declining the bet when he met the Devil in Georgia.



"Massive damage can kill you instantly. When damage reduces you to 0 hit points and there is damage remaining, you die if the remaining damage equals or exceeds your hit point maximum."

There's no choice about that. The pit fiend may want to knock them out, but if they take twice their max HP in damage (assuming they weren't injured before), they'll die anyway.

They do have a choice. Try to act as if this encounter is a bag of HP, fail, and go on with their adventure but with some sort of black mark on their resume.

Or learn that not all encounters are bags of hp.

Sometimes there is only one way to win an encounter, sometimes there are more ways. Sometimes encounters are just bags of HP. Sometimes encounters are not.

However, if you don't set the tone that some encounters are not bags of HP, then it's your fault if your players assume that all encounters are bags of HP.


Instant Death

"Massive damage can kill you instantly. When damage reduces you to 0 hit points and there is damage remaining, you die if the remaining damage equals or exceeds your hit point maximum."

Knocking a creature out

"Sometimes an attacker wants to incapacitate a foe, rather than deal a killing blow. When an attacker reduces a creature to 0 hit points with a melee attack, the attacker can knock the creature out. The attacker can make this choice the instant the damage is dealt. The creature falls unconscious and is stable."

Knocking a creature out is specifically when a creature doesn't want to kill/instantly kill another creature.

Unless you want to say that it's impossible for high powered creatures or heroes to knock other creatures out instead of killing them? Which makes no sense... This rule is specifically there to prevent killing.

[Armored Walrus]

I'll say one thing in the favor of this sample "encounter." It would be a swift way to weed out any players that aren't compatible with your GM style...

[PhoenixPhyre]

My question is what narrative purpose does this serve? What, in-universe, is going on that a pit fiend (who in most D&D universes can't just wander the mortal plane at will) will show up in front of a low-level, obscure (because they're basically apprentices) party and do this particular thing? It doesn't fit the pit fiend (who has better things to do, can't be there in the first place, would be disinclined to serve as a set-piece lesson). Unless handled exactly, it's likely to come across as super-heavy-handed railroading (do what I want, no matter how illogical, or die instantly). In any party I've been in, it would prompt player rebellion.

Let's take a different set of examples, these ones that I've really done to prove this same lesson.

First was the mantiwyvern (a modified wyvern with manticore spikes). The party was escorting a caravan of goods (including some spare oxen) to a town. The mantiwyvern stoops down on them. When in range, it throws a spike (numbers carefully calibrated to not instantly kill) at a party member (based on who it considers the biggest threat) and then focuses on one of the oxen. If they can knock it down to half health or annoy it enough (using abilities, intimidation, etc) or so before it can kill and drag away an ox, it leaves empty handed.

This is designed to teach them that not everything is in their league, that not everything will fight to the death, and about death saving throws.

Second was a cave yeti (a dire yeti modified to be more forest, less snow). It's sleeping in a cave on some shiny stuff as they walk by. From the outside they can hear it snoring. If they just walk by, nothing happens. If they wake it up, it takes a few turns stretching, yawning, and licking its lips hungrily. If they flee, it will chase them for a bit and then go back to sleep (since it was in hibernation).

This is to reinforce that not everything must be fought. If they're quiet, they can sneak in and grab some treasure. If they're morons (like the one character that's died to this) and go challenge it to single combat, they die. After multiple "are you sure?" warnings.

To me, these feel much more natural parts of the world. The only artifice is the design of the mantiwyvern's spikes to cap at one fewer than twice the max health of any party member (and the decision to ignore any crits it rolls). But that's not mentioned. And if they ran into that mantiwyvern again, it would still have the same stats as before.

[strangebloke]

Here's how you teach players something:

Empty room with a sleeping dragon. They can leave him alone. He's not causing trouble. He's huge though, and he's got a big shiny gem between his mits. Be sure to describe this guy as huge and terrifying. If they're wise, they'll leave him alone. If they're not, he'll beat them up and then leave.

-or-

Weird, alien creatures that are nonagressive, but can't speak any of the normal languages and are freaky looking as heck. If they kill them, they get no loot, and later find out that the freaks were part of a peaceful species of creatures that sometimes frequent the area, and whose help the players now need. They'll be able to figure something out but it won't be as fun.

