Warlock Patron - Are Fiends always evil??

[Stone-Ears]

Curious to see what y'all say about this. The Fiend Patron has some significant benefits but I run with a table that greatly prefers Neutral to Good alignments only.

If a Fiend is always evil, does that also make the warlock evil for forging a pact with such a being willingly?

[JackPhoenix]

Not really. Depends on the warlock's reasons for the pact, the pact's specifics, and the warlock's overall behavior.

[Brookshw]

Technically no, there are canon instances of redeemed fiends in the upper planes, albeit they're exceedingly few. In general though, yes, all fiends are evil. For the purposes of your table you may be able to discuss with your DM about using a redeemed fiend as a patron.

[Magic Myrmidon]

By default, yeah, fiends are devils, demons and the like, and they're nearly unanimously evil.

That being said, dunno if there's ever been a "redeemed" fiend in the official lore, but I've had them in my games.

Furthermore, it DEFINITELY doesn't mean that the warlock is evil. Probably chaotic, and probably a low wisdom, if you're going the "willingly formed a pact with a devil" thing. That's kinda the assumed flavor. But there's all sorts of ways to justify a fiend warlock if you think outside of the box. For example, my fiend warlock had an ancestor who sold his (and his family's) souls for power. The contract has persisted through generations, and my character inherited that raw deal.

Alternatively, fiends can be awfully strong. Maybe one of them saw some sort of potential in your character, and infused them with power, whether they wanted it or not. It's up to your character to prove that fiend wrong.


It will probably scare some more rigid party members like paladins that you have powers associated with devils, but you can totally play a good aligned fiend warlock.

[GreyBlack]

As with anything, ask your DM. However, according to D&D Forgotten Realms/Great Wheel lore that is the baseline for everything in 5e, yes. Fiends are always evil because Fiends are made of Evil.

That said... there are a number of reasons a Good character would have an Evil patron. Warlocks are special because they're essentially buying their power at some price, be it your soul, a newborn, or even your special brownie recipe. In this case, your Warlock could have sworn vengeance against some great foe. He would be willing to condemn his own soul to the 9 Hells to restore good to the world.

Or perhaps your character outwitted the fiend's contract. Your character was a lawyer who spoke looked over the contract and made a deal for the power, and now your patron is out for revenge on you.

There's no limit really. Talk to your DM and see if you can work something out.

[Misterwhisper]

Fiends are all evil except for a very rare few but that has no bearing on if the warlock is or not.

Your family could have made a deal and you were bonded at birth against your will, you could just be a descendent of theirs and share blood, or any other reason you come up with in your backstory.

[Mjolnirbear]

As everyone says, best to ask the DM.

Eberron and Faerun both have Fallen Angel types. I'm not aware of any Risen Fiends in the lore for either setting but logically if angels can fall, fiends can rise.

Repeating others again, just because a fiend is evil doesn't mean the warlock is.

New contribution: depending on your DM's setting, you could find a fiend that is... Well, still evil, but less interested in your soul than in, say, its diabolical plan to cover the world with knitting. It could be insane (daelkyr from Eberron) or bound by ancient laws (a night hag is a fiend, but is basically also a Fey) or simply bored. It could be more concerned with escape (rakshasa overlords in Eberron) and invest you with energy as a 'side project'. It needn't even be a full fiend; a powerful half-demon with all the strength but (half or even none of) the evil might take an interest in you.

[Ninja_Prawn]

Fiends are always evil because Fiends are made of Evil.

Yeah, that's the default lore. I'd even argue that if a fiend was somehow redeemed, its creature type would change - it would cease to be a fiend.

The canon definitely supports good warlocks making pacts with evil fiends though.

[hamishspence]

Yeah, that's the default lore. I'd even argue that if a fiend was somehow redeemed, its creature type would change - it would cease to be a fiend.

That's true in 5e at least - one of the core rulebooks actually uses the phrase "If a devil ceased to be evil, it would cease to be a devil."

[Spiritchaser]

Nothing specifically requires that the price be your character’s soul, though that certainly is the classic.

If you’ve got an interesting or fun idea go for it. Your DM might say no, but probably not.

The warlock’s powers could even be some bizarre collateral damage in a wager between two fiends...

This one may just be incorruptible
Oh I do believe I can twist him around
Care to wager?
What did you have in mind?

Imagine one fiend tempting the character and another trying to keep them straight in order to win... whatever.

The nature and the price of the agreement are very much unwritten.

[Max_Killjoy]

Depending on your DM, it's also possible that you don't have to take "Fiend" literally, or even "Patron" literally.

Does your DM or more generally your table view classes, etc a way to code specific archetypes into the game, or as a toolkit to enable translated characters into the game's mechanics?

[PhoenixPhyre]

Fiends (by default) are evil. Fiend warlocks are not necessarily evil.

An idea I had for a fiend warlock/bard was someone whose sibling called up a fiend; to protect the sibling the character challenged the fiend to a fiddle duel and lost, but freed the sibling as part of the deal. Now they have to "serve" the fiend as a warlock. No particular contract, just a debt. A debt that hasn't been called in yet, but the fiend is trying to sweeten the deal to tempt the warlock to deeper debt and actual evil deeds (by giving them power).

[Monster Manuel]

As some have already said, the Warlock definitely doesn't have to be Evil, even if his patron is. Having an unwilling patron can be a fun way to play the class, and works really well with devils, since they are all about the letter of the law, and will oblige a contract if they have to, even if it's not the outcome they wanted.

You know the Charlie Daniels song "The Devil Went Down to Georgia", where the devil challenges a kid named Johnny to a fiddle contest, his soul for a golden fiddle? I based a warlock/bard off that concept once; a musician who challenged a devil to a fiddle contest in exchange for power, and won. The devil was technically his patron, but not at all an ally...he was being set up to be an ongoing antagonist who would have been perfectly happy to see the character dead or corrupted, but until that happened he was obligated to let him keep the power. Basically, he already had it, deal was done, so there was no impact on him being good-aligned and fighting against his own patron. Going up in levels was just reflected by him getting better at using the power he already had.

So, that's an example of how you could play a fiend pact warlock, but not be a devil-worshiping bad guy. The flavor text of the class is a lot more flexible than people give it credit for.

*EDIT* Ninja-d by PhoenixPhyre...apparently the fiddle-pact warlock is a more common thing than I realized :smallbiggrin:

[Marcloure]

When MM explains each creature type, it says that evil Celestials are super rare, and good fiends are even rarer. That being said means that are indeed some exceptions for the general "fiends are bad" rule.

