Would your Good character consider using a Hellfire weapon?

[Tanarii]

For those not familiar with it, a Hellfire weapon: any humanoid killed by an attack made with this weapon has its soul funneled into the River Styx, where it's reborn instantly as a lemure devil

If you had a Good character, would they consider using such a weapon on a target they thought 'deserved' to go to the Nine Hells? Keep in mind there's very few ways to actually determine the alignment in 5e, let alone soul's destination in the afterlife.

Obviously not all Good characters are the same, and alignment isn't a straight jacket. So what I'm really interested in is if you think it wouldn't be any kind of general moral conflict for most of your Good characters, or if it would generally be a conflict then what kind of special circumstances (either your characters or the targets or both) would apply before they'd consider it.

(This post inspired by a comment in the thread about preventing Raise Dead. So that's an example of a circumstance: You're sure the target is an evil bad word going to the lower planes anyway, and you're trying to make sure they stay dead.)

[Corran]

I mean, it's possible. It would sure be a dark moment for the character but it doesn't mean it would be downhill from that point on. For a particularly moral character this action might become something that haunts him for a long time (nightmares where he is reliving the scene or of the fate they condemned their enemy), but any good aligned character could do it if pushed enough without necessarily scaring their alignment/personality/behaviour forever or beyond repair.

[ProsecutorGodot]

not a chance in hell.

Definitely no though, any good character I have played understands that even if it's their belief that someone deserves death and that might be a "good" thing it is not their job or place to dictate where their soul goes.

[JonBeowulf]

My vengeance Pally? Without remorse or a second thought. He's a judgemental jerk who has his own definition where the line between neutral and evil is. Then again, perhaps I should change him to Lawful Neutral.

I doubt any of my other characters would, though. But circumstances must be considered...

[Lunali]

Assuming it's a melee weapon, I don't see any reason a good character wouldn't use it. That is, unless your DM has ruled that you can't just decide to not kill people. Honestly, most good characters shouldn't be killing humanoids except in times of great need.

[Sigreid]

My neutral bordering on evil character refused to even touch them or the coins. Lines he wouldn't cross.

[Anymage]

As an abstract moral position, it would take an incredibly stringent set of circumstances in order to allow it. You'd have to have concrete proof that the bad guy is indeed an imminent threat and is not redeemable, as well as the fact that he also has allies who will bring him back and are similarly unable to be stopped or redeemed. All that builds into an incredibly high bar to justify it's use over merely killing something.

In practice I could see people arguing the other way. I'd very strongly disagree with them, but absent fall based mechanics (and good riddance to them) that's just asking for players to either argue morality at the table (there's a reason political and religious talk get so heated), or just cause everybody to overlook the moral ramifications in favor of just seeing it as a sword of making sure the bad guy never comes back.

[Keltest]

I think as a good character fighting some big evil, i'm probably not looking at things from that angle in the first place. Unless this guy has already died and specifically been resurrected time after time, it's not even something i would be factoring into my actions. It's an evil sword that does evil things to serve evil, so theres no reason to interact with it except to put it in a lead lined box and drop it in the ocean between two continents.

But if this guy does keep coming back after being killed, and is such a big problem that he genuinely cant be allowed to come back any more... I think I'm a step or five beyond caring about the particulars of what happens to his soul at that point. That sword is no worse than anything he would already be getting, and is maybe better than some other options.

[ProsecutorGodot]

But if this guy does keep coming back after being killed, and is such a big problem that he genuinely cant be allowed to come back any more... I think I'm a step or five beyond caring about the particulars of what happens to his soul at that point. That sword is no worse than anything he would already be getting, and is maybe better than some other options.

If that is the case, giving him a fast pass to hell where he still has a chance of climbing up the rankings of devils is potentially a worse outcome. That kind of person is exactly what they're looking for.

Personally I'd be even more concerned about what happens to that kind of persons soul, in the same way that an indomitably good soul is valued an irredeemably evil one is also valuable.

If there truly were no other option than to let a terrible being like this cycle on and on through resurrection or whatever other means they're using to return, I'd rather destroy them utterly than send their soul somewhere it could still be "useful" for evil. It would be an absolute last resort, the circumstances that would force any of my characters to resort to such a thing are bordering on unimaginable.

Imagining that "soul destruction" is Plan Z, Hellfire Weapon is Plan Y with other options like Soul Cage, Imprisonment or "Wish they were gone for a few thousand years" between.