-or-

The wildmen that are attacking the village are only doing so because a wizard took a bunch of hostages. If they take the time to figure that out, they can get the help of the wildmen when assaulting the lair of the ultra-powerful wizard Calizan the Wretched.


These are good 'lessons' because:
If the players know how your campaign works and don't need the 'lesson' they won't get punished.
The punishment/reward is significant enough for the players to feel it, but not bad enough to end the campaign.
The punishment is only inflicted if they make certain choices, not if they fail to do specific things.


Your 'lesson' is just a power trip. 'Massive Demon Appears from nowhere and geases the party' is one of the poopiest campaign prompts ever.

[Derpaligtr]

I'll say one thing in the favor of this sample "encounter." It would be a swift way to weed out any players that aren't compatible with your GM style...

For as bad as this sounds, more groups could probably use that.

I've seen way too many groups utterly implode because one or two players became toxic after not liking the tone of the game. Too much hack n slash, even when they were told it would be hack n slash... Or too much exploration when they were told it wouldn't be hack n slash.

I think most players would be flexible enough, but the ones that are really problematic would be the ones you want to get rid of... However you may also show a player a new way to play the game that they really like. Perhaps all the previous times they tried something other than their prefered style, the DM or group just sucked (yes, that can be a thing, people sometimes just suck at being a group... The horror stories, omg the horror stories that I have...).

D&D is a social game, if you aren't on board with the group, then bad times are typically coming if you can't play the game that the group is running.

I'm under the assumption that a DM would inform players the type of game they will be running and this encounter is teaching them said type. If you told the group you are only running hack n slash, that's what you should do unless you talk to them before hand about not running primarily hack n slash.


My question is what narrative purpose does this serve? What, in-universe, is going on that a pit fiend (who in most D&D universes can't just wander the mortal plane at will) will show up in front of a low-level, obscure (because they're basically apprentices) party and do this particular thing? It doesn't fit the pit fiend (who has better things to do, can't be there in the first place, would be disinclined to serve as a set-piece lesson). Unless handled exactly, it's likely to come across as super-heavy-handed railroading (do what I want, no matter how illogical, or die instantly). In any party I've been in, it would prompt player rebellion.



I already answered the in universe question in my original post. Make something up or use my example.

[JackPhoenix]

They do have a choice. Try to act as if this encounter is a bag of HP, fail, and go on with their adventure but with some sort of black mark on their resume.

Or learn that not all encounters are bags of hp.

Sometimes there is only one way to win an encounter, sometimes there are more ways. Sometimes encounters are just bags of HP. Sometimes encounters are not.

However, if you don't set the tone that some encounters are not bags of HP, then it's your fault if your players assume that all encounters are bags of HP.

I never said anything about bags of HP, you did.

Even if it was the GM's fault (and it is not, it's on players if they want to fight everything), your suggestion doesn't help with that. At all.

Running away, negotiating, tricking it, or trying to avoid encountering the fiend in the first place... those (and more) are all valid options that don't treat the encounter like "bag of HP", but like a scary, powerful fiend it is. Your scenario explicitly forbid those and punishes the players for taking any of those options instead of following your power trip. What if the group has a paladin who swore an oath to fight fiends anywhere they appear? What if none of the characters knows anything or cares about music? What if they want to react in the perfectly natural way, and run away from the big, scary devil? They'll fail, because you force a false choice on them, punish them for acting in character, and propably gloat how they are bad players because they failed in your "lesson", which teaches them that everything is either bag of HP, or a GM power trip where they can't do anything but obey your orders.

Strangeblocke above has much better ideas to present that lesson than you.

[strangebloke]

More to the point, your pit fiend absolutely is just a giant ball of stats, at least as I'd define it. He's an arbitrarily large ball of stats, sure, but still, a ball of stats.

Why is he there? Why does he want the greatest song? Why is he trying to make them agree on a song????

Those are all just threads hanging in the void with no explanation. He's a statblock with no character.

A monster that isn't just a giant stat ball has things like motivation, worldview, traits, bonds, flaws, and quirks.

---

Here's a Balor I used in my last campaign:

Name: Creed
Like all devils he seeks to ascend higher into the hierarchy of the hells, and his chosen method for this is by a careful study of anthropology. He loves, humans, you see, and if he knows their limits and better understands what they want? Well, that makes him all the more effective at temptation. He usually appears as a tall, yellow-eyed human with long, curling purple locks and vertical eye slits. He does not believe in deception, preferring to be excedingly clear about what he's offering.