[Max_Killjoy]

As some have already said, the Warlock definitely doesn't have to be Evil, even if his patron is. Having an unwilling patron can be a fun way to play the class, and works really well with devils, since they are all about the letter of the law, and will oblige a contract if they have to, even if it's not the outcome they wanted.

You know the Charlie Daniels song "The Devil Went Down to Georgia", where the devil challenges a kid named Johnny to a fiddle contest, his soul for a golden fiddle? I based a warlock/bard off that concept once; a musician who challenged a devil to a fiddle contest in exchange for power, and won. The devil was technically his patron, but not at all an ally...he was being set up to be an ongoing antagonist who would have been perfectly happy to see the character dead or corrupted, but until that happened he was obligated to let him keep the power. Basically, he already had it, deal was done, so there was no impact on him being good-aligned and fighting against his own patron. Going up in levels was just reflected by him getting better at using the power he already had.

So, that's an example of how you could play a fiend pact warlock, but not be a devil-worshiping bad guy. The flavor text of the class is a lot more flexible than people give it credit for.

Read generously, the flavor text implies that your "patron" need not even be aware that you've gained the power, that you don't have to have an ongoing deal (as in the power is yours, not channeled), and that the "patron" can be abstract.

[Stone-Ears]

Thanks y'all, I wanted to see what y'all thought before I tried to create a warlock with a Fiend patron.

I've briefly played a warlock before but I chose Fey because I didn't think my DM would go for it. With a bit more experience with him, I realized he'll allow it if I can provide him a really good reason for it.

I really like the generational thing some of y'all suggested. Like it is something inherited based upon deals that my ancestors made. Obviously I've no control over that circumstance happening but I can control what I do with it and how I honor the terms of the deal that was struck.

[Spiritchaser]

Read generously, the flavor text implies that your "patron" need not even be aware that you've gained the power, that you don't have to have an ongoing deal (as in the power is yours, not channeled), and that the "patron" can be abstract.

My only complaint with such an arrangement is that it doesn’t sound like as much fun...

But if a player really wanted something like that... why not?

(Your DM’s discretion may vary)

[Stone-Ears]

My only complaint with such an arrangement is that it doesn’t sound like as much fun...

But if a player really wanted something like that... why not?

(Your DM’s discretion may vary)

Could be fun because imagine if the Warlock had to be very careful not to perform anything where it might be spread to townsfolk and servants of that same patron might snitch on you to your patron. That could make for some very interesting random encounters, should the patron decide that he wants to try and eliminate this being who stole his power and is not authorized to use it.

[JackPhoenix]

That's true in 5e at least - one of the core rulebooks actually uses the phrase "If a devil ceased to be evil, it would cease to be a devil."

Well, of course. It would be dgood, or maybe dneutral.

[RedMage125]

As other posters have said, by default, 5e canon, if a fiend ceases to be evil, it ceases to be a Fiend.

The Warlock doesn't have to be Evil, and one way I encourage you to think outside the box in terms of what a "pact" means. because it doesn't have to be a Faustian contract.

Example:
A Different Kind of Infernal Pact

Solis was a sailor on a merchant ship. He wasn't particularly physical or imposing, but he was friendly, likable, and hard-working. Until the storm. The storm changed everything.

The ship that Solis was aboard was caught in a terrible storm that seemed almost unnatural in origin. The ship was beached on a small island, and while foraging for supplies and spare lumber, the crew discovered it was not uninhabited. Devils were infesting the island, and the sailors fought back as best they could, but praised the gods when they were saved. A group of aventurers, affiliated with the Order of the Chalice (fiend hunters), were on the island, tracking down a diabolist cult intent on opening a path for a powerful archdevil. The group had taken some losses, however, and was worried that they did not have enough members to complete the ritual to bind the archdevil should the cult be successful. Solis and several of his fellow crew members volunteered to help the Order.

They eventually confronted the cultists. Too late to stop the archdevil from entering the world, they did bind it in a magic circle. Then the remaining sailors and members of the Order took their places as the Order Magus directed, and they performed the binding ritual. Each person present at the ritual (13 in all) had a portion of the archdevil's power bound into them. Essentially each of them became a lock (:smallwink:) on the archdevil's prison. After they bound the archdevil, the Order helped the sailors repair their boat, and they all returned to land. But there could be little peace and camaraderie for those that participated in the ritual. For they carried a piece of the archdevil's power within them. This power was their to use, to control, for good or ill. And the more they learned to master it, the more of the archdevil's power they would be siphoning from it into themselves. They needed to separate, however. For the archdevil was powerful and had many loyal servants and minions. And should any of them die, whatever portion of power that they had siphoned would be returned to the archdevil. They needed to stay away from that island and each other forever, to make it more difficult for any of them to be located. Should enough power return to the archdevil, it might even be able to break free of its prison. But it would need to kill ALL of them to return to full power.

Mechanics and how they tie in
Solis is a Half-Elf Fiend-Pact Warlock with the Sailor background. He is Neutral Good. He wields a fiend's power, but is not beholden to it. As he gains levels in Warlock, he is stealing more power from that archdevil.

Hooks
The most obvious potential hook is that the party Solis is travelling with could stumble across a place where devils have killed some people, and Solis could recognize one of his fellow Warlocks from the island. The archdevil's minions could be hunting them down. Eventually, enough of them could fall to free the archdevil from its prison and Solis and his new party could have to face it down.

[Xetheral]

Also, Fiends can lie. You might think you made a pact with a celestial and be very mistaken....

[Particle_Man]

Or you could make a pact with a celestial who then falls and becomes a fiend. You are still good, the contract still valid, but your granted powers are now . . . different.

But the “blame the parents” deal works too. See the comic Runaways for a good example.

[JakOfAllTirades]

There are any number of ways a non-evil Warlock can end up in a pact with an evil Fiendish patron.

I once played a Warlock who "inherited" his pact from his evil parents, and wanted no part of it. His character arc was all about finding a new patron and escaping the wrath of his old one.

Long story short: his background was one part Grimm Brothers fairy tale and one part Greek Tragedy, with a properly Shakespearean pile of dead relatives at the end. They had it coming.

My DM loved it. Sooooo many plot hooks....

This is why we play Warlocks.

[GreyBlack]

Yeah, that's the default lore. I'd even argue that if a fiend was somehow redeemed, its creature type would change - it would cease to be a fiend.

The canon definitely supports good warlocks making pacts with evil fiends though.

There's a little more to my post. I did edit it; sorry.

[Griswold]

That being said, dunno if there's ever been a "redeemed" fiend in the official lore, but I've had them in my games.