[Zevox]

I think as a good character fighting some big evil, i'm probably not looking at things from that angle in the first place. Unless this guy has already died and specifically been resurrected time after time, it's not even something i would be factoring into my actions. It's an evil sword that does evil things to serve evil, so theres no reason to interact with it except to put it in a lead lined box and drop it in the ocean between two continents.
Yeah, this is kind of the big thing. Most good characters probably don't have "where are the souls of the foes I slay going when they die" terribly high on their priorities list, since their concerns are generally more with their own world and lifetime. I think it'd take a fairly unusual person to be that interested in condemning people's souls to hell who weren't already going to end up there just because they deserved it, and it's pretty unlikely (though not completely impossible) that such a person would be good-aligned.

Of the good aligned characters I've played to date, well, one was a Tiefling who hated his devil heritage, and the other is very idealistic Paladin. Both would only touch such a weapon to try and prevent it from ever being used, and probably to look for ways to destroy it.

[Kane0]

If you had a Good character, would they consider using such a weapon on a target they thought 'deserved' to go to the Nine Hells? Keep in mind there's very few ways to actually determine the alignment in 5e, let alone soul's destination in the afterlife.

Obviously not all Good characters are the same, and alignment isn't a straight jacket. So what I'm really interested in is if you think it wouldn't be any kind of general moral conflict for most of your Good characters, or if it would generally be a conflict then what kind of special circumstances (either your characters or the targets or both) would apply before they'd consider it.


If one believed, or had some way of knowing, that the victim was going to The Nine Hells anyway and had reason to kill them, yes. Some good characters might even shift that moral responsibility to those giving them 'authority' to use such weapons, such as in an order of Watcher Paladins for example.

I imagine general use it would be condemned assuming the details were known by the wider populace, but there's no accounting for ignorance nor arrogance.

I would note that it's perfectly 'safe' to use these weapons on anything except humanoids, so it's really only a problem when attacking people with it, but even then just having one in your possession that you can and will use is cause for alarm for anyone concerned about theirs (or others') immortal souls.

[JackPhoenix]

It's a magic weapon. There's plenty of non-humanoid resistant or immune to non-magic weapons, the humanoids with such defenses are all basically lycanthropes. It's fine if you don't have better option.

[sithlordnergal]

I see no reason my Good characters wouldn't. This is especially true if the being keeps their name, and you can find a way to summon them as a Familiar. You can force them to do good. Plus if that's the only magical weapon any of my characters have access to, they will use it without really worrying about the consequences. Is it evil, yes. But its a necessary evil, at least until they find a different weapon

[ProsecutorGodot]

I see no reason my Good characters wouldn't. This is especially true if the being keeps their name, and you can find a way to summon them as a Familiar. You can force them to do good. Plus if that's the only magical weapon any of my characters have access to, they will use it without really worrying about the consequences. Is it evil, yes. But its a necessary evil, at least until they find a different weapon

Well, first they end up as a Lemure. If they don't progress past that point in the devil heirarchy, you can't force them to do anything and you've damned them to an eternal torment they might not have deserved.

I'm not sure this would work for the traditional "Find Familiar" spell, or even the Chain Pact Warlocks version - the familiar you summon is a spirit, not the actual creature. At this point, if you're damning their soul to hell and re-summoning their now demonic form to do good I wonder what was stopping you from forcing them to do good before.

Nothing about this justification sounds "good" to me.

[Keltest]

If that is the case, giving him a fast pass to hell where he still has a chance of climbing up the rankings of devils is potentially a worse outcome. That kind of person is exactly what they're looking for.

Personally I'd be even more concerned about what happens to that kind of persons soul, in the same way that an indomitably good soul is valued an irredeemably evil one is also valuable.

If there truly were no other option than to let a terrible being like this cycle on and on through resurrection or whatever other means they're using to return, I'd rather destroy them utterly than send their soul somewhere it could still be "useful" for evil. It would be an absolute last resort, the circumstances that would force any of my characters to resort to such a thing are bordering on unimaginable.

Imagining that "soul destruction" is Plan Z, Hellfire Weapon is Plan Y with other options like Soul Cage, Imprisonment or "Wish they were gone for a few thousand years" between.

I mean i guess, but as a good aligned person, the odds of me having even one of these options available to me is slim. I certainly wouldnt know in advance how to utterly annihilate somebody's soul and am already acting in desperation just by using the darn sword. The whole situation is basically defined by my lack of viable options.


Well, first they end up as a Lemure. If they don't progress past that point in the devil heirarchy, you can't force them to do anything and you've damned them to an eternal torment they might not have deserved.

I'm not sure this would work for the traditional "Find Familiar" spell, or even the Chain Pact Warlocks version - the familiar you summon is a spirit, not the actual creature. At this point, if you're damning their soul to hell and re-summoning their now demonic form to do good I wonder what was stopping you from forcing them to do good before.