When Creed shows up with a deal, you'll know what you're getting into. And you'll sign up anyway.

Creed is fond of utilizing hope as a focus for torment. His prisoners will frequently 'escape' only to be caught when they are just upon the cusp of freedom. He savors the exquisite despair of shattered hope as one might a fine vintage.

[KorvinStarmast]

And forcing the *players* to sing? That's outright crime against humanity. I love to sing.

The Druid gets Druidic, the ranger gets favored enemy and natural explorer, and the rogue gets theives cant... My Ranger has kept us from getting lost in Chult. ToA. Natural terrain is forest. (Jungle/forest are equivalent so far) Our cleric gives me guidance cantrip, and then I try to find our way. I already have advantage on Wisdom(Survival) checks in forests. Guidance is a nice sweetner, though. (Water is the bloody problem now and again, however.
My natural enemy is giant. (I did this for back story reasons. Had I designed this ranger specifically to do Chult/ToA, I'd have made natural enemy undead due to the plague of undead in the jungles of Chult in that campaign).

When we were first level, DM rolled a random encounter in the jungle: a cyclops.
My ranger skill helped us figure out "he can crush any of us with a single blow" (I later checked MM, yeah, that bag of HP would have destroyed us). After we evaded / avoided the encounter, I asked my party if they wanted to track the cyclops and see if we could trap it/defeat it. After a discussion, we decided that our original mission/quest was more important. Maybe if we run into him again as 2d or 3d level we'll get another go at a cyclops .... )

The Ranger is considered bad by many because all it gets at first level are these options. See above.
So, just creating a character conditions players that combat is king.Yes. But you don't have to be lazy and accept a restriction to play style. We don't.

I'll say one thing in the favor of this sample "encounter." It would be a swift way to weed out any players that aren't compatible with your GM style... Good observation.

Here's how you teach players something:
Empty room with a sleeping dragon. They can leave him alone. He's not causing trouble. He's huge though, and he's got a big shiny gem between his mits. Be sure to describe this guy as huge and terrifying. If they're wise, they'll leave him alone. If they're not, he'll beat them up and then leave.

-or-

Weird, alien creatures that are nonagressive, but can't speak any of the normal languages and are freaky looking as heck. If they kill them, they get no loot, and later find out that the freaks were part of a peaceful species of creatures that sometimes frequent the area, and whose help the players now need. They'll be able to figure something out but it won't be as fun.

-or-

The wildmen that are attacking the village are only doing so because a wizard took a bunch of hostages. If they take the time to figure that out, they can get the help of the wildmen when assaulting the lair of the ultra-powerful wizard Calizan the Wretched.


These are good 'lessons' because:
If the players know how your campaign works and don't need the 'lesson' they won't get punished.
The punishment/reward is significant enough for the players to feel it, but not bad enough to end the campaign.
The punishment is only inflicted if they make certain choices, not if they fail to do specific things.


Your 'lesson' is just a power trip. 'Massive Demon Appears from nowhere and geases the party' is one of the poopiest campaign prompts ever. Golf Clap.

[JackPhoenix]

I love to sing.

Nobody said the singing player is the victim.

[Demonslayer666]

Or you could just tell them in Session 0 that not all encounters are meant to be solved with combat.

[Armored Walrus]

But that would fail to teach your players that encounters have only one solution, which sometimes won't be combat, but surely will be whatever the DM thinks is the "right" way to beat the encounter. If one is going to run a "there can be only one solution" campaign, it's best to let players know in the first session - but definitely not in session zero, before they spend all their time ignoring weak classes like the ranger because they need to be good at combat.

[Unoriginal]

That whole "bag of HPs" thing is getting weirder and weirder by the week.

[Specter]

Another way to do that, though a much simpler one, is to have the players face something like a Dire Wolf. Then, before the "boss fight", they see the boss tearing up three dire wolves without any effort. If they don't realize this isn't a combat encounter, then it's time for another sheet.

[Unoriginal]

Another way to do that, though a much simpler one, is to have the players face something like a Dire Wolf. Then, before the "boss fight", they see the boss tearing up three dire wolves without any effort. If they don't realize this isn't a combat encounter, then it's time for another sheet.

So this?


https://youtu.be/-c3Sepw0ozY

The Worf Effect can work a bit, but you have to be careful.