From official lore, there's:

Eludecia (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/fc/20050824a), the succubus paladin. She also shows up in The Legend of the Silver Skeleton (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/oa/20061017a).
Fall-From-Grace (https://torment.fandom.com/wiki/Fall-from-Grace), a lawful neutral succubus from Planescape: Torment
It's not quite clear what the creature's final type is, but the adventure The Deva Spark (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Deva_Spark) involves a redeemed Retriever.
The Book of Exalted Deeds has a spell called Sanctify the Wicked which will make any evil outsider a good-aligned outsider. They still remain fiends at the end of the process.

[No brains]

Side question: If a pact is made with a Night Hag and then she metamorphoses into another kind of hag, or vice versa, is this a Fiend Pact or Fey Pact?

JC seems to believe in the idea of non-evil hags, so this might be relevant. Though Night Hags need to torment and skin people for power, so I don't think one of those hags can be non-evil. Other hags aren't dependent on being evil.

Except for how they eat babies.

[RickAllison]

When I finally am in a group where someone doesn't already plan on being a Warlock, I kind of want to play a paladin-ish Warlock whose patron is an overly-affectionate succubus who is some kind of -dere for him.

[Sigreid]

So I just had a fun idea. A chain pact warlock of good alignment where his imp familiar is literally his own capacity for evil embodied and separated and now he's still got to reign it in.

[Hail Tempus]

Also, Fiends can lie. You might think you made a pact with a celestial and be very mistaken....
Devils actually can’t lie when trying to convince someone into entering into a contract. A devil couldn’t disguise itself as a celestial if it it wanted the contract to be binding.

I’m not sure demons are actually able to enter into the kind of contracts that devils enter into with mortals.

[ad_hoc]

Curious to see what y'all say about this. The Fiend Patron has some significant benefits but I run with a table that greatly prefers Neutral to Good alignments only.

If a Fiend is always evil, does that also make the warlock evil for forging a pact with such a being willingly?

Yes, fiends are always evil (if they're not evil, they're not a fiend).

That doesn't mean the Warlock needs to be evil though. The Warlock draws their power from the fiend, that can take many forms.

There is a 'road to hell paved with good intentions theme to it though.

[ad_hoc]

That said, if what you care about are the mechanics and not the themes/narrative then own it and play that way.

Personally I think it is more enjoyable to create character first rather than mechanics.

[JumboWheat01]

I think it depends on the setting. In something like the Realms or Grayhawk, where things are set in stone, a Fiend by definition is always evil. Devils are always Lawful Evil, Demons are always Chaotic Evil. There is no changing that. If they somehow aren't, then they aren't a Devil or a Demon. In more "alignment fluid" settings like Eberron, then there's probably a case to be made for good Fiends.

If I remember the questline right in Neverwinter Online, your Warlock mentor states how your Fiendish patron doesn't particularly care that you're being all good and heroic, since it doesn't matter to them if the souls your damning to their direction are good or evil, souls are souls, and they're just as happy with evil violent rebels as they would be with pure and innocent ones. So really, alignment doesn't matter, you could be just as good as a Paladin while still dabbling with Fiendish patrons.

Now if you start actively worshiping said Fiends and start doing nastier things for them, well, then your alignment is gonna start heading south.

[Max_Killjoy]

That said, if what you care about are the mechanics and not the themes/narrative then own it and play that way.

Personally I think it is more enjoyable to create character first rather than mechanics.


You can care about the character, have the idea for the character, and create the character first... and find that the mechanics best suited for that character are stuck inside a package with themes/narratives/aesthetics that very much do not fit that character. I think I've posted quite a few examples before. All I'm saying is, don't assume the player isn't thinking of the character before the mechanics, just because they're not interested in the pre-packaged character archetype that's part of the class.

Not looking to get into a debate about this again with anyone... so please just take that as an alternate viewpoint, and if you're really against it we can just disagree, cool?




I think it depends on the setting. In something like the Realms or Grayhawk, where things are set in stone, a Fiend by definition is always evil. Devils are always Lawful Evil, Demons are always Chaotic Evil. There is no changing that. If they somehow aren't, then they aren't a Devil or a Demon. In more "alignment fluid" settings like Eberron, then there's probably a case to be made for good Fiends.


And if you're playing in a homebrew or adapted setting that doesn't use D&D's explicit or implicit cosmology, then all bets are off.

[sithlordnergal]

Curious to see what y'all say about this. The Fiend Patron has some significant benefits but I run with a table that greatly prefers Neutral to Good alignments only.

If a Fiend is always evil, does that also make the warlock evil for forging a pact with such a being willingly?

Fiends: As a general rule, yes. They are always going to be evil unless your DM is like me and shakes things up.

On the other hand, the warlock does not need to be evil at all. You don't even need to make a contact. I have a player who's warlock steals their power from their Patron without their Patron knowing it. They aren't in an actual contract, they're just sneakily taking power and would be in danger if their PAtron ever found out.

[Xetheral]

Devils actually can’t lie when trying to convince someone into entering into a contract. A devil couldn’t disguise itself as a celestial if it it wanted the contract to be binding.

That's what they want you to think.

More seriously, even if in a particular game world devils can't outright lie, they can probably still lie by omission. A devil disguised as an angel might simply never say he is an angel, and let the mortal assume.

[Sigreid]

That's what they want you to think.

More seriously, even if in a particular game world devils can't outright lie, they can probably still lie by omission. A devil disguised as an angel might simply never say he is an angel, and let the mortal assume.

Honestly, long term it's more profitable if it is a known fact they don't deceive during deals. More takers that way.

[Tetrasodium]

Curious to see what y'all say about this. The Fiend Patron has some significant benefits but I run with a table that greatly prefers Neutral to Good alignments only.

If a Fiend is always evil, does that also make the warlock evil for forging a pact with such a being willingly?

In Eberron?... Yesssss.... but, they are immortal; beings that can play game on geological & stellar/galactic timescales. why is that $fiend so seemingly good? Oh khyber, what evil are you enabling for them & when?

If they were good or neutral, they wou;d become something else. The question is akin to "is fire always hot?"

[Hail Tempus]

That's what they want you to think.

More seriously, even if in a particular game world devils can't outright lie, they can probably still lie by omission. A devil disguised as an angel might simply never say he is an angel, and let the mortal assume.
Reading about the trial of Asmodeus in Mordenkainen’s guide, I have to disagree. The story suggests that devils can’t hide who they really are, or what the terms of the deal are. They don’t have a duty of candor, but the deal isn’t enforceable if the devil hides relevant terms (such as the fact that the deal is with a devil).

Devils are very legalistic, and one of the principles of contracts is that you need to know who you’re contracting with.