Nothing about this justification sounds "good" to me.

It also assumes that the "good" character is only fighting and killing evil enemies, which is not guaranteed to be the case even if they are fairly proactive about only seeking out such fights.

[Angelalex242]

Categorically no.

A good example of a man who'd love a Hellfire Weapon is Judge Frollo (Hunchback of Notre Dame). Protip: He isn't good. He's eeeeeeeeevil.

[False God]

Excepting "Special Circumstances", I'd say no.

[NRSASD]

Any of my good characters would rather use a soul-destroying weapon first before using a hellfire weapon. And in that case, they’d only do so under extreme duress against a foe that couldn’t be safely contained. Sending a foe to hell that is evil enough and powerful enough to warrant such a direct ticket straight to the Styx is merely setting up the BBEG for the next campaign. Any “acceptable target” is going to climb the ranks of hell pretty quickly and return for vengeance. Hence the preference for soul-destroying weapons instead.

[Captain Panda]

Hellfire weapons are my least favorite thing in all of Fifth Edition. Anything that can take a good aligned creature and force their soul to be pure evil is ridiculous. It's so stupid it beggars belief that they put it in. Devils have, in the past, spent years painstakingly corrupting people so that when they die, hell has another soldier. No reason to bother with that, just start handing out Hellfire Weapons! Murder a hundred kobolds in an afternoon, that's a hundred fresh devils. Go to an orphanage and kill a bunch of babies? New devils for hell's armies.

It's inexcusably bad worldbuilding to just throw something like that into the game and not consider the implications AT ALL.

That said, if your campaign does have those weapons, a character who knows what it is and willingly kills with it is not a good aligned character. Full stop. You don't spawn more devils (or demons) if you're good. I don't even think a neutral alignment could be justified.

[Angelalex242]

Hellfire weapons are my least favorite thing in all of Fifth Edition. Anything that can take a good aligned creature and force their soul to be pure evil is ridiculous. It's so stupid it beggars belief that they put it in. Devils have, in the past, spent years painstakingly corrupting people so that when they die, hell has another soldier. No reason to bother with that, just start handing out Hellfire Weapons! Murder a hundred kobolds in an afternoon, that's a hundred fresh devils. Go to an orphanage and kill a bunch of babies? New devils for hell's armies.

It's inexcusably bad worldbuilding to just throw something like that into the game and not consider the implications AT ALL.

That said, if your campaign does have those weapons, a character who knows what it is and willingly kills with it is not a good aligned character. Full stop. You don't spawn more devils (or demons) if you're good. I don't even think a neutral alignment could be justified.

...Thought of like that, Hellfire Weapons should probably be an Artifact. Hand crafted by Asmodeus himself, there's only one of it, because he had to spend dozens of unique artifacts of Hell crafting the thing, and now there's a weapon that can make the soul of any being go to Hell, whether they deserve it or not.

[Tawmis]

For those not familiar with it, a Hellfire weapon: any humanoid killed by an attack made with this weapon has its soul funneled into the River Styx, where it's reborn instantly as a lemure devil
If you had a Good character, would they consider using such a weapon on a target they thought 'deserved' to go to the Nine Hells? Keep in mind there's very few ways to actually determine the alignment in 5e, let alone soul's destination in the afterlife.
Obviously not all Good characters are the same, and alignment isn't a straight jacket. So what I'm really interested in is if you think it wouldn't be any kind of general moral conflict for most of your Good characters, or if it would generally be a conflict then what kind of special circumstances (either your characters or the targets or both) would apply before they'd consider it.
(This post inspired by a comment in the thread about preventing Raise Dead. So that's an example of a circumstance: You're sure the target is an evil bad word going to the lower planes anyway, and you're trying to make sure they stay dead.)

I don't see why a good character wouldn't use this, if it's targetted towards an enemy who is clearly evil and needs to be banished to hell.

A tavern brawl, where it's a game of cards that turned violent - and the character caught the NPC cheating - No.

A necromancer who has raised the dead of a nearby town to march them against another town - yes, send that soul to the lowest planes of Hell to become a slime creature in Hades.

I mean, it's literally Ghost Rider.

[Mastikator]

My good characters? No.

Arcadius, my CG divine soul sorcerer wouldn't mess with lower plane weapons.
Twitch, my LG battlesmith gnome playing in Decent into Avernus wouldn't use it, if they deserve to go to hell they'd go there without a special weapon for it. He's also in the business of saving people not hurting them and prefers non-lethal solutions for mortals.