[Derpaligtr]

Or you could just tell them in Session 0 that not all encounters are meant to be solved with combat.

Some (if not a lot) of players don't know what that means, in real practice.

Even this thread has people trying to explain how to teach that lesson by getting characters into combat. Which is the exact opposite of "not all encounters are meant to be solved with combat".

[JNAProductions]

I'll say this: It does show that combat is not the only way to win.

I'll also say this: This doesn't seem fun or good at all.

There's no warnings, there's only one solution, and it's probably going to be highly out of place. So... Yeah. I'd recommend looking at what others have suggested-make more open-ended scenarios, not one-way paths.

[Derpaligtr]

I'll say this: It does show that combat is not the only way to win.

I'll also say this: This doesn't seem fun or good at all.

There's no warnings, there's only one solution, and it's probably going to be highly out of place. So... Yeah. I'd recommend looking at what others have suggested-make more open-ended scenarios, not one-way paths.

You don't need a warning. If they fail, they fall forward, and get to try again or go about their business.

If their characters had a chance of death upon failure or if the game would grind to a halt... Then I get your point. However, upon failure, they get to continue with some new plot hooks or some old plot hooks get changed in some way.

Sorry, but this doesn't end in TPK or loss of cool items or whatever else... No warning is needed. It can even be set up that the players can try multiple times.

[JNAProductions]

You don't need a warning. If they fail, they fall forward, and get to try again or go about their business.

If their characters had a chance of death upon failure or if the game would grind to a halt... Then I get your point. However, upon failure, they get to continue with some new plot hooks or some old plot hooks get changed in some way.

Sorry, but this doesn't end in TPK or loss of cool items or whatever else... No warning is needed. It can even be set up that the players can try multiple times.

Except that, for the players to be able to respond to something, they need info about it.

That's something my current IRL DM isn't the best at. We kinda just have to follow along the path, because we don't know enough to deviate. We don't know what lies ahead, so we can't plan for it. It's not a bad game, but it could be a lot better.

And this? This would be completely un-fun. It doesn't MATTER that we the party don't die. It's just plain not fun, it feels arbitrary, it's not fun, and there's only one solution, when a good encounter should have several. Did I mention it doesn't seem fun?

[Kane0]

I think I speak for all the party in my musical selection. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKtsdZs9LJo)

[Mellack]

By refusing to let the characters run away from what is clearly too powerful an opponent, I would say you are teaching your players a bad lesson. Having them know to retreat from bad situations is something to be encouraged. This encounter shows them that they have to go through an adventure they way you envision it, which I think is a mistake.

[Specter]

So this?


https://youtu.be/-c3Sepw0ozY

The Worf Effect can work a bit, but you have to be careful.

Yeah, sure.

[Fuzzy Logic]

So I'd play the first thing that came to my head,
And it'd just so happen to be
The best song in the world
It'll be the best song in the wooorld!

And then I'd walk.

This isn't teaching players to think. It's teaching them to play mother-may-I with the DM. The dragon, alien species, and wildmen examples given by strangebloke are examples of how to do this right.

[Envyus]

Here's a Balor I used in my last campaign:

Name: Creed
Like all devils he seeks to ascend higher into the hierarchy of the hells, and his chosen method for this is by a careful study of anthropology. He loves, humans, you see, and if he knows their limits and better understands what they want? Well, that makes him all the more effective at temptation. He usually appears as a tall, yellow-eyed human with long, curling purple locks and vertical eye slits. He does not believe in deception, preferring to be excedingly clear about what he's offering.

When Creed shows up with a deal, you'll know what you're getting into. And you'll sign up anyway.

Creed is fond of utilizing hope as a focus for torment. His prisoners will frequently 'escape' only to be caught when they are just upon the cusp of freedom. He savors the exquisite despair of shattered hope as one might a fine vintage.

Well Balor's are Demons not Devils so are you sure you did not mean Pit Fiend?

[Demonslayer666]

Some (if not a lot) of players don't know what that means, in real practice.

...

I'm interested to know how you come to that conclusion. Most people know that there's more than one way to skin a cat without being told, so telling them makes it even more obvious. (This is in reference to telling players in Session 0 that not all encounters can be solved with combat.)

[strangebloke]

Well Balor's are Demons not Devils so are you sure you did not mean Pit Fiend?

Sorry, yeah. I'm not good with the terminology. He was a devil, though, seeing as he was lawful.