[Beleriphon]

Reading about the trial of Asmodeus in Mordenkainen’s guide, I have to disagree. The story suggests that devils can’t hide who they really are, or what the terms of the deal are. They don’t have a duty of candor, but the deal isn’t enforceable if the devil hides relevant terms (such as the fact that the deal is with a devil).

Devils are very legalistic, and one of the principles of contracts is that you need to know who you’re contracting with.

Very true, given the Faustian nature of the way devils are portrayed in D&D they need a mortal to willingly participate. They can hide the participation behind obscure phrases and tricky word play but everything they include has to be honest.

[RickAllison]

Very true, given the Faustian nature of the way devils are portrayed in D&D they need a mortal to willingly participate. They can hide the participation behind obscure phrases and tricky word play but everything they include has to be honest.

Now they could lie and cheat to push someone towards making a deal. A Hexblade being pushed from being a noble warrior of light to a knight templar by a disguised devil, free of charge... but once things get dangerous enough, he suggests maybe the Hexblade needs an additional boost in power. And so the "angel" pushes him to make a deal with a devil.

[HappyDaze]

Honestly, long term it's more profitable if it is a known fact they don't deceive during deals. More takers that way.

Of course the devils do hire yugoloths to make some deals for them, and yugoloths lie all the time. Some yugoloths might even disguise themselves as other types of fiends--like the devils that hired them.

[Pex]

Up to you and the DM.

Just because you use the Fiend Patron doesn't mean it has to be a fiend. That's the book's flavor text, but you can make it whatever you want. To keep verisimilitude the Patron should have a fire theme. A Phoenix would do.

If you do use a Fiend he doesn't have to be Evil. In fact, I'm playing a Fiend Warlock with a Good Devil for a Patron playing Dragon Heist. The story is a Devil had sought Redemption. For his Atonement to be accepted he has to prove his new Good nature. He does this by spreading the Good around. Since he is a Devil he does so by his nature.He makes Pacts. Some time ago he made a Deal for someone's soul. The man and his descendants would be wealthy and nobles of Waterdeep, living comfortable lives. In exchange the Nobles would pursue to improve the lot of Waterdeep making it better today than it was yesterday. Once a generation an individual would be gifted with power who would then take a more proactive role in improving the lives of the people of Waterdeep and perhaps beyond its walls if circumstances warrant.

[RickAllison]

Up to you and the DM.

Just because you use the Fiend Patron doesn't mean it has to be a fiend. That's the book's flavor text, but you can make it whatever you want. To keep verisimilitude the Patron should have a fire theme. A Phoenix would do.

I'd try to avoid creatures which might be better represented by a different category (mainly fey, aberrations that would be better for GOO, undead, and celestials), but that still leaves us with some interesting options. Guardian Nagas are NG, have some fiery spells, and the resistances and temporary HP could be fluffed as very limited versions of the rejuvenation properties of the Naga. A red or gold dragon could also work. An Eidolon of a fire deity could also work, someone who wants to make sure the world is tended to, but can't do it himself. A flame elemental of some sort could also work, perhaps a myrmidon.

[ad_hoc]

You can care about the character, have the idea for the character, and create the character first... and find that the mechanics best suited for that character are stuck inside a package with themes/narratives/aesthetics that very much do not fit that character. I think I've posted quite a few examples before. All I'm saying is, don't assume the player isn't thinking of the character before the mechanics, just because they're not interested in the pre-packaged character archetype that's part of the class.

I didn't assume anything.

[Cheesegear]

Evil Fiend: I need you to kill this dude who is very definitely evil.
Warlock: What a coincidence, we just got a quest from the local Baron to do exactly the same thing!

*One Adventure Later*

Evil Fiend (Devil): Thanks for doing my bidding, he's some free Power.
Warlock: *Levels Up* Sweet!
Evil Fiend: You've helped me out. Quite a lot, in fact. Good job. Quick aside, did you manage to destroy his Summoning Circle?
Warlock: Of course we did! He was Summoning Demons with it. *Puts together Demons vs. Devils in his head* Wait. Oh ****. You wanted him dead? Uhh...What have I just done? Come back! Tell me what your plan is!
Fiend: lol no. *fades out*

[Mordaedil]

Fiends will always be evil with rare exceptions, but generally DM's don't like you making snowflake good guys out of fiends for your patron.

That said, your warlock does not have to be evil to have evil patrons. You could be using each other equally, where the patron has someone else they want to rub out that is also evil and you can sort of enjoy a mutual benefit where you get power and they can keep their hands clean (for the most part). And the best part of the level of cat-and-mouse you can have with your patron, where she tries to corrupt you and you try to redeem her (assuming the patron is a succubus or something, since that is an easy scenario to imagine for fiend contract)

Important bit is that you converse with your DM on this and work out what your boundries are for this type of roleplay as it can get really uncomfortable. Also true for your players, so make sure to keep them in mind for it.

[Wizard_Lizard]

My warlock got tricked into becoming a warlock, and is not evil.

[Droodicus]

I'm a fan of, villager whos town is under attack prays for help, something answers. Attack is defeated but now you have these 'abilities' you can't quite control. Other villagers very quickly lose their gratitude after you keep accidentally setting things on fire.
Now you wander the world, trying to master these powers and contact the otherworldly presence who 'helped'

[GreyBlack]

Reading about the trial of Asmodeus in Mordenkainen’s guide, I have to disagree. The story suggests that devils can’t hide who they really are, or what the terms of the deal are. They don’t have a duty of candor, but the deal isn’t enforceable if the devil hides relevant terms (such as the fact that the deal is with a devil).

Devils are very legalistic, and one of the principles of contracts is that you need to know who you’re contracting with.

So you're saying the devil is in the details?

[CNagy]

I think people get too caught up in the idea of a deal with the devil, a contract, an actual literal pact, etc. You certainly can have that; encounters with great and terrifying powers are a staple of main character narrative experiences. It doesn't help that the books uncharacteristically go out of their way to define your relationship with the Patron as being typically very active. But there are no rules for a Patron revoking a Walock's power or barring them from further advancing in the class, which makes the Patron a largely unnecessary element. And not every narrative is helped by a presumed contact with a supremely powerful supernatural existence before the character is even really aware of the larger world. I would like to offer an alternative.