My neutral characters? No.
Bob, my neutral abberant mind dhampir prefers to keep his mortal enemies alive, and he kills monsters to stop them from harming people, not to punish them. Furthermore a hellfire weapon is the weapon of the very creatures he opposes.

My evil characters. Yes.
Kane, my LE human fighter would use a hellfire weapon if it gave a tactical advantage in combat, he's not concerned with cosmic justice, just winning the next fight and acquiring money and status. He wouldn't make a deal with a devil due to his antagonistic view of deities and their minions however.

[tokek]

For those not familiar with it, a Hellfire weapon: any humanoid killed by an attack made with this weapon has its soul funneled into the River Styx, where it's reborn instantly as a lemure devil

If you had a Good character, would they consider using such a weapon on a target they thought 'deserved' to go to the Nine Hells? Keep in mind there's very few ways to actually determine the alignment in 5e, let alone soul's destination in the afterlife.



I think I prompted this question so I will answer it : to my own surprise in the circumstances he finds himself the answer is yes.

Its totally specific to one particular king who has taken over and corrupted a kingdom and religion and launched a genocidal war. The party know his ultimate purpose is to serve the cause of the utter destruction of the world and the character witnessed the similar destruction of the feywild (it was full-on genocidal horror). If it was just punishment he would not do it, he's going to do it to prevent further atrocities.

So in that extreme situation and having such a weapon to hand anyway (long story) he has decided to use it. He knows he is taking divine justice into his own hands, he believes the gods might punish him for it (but he sort of thinks the gods are useless jerks) and he's doing it anyway.

So as a player do I think he retains good alignment? Just about, for now. The motivation is the key here, he is doing it to prevent imminent genocidal horrors by someone who has already committed genocide. If he actually pulls it off I might change his alignment to CN - its not the sort of thing you do without it maybe altering who you are.

[Schwann145]

Depends entirely on the world/setting in question.
For instance, my Faerunian isn't looking to make themself public enemy #1 of every Kelemvorite in the Realms by interfering with where dead souls go.
Or if the setting in question makes a distinction between souls tortured in the Hells and souls that get "promoted" in the Hells, that would be very relevant info in the decision.

But, without that knowledge, in a vacuum? They'd probably reject such a weapon.

[Angelalex242]

As far as I know, any soul sent to the Hells can get promoted if they're clever and evil enough.

Hence, if you slaughter Lawful Evil Kobolds with it, the Kobolds might do very well and become far stronger in death than ever they were in life.

...and if they were Tucker's Kobolds, you can be sure they're getting Fast Tracked to future Pit Fiends.

[tokek]

Hellfire weapons are my least favorite thing in all of Fifth Edition. Anything that can take a good aligned creature and force their soul to be pure evil is ridiculous. It's so stupid it beggars belief that they put it in. Devils have, in the past, spent years painstakingly corrupting people so that when they die, hell has another soldier. No reason to bother with that, just start handing out Hellfire Weapons! Murder a hundred kobolds in an afternoon, that's a hundred fresh devils. Go to an orphanage and kill a bunch of babies? New devils for hell's armies.

It's inexcusably bad worldbuilding to just throw something like that into the game and not consider the implications AT ALL.

That said, if your campaign does have those weapons, a character who knows what it is and willingly kills with it is not a good aligned character. Full stop. You don't spawn more devils (or demons) if you're good. I don't even think a neutral alignment could be justified.

Broadly speaking I agree with you.

In another campaign my Neutral Good Warlock utterly despised hellfire weapons when she found out what they were and anyone who ever wielded one was immediately her enemy.

But it depends on context. In the very particular context of the current campaign (its world-ending stuff, the gods are falling etc) and a very clearly evil individual I think it will strain the good alignment of my character but not automatically invalidate it. Is it wrong to take divine justice into your hands when the god of justice has fallen and been defiled by the person you are killing? When keeping them dead might be the only way to restore the god of justice and law to their place? I honestly don't know but its a super-interesting character arc

[Mastikator]

Hellfire weapons are my least favorite thing in all of Fifth Edition. Anything that can take a good aligned creature and force their soul to be pure evil is ridiculous. It's so stupid it beggars belief that they put it in. Devils have, in the past, spent years painstakingly corrupting people so that when they die, hell has another soldier. No reason to bother with that, just start handing out Hellfire Weapons! Murder a hundred kobolds in an afternoon, that's a hundred fresh devils. Go to an orphanage and kill a bunch of babies? New devils for hell's armies.

It's inexcusably bad worldbuilding to just throw something like that into the game and not consider the implications AT ALL.