At the most basic level, your Patron is merely the origin of a Source (capitalized to proper-nounify it). It is the Source that determines what kind of Warlock you are. How you come in contact with the Source can vary widely. In some cases, you get that Source by making a deal with a Patron who then gifts it to you. But sometimes, it's an old wooden cup that your family mythologies claims was a gift from a stranger your ancestors aided; it actually belonged to a fey creature who has since gained tremendous power and it resonated with you when you touched it. Perhaps a fiend has seeded the world with drops of essence blood; you stumble across a bloodstain in an old cave and obtain a Source for fiendish power. Maybe the holy symbol of a long extinct alien cult carries a sliver of psychic energy that links you to a Great Old One. Maybe your patron isn't even alive anymore; maybe they scattered their Source in an effort to cheat death and resurrect through the efforts of Warlocks who ended up later finding and possessing it. It can be interesting to think of a Warlock as a potential progenitor of a Sorcerer ancestry (as an alternative to a powerful creature pulling a Zeus on your family tree). "Great(x5)-grandpa found an artifact of the Cult of Chud, 7 generations later his descendant erupted with wild magic sorcery."

All of this to say that even if all fiends are always evil, there are plenty of ways to play a fiend patron Warlock who is not, who doesn't need to be forced into having had an encounter (and deal) with the devil to be who he is. That's not to say that using the power won't put you on someone's radar, someone who might try to recruit you or claim you owe a debt or even send people to murder you--but at least then you don't have to be part of the club of 0th level commoners who struck deals with gods, unless you want to.

[Tetrasodium]

I think it depends on the setting. In something like the Realms or Grayhawk, where things are set in stone, a Fiend by definition is always evil. Devils are always Lawful Evil, Demons are always Chaotic Evil. There is no changing that. If they somehow aren't, then they aren't a Devil or a Demon. In more "alignment fluid" settings like Eberron, then there's probably a case to be made for good Fiends.

If I remember the questline right in Neverwinter Online, your Warlock mentor states how your Fiendish patron doesn't particularly care that you're being all good and heroic, since it doesn't matter to them if the souls your damning to their direction are good or evil, souls are souls, and they're just as happy with evil violent rebels as they would be with pure and innocent ones. So really, alignment doesn't matter, you could be just as good as a Paladin while still dabbling with Fiendish patrons.

Now if you start actively worshiping said Fiends and start doing nastier things for them, well, then your alignment is gonna start heading south.
Immortal beings like fiends in eberron don't really have much freedom in the alignment department but you could have a pit fiend i a humanoid suit who benevolently runs an orphanage or something in order to manipulate The Prophecy towards some evil end hundreds/thousands/even millions of years or more down the line. Players coming across a fiend in a situation like that should be disturbing, do they really want to help that fiend or is stopping it today the wrong move?.. Is the party of PCs stopping the fiend from running that benevolent orphanage & becoming known as the butchers of the comforting embrace orphanage believing they are doing the right thing exactly what that pit fiend wants to happen? Whyyyy does the pit fiend want you to stop his seemingly totally above board orphanage?... what horrible events are you going to set in motion & what will you unleash by doing so?

Creature types are badly mapped for eberron, beast-like fiends (hellhound/blinkdog/etc) could be natural creatures (blink dog is & house Ghallahandra is named after the halfling word for them). It' also possible for them to just be magebred animals. In both cases they cold be anything as mortal creatures with free will.

[MilkmanDanimal]

"Fiend Pact" is a set of in-game mechanics, but that doesn't mean it actually has to be a "Fiend"; define your character as someone who made a pact with an avatar of the sun. Your THP is the Power of the Sun. All those fire spells on the Fiend list? Works perfectly. Dark One's Own Luck is you expending some of the solar energy charged inside you to improve your odds. Your big ability is Hurtle Through The Sun.

Be creative with a little narrative flair, and you can play any theoretical patron as "Fiend Pact". Why can't your patron be a celestial, where you're cleansing the world with the fires of holy light? You still use the Fiend Pact mechanics, but just flavor it some other way.

[Millstone85]

That's true in 5e at least - one of the core rulebooks actually uses the phrase "If a devil ceased to be evil, it would cease to be a devil."
When MM explains each creature type, it says that evil Celestials are super rare, and good fiends are even rarer. That being said means that are indeed some exceptions for the general "fiends are bad" rule.I really dislike how the PHB and the MM contradict each other on this.

Or rather, I much prefer the PHB version to the MM one.

[Brookshw]

Devils are very legalistic, and one of the principles of contracts is that you need to know who you’re contracting with.

This got me thinking, because you absolutely can contract without knowing who you deal with, particularly when dealing with agents. It might be interesting for a character to interact with the fiends agent and not the fiend directly, never knowing who's really on the other end of the deal.

[JackPhoenix]

Creature types are badly mapped for eberron, beast-like fiends (hellhound/blinkdog/etc) could be natural creatures (blink dog is & house Ghallahandra is named after the halfling word for them). It' also possible for them to just be magebred animals. In both cases they cold be anything as mortal creatures with free will.

Hell hound is natural creature, it's just not natural to... well, anywhere that's not Fernia. As natural as any other fiend, anyway. Blink dog isn't fiend. Those creature types works just fine.

Just because something looks like an animal doesn't mean it's natural... magebred animals aren't.


I really dislike how the PHB and the MM contradict each other on this.

Or rather, I much prefer the PHB version to the MM one.

It's not a contradiction. Devil that's no longer LE is not a devil. It's unique creature that may (or much rarery may not) retain the fiend type. All devils are fiends, but not every fiend is a devil.


This got me thinking, because you absolutely can contract without knowing who you deal with, particularly when dealing with agents. It might be interesting for a character to interact with the fiends agent and not the fiend directly, never knowing who's really on the other end of the deal.

You can make contracts without knowing who you're dealing with. That doesn't mean that contract would hold under infernal law if disputed.

[Millstone85]

It's not a contradiction. Devil that's no longer LE is not a devil. It's unique creature that may (or much rarery may not) retain the fiend type. All devils are fiends, but not every fiend is a devil.Then it was a really misleading way to illustrate how "Alignment is an essential part of the nature of celestials and fiends".

[JackPhoenix]

Then it was a really misleading way to illustrate how "Alignment is an essential part of the nature of celestials and fiends".

I'd say that the fact a devil would lose intristic part of its nature (i.e. its devil subtype) when it changes alignment illustrates that well. What's so misleading about that?

[Millstone85]

I'd say that the fact a devil would lose intristic part of its nature (i.e. its devil subtype) when it changes alignment illustrates that well. What's so misleading about that?That it would only affect its subtype. In the end, a fiend is a fiend regardless of alignment.

[ToastyTobasco]

Could have a Fiend that is out to ruin his rivals. He starts granting power to mortals on the Material Plane to "purify through flame" and hunt servants of his rivals.

Or have a former mortal Warlock who became powerful enough to grant power to his/her own servants. He grants infernal power to others to thwart the plans of other Fiends.

Just throwing spaghetti at the wall here.

[Particle_Man]

How about this? The original warlock made a badly worded deal with a devil, and didn't realize that his granted powers were tied to the body, not the soul (nobody reads the fine print!). When they got older, they decided to switch bodies with a young person to avoid dying of old age (anything to avoid the Smoke!). Your PC is the young person whose soul got put in the elderly warlock's body, suddenly gaining fiend-pact warlock powers (albeit set to level 1 or level (start campaign here))! Meanwhile, you have an enemy who wears your original young healthy body, and is furious at losing their fiend-granted powers!

And the relevant devil is laughing their ass off.

[Miz_Liz]

I think it really depends on

a.) the amount of time the DM is going to put into roleplaying the fiend (if the patron is barely part of the picture storywise, does it even matter?)

b.) the personality of the fiend.

As an example of b, I play in a party that had a warlock whose patron was literally one of the seven lords of hell (custom campaign setting, long story.) Our whole task was making sure the other lords weren't summoned to the prime material. How did this work? well, the lords were based on the seven deadly sins, and the warlock's patron was pride. He thought he was so much better than his brethren he actively aided us in making sure they would not be re-summoned. He was evil, for sure, but staunchly lawful, and would not go outside of the bounds of his own code. That way the warlock could still remain chaotic good.

It was a really fascinating relationship/story/character, too bad the pc died in battle :smallyuk:

[Tetrasodium]

Hell hound is natural creature, it's just not natural to... well, anywhere that's not Fernia. As natural as any other fiend, anyway. Blink dog isn't fiend. Those creature types works just fine.

Just because something looks like an animal doesn't mean it's natural... magebred animals aren't.




Manifest zones cover a lot of ground without having to actually travel to a plane so you can see these kinda things.

Magebred animals used to have a feat in 3.5, right now they don't cleanly fit into any of the MM6-7 creature types that claim to be a list of all types in the game despite being types in FR. Personally InMyEberron they are pretty much anything that looks vaguely animal like, winterwolf yes, gibbering mouther no.


It's not a contradiction. Devil that's no longer LE is not a devil. It's unique creature that may (or much rarery may not) retain the fiend type. All devils are fiends, but not every fiend is a devil.



You can make contracts without knowing who you're dealing with. That doesn't mean that contract would hold under infernal law if disputed.

Those are two other problems in eberron The first is that they are both simply a "demon". Keith talks about a balor from fernia here (http://keith-baker.com/dragonmarks-220-demons-and-deathless/) along with both an archon & nonspecific devil tied to shavarath here (http://keith-baker.com/shavarath-the-blood-war/). As to how I can say al fiends are demons and keith talks about a devil back to back; the answer is simple. They may not fit the setting like that, but they are listed in the monster manual as such.That pit fiend benevolently running that orphanage for the last century or ten who is stilla pit fiend, they fact that it has not become something else shows that whatever goodness it's doing through that orphanage is almost certainly in persuit of a larger bad that you or your decendants probably don't want.

It was in response to someone else but the whole infernal contract aw stuff is likewise super problematic for eberron since it's a planescape/fr-ism. In Eberron you can have demons & demon overlords native to eberron rather than a plane; demons fill a very different role than what the monster manual & mtof describe... Given the fact that the whole bloodwar chapter of mtof describes events long since past with the world starting in the "one side won" state. The Dragons fought against them & were doing poorly, it was only the couatl finding a way to sacrifice themselves & bind the demon overlords in Khyber using The Prophecy that ended it. While there are lots of isolated details & vague outline/descriptions for eberron's planes, short of being more conceptual than elemental/alignment like planescape & fr we'd need to wait for Keith Baker to put out an eventual planes of eberron.

It's not that I dislike the role of fiends in FR or planescape or the planes tied to those settings so much as the fact that they are tied to too much setting specific lore that badly clashes with the lore of eberron for them to be considered in the context of eberron.

[Brookshw]

He
You can make contracts without knowing who you're dealing with. That doesn't mean that contract would hold under infernal law if disputed.

No idea why you're asserting that but I'd be very surprised if the fiendish legal bent is away from allowing devils to collect souls.

[JumboWheat01]

Could have a Fiend that is out to ruin his rivals. He starts granting power to mortals on the Material Plane to "purify through flame" and hunt servants of his rivals.

Now that totally sounds like something a Fiend pact creator would do.

[JackPhoenix]

Manifest zones cover a lot of ground without having to actually travel to a plane so you can see these kinda things.

Which doesn't change the fact that the creatures coming through are visiting instead of being native.


Magebred animals used to have a feat in 3.5, right now they don't cleanly fit into any of the MM6-7 creature types that claim to be a list of all types in the game despite being types in FR. Personally InMyEberron they are pretty much anything that looks vaguely animal like, winterwolf yes, gibbering mouther no.

Neither hell hound nor winter wolf was an animal in 3.5. Magebred animal was still an animal (the template didn't change creature type). Animals are covered by beast creature type in 5e, though the creature type has somewhat wider coverage now.

We don't have 5e magebred animals yet, and while it's likely they'll be beasts to make them compatible with spells that interact with animals, they should fit under monstrosities, as they are not natural, despite their looks. Mark of Handling does allow beast-only spells to affect monstrosities, though, so we'll see. FR has nothing to do with anything, in either case.


Snip

{scrubbed}

No idea why you're asserting that but I'd be very surprised if the fiendish legal bent is away from allowing devils to collect souls.

It's not up to devils. In 5e, Primus decided what they are allowed to do.

[Tetrasodium]

Which doesn't change the fact that the creatures coming through are visiting instead of being native.



Neither hell hound nor winter wolf was an animal in 3.5. Magebred animal was still an animal (the template didn't change creature type). Animals are covered by beast creature type in 5e, though the creature type has somewhat wider coverage now.

We don't have 5e magebred animals yet, and while it's likely they'll be beasts to make them compatible with spells that interact with animals, they should fit under monstrosities, as they are not natural, despite their looks. Mark of Handling does allow beast-only spells to affect monstrosities, though, so we'll see. FR has nothing to do with anything, in either case.



{scrub the post, scrub the quote}



It's not up to devils. In 5e, Primus decided what they are allowed to do.

natice creatures live in a manifest zone & can be warped by it. As to the 3.5 magebred animal, the problem with that comparison is that the two systems are so different that the old way probably can not be applied. Going by the sidekicks UA I'd say it's a safe bet to say that they won't be. Your dismissal of everything else & focus on monstrosities as extraplanar entities alone is expected but misleading & I suspect willfully done. MM6: "Beasts are nonhumanoid creatures that are a natural part of the fantasy ecology. Some of them have magical powers, but most are unintelligent and lack any society or language. Beasts include all varieties of ordinary animals, dinosaurs, and giant versions of animals. "
All of those creatures I named fit under beast, they just don't fit under beast in Forgotten realms.

[JackPhoenix]

natice creatures live in a manifest zone & can be warped by it.

Sure, but those warped creatures won't be hell hounds. They would either be some new kind of creature, or the original creature with a template applied on top.


As to the 3.5 magebred animal, the problem with that comparison is that the two systems are so different that the old way probably can not be applied.

The systems are similar enough the same solution works. We already have few templates in 5e. In fact, there's already highly rated DM's Guild product that does exactly that: creates magebred template appliable to normal beasts.


MM6: "Beasts are nonhumanoid creatures that are a natural part of the fantasy ecology. Some of them have magical powers, but most are unintelligent and lack any society or language. Beasts include all varieties of ordinary animals, dinosaurs, and giant versions of animals. "
All of those creatures I named fit under beast, they just don't fit under beast in Forgotten realms.

Hell hounds aren't natural part of fantasy ecology, not even in Eberron. Neither hell hounds, winter wolves or blink dogs are unintelligent. All of them understand languages, and winter wolves and blink dogs have society. Neither of the named was ever considered an animal, not even in Eberron, and they don't fit the beast type's description anywhere, not even in Eberron. Again, FR has nothing to do with that.

[Tetrasodium]

Sure, but those warped creatures won't be hell hounds. They would either be some new kind of creature, or the original creature with a template applied on top.



The systems are similar enough the same solution works. We already have few templates in 5e. In fact, there's already highly rated DM's Guild product that does exactly that: creates magebred template appliable to normal beasts.



Certainly less misleading than your claims. Or rather, less misinformed.



Hell hounds aren't natural part of fantasy ecology, not even in Eberron. Neither hell hounds, winter wolves or blink dogs are unintelligent. All of them understand languages, and winter wolves and blink dogs have society. Neither of the named was ever considered an animal, not even in Eberron, and they don't fit the beast type's description anywhere, not even in Eberron. Again, FR has nothing to do with that.
my you are quick to apply FR's baseline's to eberron, check (https://twitter.com/JM13136849/status/1167633612847702016/photo/1). The feats for mounts & animal companions from 3.5 don't apply in 5e for the simple fact that both mounts & animal companions simply do not exist as features in anything even slightly resembling their past edition version given how 5e classes work for those very different things. I feel it important to point out that the magebred comparison was showing how things that might be fiends in one setting meed not be fiends in every setting & gave examples of such in eberron. As usual, you are trying to change the topic & derail the thread rather than simply accept that not every setting needs to follow the baselines of FR or planescape.

[IStillDream]

My Warlock was a Chaotic Good revolutionary who made a pact with a Chaotic Evil demon out of desperation—his people were being murdered by an oppressive regime, and the god that had once protected them had vanished 500 years prior. I spent the first part of the game having to resist the patron, being punished when I wouldn’t go along—it made a great story.

Ultimately we wound up literally going to hell, breaking into said demon’s bank vault, and opening a magical box that turned out to have the missing god trapped inside. Once free, it trapped the demon inside a ring, and I changed patrons to become a Celestial Warlock of my own newly-freed god (since it was still too weak to empower clerics)

[JackPhoenix]

my you are quick to apply FR's baseline's to eberron, check (https://twitter.com/JM13136849/status/1167633612847702016/photo/1). The feats for mounts & animal companions from 3.5 don't apply in 5e for the simple fact that both mounts & animal companions simply do not exist as features in anything even slightly resembling their past edition version given how 5e classes work for those very different things. I feel it important to point out that the magebred comparison was showing how things that might be fiends in one setting meed not be fiends in every setting & gave examples of such in eberron. As usual, you are trying to change the topic & derail the thread rather than simply accept that not every setting needs to follow the baselines of FR or planescape.

Sorry, what? *I* am trying to change the topic and derail the thread?

That picture you're linking has nothing to do with discussion. But then, neither does most of what you've written so far.
Nobody mentioned feats, mounts or animal companions, let alone making any comparison of their representation in either edition.
You haven't provided any examples, or anything backing your claims.

Hell hound was outsider (evil) in 3.5 Eberron, just like anywhere else. Hell hound is fiend (because outsider is no longer a creature type, but fiend covers most creatures that fell under that type and had evil subtype) in 5e Eberron, just like anywhere else. Winter wolf was magical beast in 3.5 Eberron, just like anywhere else. Winter wolf if monstrosity (because magical beast is no longer a creature type, but monstrosity covers most creatures that fell under that type) in 5e Eberron, just like anywhere else. Blink dog was magical beast in 3.5 Eberron, just like anywhere else. Blink dog is fey (yeah, there was change) in 5e Eberron, just like anywhere else.

Creature type does not change between settings, and never did. Your claims that it does are false, with zero evidence anywhere.

[Temperjoke]

While Fiends by definition are evil, which has been pointed out, your warlock does not need to be evil, which has also been pointed out. Just willing to negotiate with an evil being. At the same time, there are a lot of different shades of evil. I mean, there's more than one type of fiend, after all. For example, you have demons, devils, and yugoloths. Personally, I wouldn't trust any of them, but at least devils are required to stick to the contract you make, and yugoloths will likely stick to the contract, especially if it's done in a way that keeps them bound to it.

Heck, the particular fiend doesn't actually need to be all that evil really. Maybe they're a retired archdevil, who still makes bargains to entertain themselves, but aren't really actively corrupting or committing evil acts?

[HappyDaze]

Personally, I wouldn't trust any of them, but at least devils are required to stick to the contract you make, and yugoloths will likely stick to the contract, especially if it's done in a way that keeps them bound to it.

Yugoloths will break a contract the moment they stand to gain more from breaking it than sticking to it. They can be reasoned with, but they are entirely untrustworthy.

[Temperjoke]

Yugoloths will break a contract the moment they stand to gain more from breaking it than sticking to it. They can be reasoned with, but they are entirely untrustworthy.

Sure, you just have to make sure that they won't benefit more from breaking it, or like I said, do it in a way that they can't break it. For example, MToF mentions the Kolyarut, that chisels contracts onto a sheet of gold that is placed in a marut, who enforces the terms of the contract, potentially killing the violator. I'd imagine a pact contract done in this manner would keep a yugoloth from violating it. Or if you had the yugoloth's true name, you could ensure your contract was not breached.

Anyways, my point was not all fiends are equally out to corrupt you.

[Tetrasodium]

Anyways, my point was not all fiends are equally out to corrupt you.

Indeed, that awesome deal that seems to have no strings or downside might be just the thing that lets you so something more horrible (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NiceJobBreakingItHero) than they could ever do on their own

[Temperjoke]

Indeed, that awesome deal that seems to have no strings or downside might be just the thing that lets you so something more horrible (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NiceJobBreakingItHero) than they could ever do on their own

Exactly. Devils do conspire against each other, for example, so empowering a mortal and setting them against the servants of their rivals is just another normal day in the 9 Hells. Maybe that yugoloth is pissed that someone else broke an agreement, but can't go after them directly, so they give you power to do it for them?

[Cheesegear]

Exactly. Devils do conspire against each other..., for example, so empowering a mortal and setting them against the servants of their rivals is just another normal day in the 9 Hells. Maybe that yugoloth is pissed that someone else broke an agreement, but can't go after them directly, so they give you power to do it for them?

This is my preferred method.
The LE Devil/Fiend sets his pawn against either opposing Fiends, or, against CE Demons.

It's not like the Warlock can say no.

Devil: What? You're not going to slay the servants of Yeenoghu (Gnolls)? You're just gonna let them run around pillaging and killing?
Warlock: Well, obviously I'm going to do it. Gnolls are impossible to reason with, and kill everyone on sight. They have to be put down. But just know, I'm not doing it for you.
Devil: *Shrug* Makes no difference to me. Here, wanna see in the dark?

[Tetrasodium]

Exactly. Devils do conspire against each other, for example, so empowering a mortal and setting them against the servants of their rivals is just another normal day in the 9 Hells. Maybe that yugoloth is pissed that someone else broke an agreement, but can't go after them directly, so they give you power to do it for them?

That's almost a petty & boring kind of evil. That fiend vrs fiend thing is just playing cards outside the margins of prophecy. The really bad stuff is hen the fiend does stuff like help a struggling motherby paying her nanny in 1889/1890 germany & then made sure a dispach runner survives ww1 including a shell exploded in his dispatch runner dugout. That (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler_family#First_World_War) is the kind of war horrors il that a singular fiend from shavarathn or whatever couldn't hope to directly cause & all by protecting a seemingly random messenger from the horrors of war after making sure said messenger's mother could afford a nanny 14-15 years ago. That pit fiend in a humanoid suit running the hypothetical orphanage with what seems to be no discernible motive beyond pure benevolence should be terrifying because it seems entirely against its nature and isn't causing it to become something else.

[Brookshw]

It's not up to devils. In 5e, Primus decided what they are allowed to do.

Incorrect, the 5e accord just requires Devils not to break a contract, it has no other bearing on infernal law.

[Fnissalot]

I might be off but aren't some demons and yugoloths more chaotic than evil?

[Temperjoke]

I might be off but aren't some demons and yugoloths more chaotic than evil?

In 5e Demons are Chaotic Evil fiends, and Yugoloths are Neutral Evil fiends. Nothing says you can't make a pact with them, it's just that you need some way to enforce that they stick to their part of the bargain, unlike Devils, which are required to remain bound by the terms of the contract due to their nature and the nature of the Nine Hells.

[Brookshw]

Nothing says you can't make a pact with them, it's just that you need some way to enforce that they stick to their part of the bargain,

In this case isn't their part "you get to keep leveling in your class"? Though its meta, I'm surprised to think them keeping their end should ever be an issue, breaking it would be the dm saying "time to multiclass" and on par with some contrived Paladin falls scenario. Has this happened to anyone? :smallconfused:

[Millstone85]

Edit: Nevermind. I didn't see that the Kolyarut was already brought up.

[Beleriphon]

Creature types are badly mapped for eberron, beast-like fiends (hellhound/blinkdog/etc) could be natural creatures (blink dog is & house Ghallahandra is named after the halfling word for them). It' also possible for them to just be magebred animals. In both cases they cold be anything as mortal creatures with free will.

Keep in mind with Eberron there a bunch of fiends that are native to the world. Rakshasas spring to mind, the demon lords, really anything that could be the servant of a bound demon lord works.

As for the fiend pact, it could be as simple as the warlock found a funky old books and started reading it. The instructions provide power no contract required.

[Max_Killjoy]

I didn't assume anything.

OK.

Does that mean I misread your statement, or does it mean that you are assrting the statement is universal?

[Tetrasodium]

Keep in mind with Eberron there a bunch of fiends that are native to the world. Rakshasas spring to mind, the demon lords, really anything that could be the servant of a bound demon lord works.

As for the fiend pact, it could be as simple as the warlock found a funky old books and started reading it. The instructions provide power no contract required.

I agree completely, had a player try to banish a fiend once & it was a huge point of sticking when it was treated a a native instead of being banished to some other plane. Think that I've already mentioned it while linking to a couple examples where there was some explaining earlier; but I don't expect we will have a good handle on it till after rise & raptor when keith can get planes of eberron finished & out.

On the warlock note, the last player I had who was a warlock got something dark bound to his soul by one of the five nations

[Mellack]

While fiends are evil, that does not mean everything they wish to fight against is good. The Blood Wars are a thing, and there is often the idea of conflict in the hierarchy in the lower planes. A fiend might be happy to give a bit of power to a good person if they could see that directed at a foe or competitor. Even better if they can do that without raising suspicion or having any obvious links back to themselves.

[Max_Killjoy]

While fiends are evil, that does not mean everything they wish to fight against is good. The Blood Wars are a thing, and there is often the idea of conflict in the hierarchy in the lower planes. A fiend might be happy to give a bit of power to a good person if they could see that directed at a foe or competitor. Even better if they can do that without raising suspicion or having any obvious links back to themselves.

Which would be a reason why they'd give a person an independent seed of power that the person could grow on their own, with the "contract" as simple as "you can never use this power directly against me". Give them the power, let them grow the power on their own so it becomes their own, and no one can trace it back to the original fiend.

[HappyDaze]

Sure, you just have to make sure that they won't benefit more from breaking it, or like I said, do it in a way that they can't break it. For example, MToF mentions the Kolyarut, that chisels contracts onto a sheet of gold that is placed in a marut, who enforces the terms of the contract, potentially killing the violator. I'd imagine a pact contract done in this manner would keep a yugoloth from violating it. Or if you had the yugoloth's true name, you could ensure your contract was not breached.

Anyways, my point was not all fiends are equally out to corrupt you.

Because those options are something a 1st level Warlock is likely to have access to when making their pact.

[Millstone85]

Because those options are something a 1st level Warlock is likely to have access to when making their pact.A yugoloth would not give you their true name, but it might accept to take you on a trip to the Hall of Concordance.

Of course, that would depend on how much they need you, and on whether you can provide the gold to chisel the contract on. Maybe someone from your backstory now wants their money back.

[Temperjoke]

Because those options are something a 1st level Warlock is likely to have access to when making their pact.

Not everyone looking to make a pact with a fiend is at level 1.