That said, if your campaign does have those weapons, a character who knows what it is and willingly kills with it is not a good aligned character. Full stop. You don't spawn more devils (or demons) if you're good. I don't even think a neutral alignment could be justified.

To be fair the entire campaign it's based on is predicated on the same concept, that good innocent mortals can be sent to hell en-masse. There are other scenarios in the Forgotten Realms where good innocent people are sent to the lower planes because of the actions of others outside of their control. The outer planes are NOT a cosmic justice system and is in fact deeply unjust. The upper planes exist to create justice and the lower planes exist to destroy justice, they are not there to punish evil doers but to enable evil doers to punish good people.

To use a hellfire weapon is not to be a vehicle of justice but rather the opposite, it's to be a tool of an injust system. IMO using it is evil and it's appropriate that high level devils should have it.

Low level devils need to resort to contracts that trick good people into giving up not just their own souls but also other people's souls, people who aren't there to object, people who have no say, people who do everything good and right and are still sent to hell. That is canonical Forgotten Realms cosmology.

[Battlebooze]

It's amusing to consider the possibility that Hellfire weapons actually weaken the lower planes by introducing unwanted and potentially destructive holy and pure souls into it's darkness. The Lemures that are created might be somehow tainted by positive energy and begin to grow into strange new good aligned (demonic?) entities.

I really want to pervert this weapon, mainly because the concept really makes no sense to me at all. A much more sensible magic weapon would just send the soul to the appropriate death plane, preventing the revival of the target.

[Mastikator]

It's amusing to consider the possibility that Hellfire weapons actually weaken the lower planes by introducing unwanted and potentially destructive holy and pure souls into it's darkness. The Lemures that are created might be somehow tainted by positive energy and begin to grow into strange new good aligned (demonic?) entities.

I really want to pervert this weapon, mainly because the concept really makes no sense to me at all. A much more sensible magic weapon would just send the soul to the appropriate death plane, preventing the revival of the target.

The River Styx removes all personality, memories, etc. Killing a good and holy person with a hellfire weapon just destroys their good alignment and strengthens the devil army.

[Kane0]

Silver lining: it also wipes creatures that would otherwise make great devils, they're just as lemure as all the others.

[JackPhoenix]

The River Styx removes all personality, memories, etc. Killing a good and holy person with a hellfire weapon just destroys their good alignment and strengthens the devil army.

Which, on the other hand, lowers the possibility of a villain rising to a position in Hell's hierarchy. Unless he had a pact with Hells beforehands (Like that one NPC who got turned into higher devil in Avernus), he's now no more valuable than anyone else.

And it's not like there aren't basically infinite lemurs anyway.

[Mastikator]

Which, on the other hand, lowers the possibility of a villain rising to a position in Hell's hierarchy. Unless he had a pact with Hells beforehands (Like that one NPC who got turned into higher devil in Avernus), he's now no more valuable than anyone else.

And it's not like there aren't basically infinite lemurs anyway.

Big IF right there. Most mortals do not have and will not have contracts with devils. Arguably *only 1 in 16 souls would've ended up in hell anyway, meaning 15 in 16 are robbed of their rightful place, which may be the abyss, may also be mt celestia. Either of those two examples you're not making the world better and in one you've actively made the world worse.

*at most, there are 16 outer planes not counting the neutral one and various domains. AFAIK no outer plane is privileged to receive more souls than any other plane. Mortals can have any alignment.

[Amnestic]

Clearly, the angels need to invent some Heavenlight weapons that send any souls killed to the good afterlives to help redeem them and keep them from hell.

So there's a question: Would your good character use such a weapon, knowing that it still denied people their 'rightful' afterlife?

[Burley]

For those not familiar with it, a Hellfire weapon: any humanoid killed by an attack made with this weapon has its soul funneled into the River Styx, where it's reborn instantly as a lemure devil

If you had a Good character, would they consider using such a weapon on a target they thought 'deserved' to go to the Nine Hells? Keep in mind there's very few ways to actually determine the alignment in 5e, let alone soul's destination in the afterlife.

Obviously not all Good characters are the same, and alignment isn't a straight jacket. So what I'm really interested in is if you think it wouldn't be any kind of general moral conflict for most of your Good characters, or if it would generally be a conflict then what kind of special circumstances (either your characters or the targets or both) would apply before they'd consider it.

(This post inspired by a comment in the thread about preventing Raise Dead. So that's an example of a circumstance: You're sure the target is an evil bad word going to the lower planes anyway, and you're trying to make sure they stay dead.)

I think this would be a really interesting weapon to give to a good aligned character. Especially if their Knowledge check isn't quite high enough to know about the devil creation bit. I could totally see a Paladin using this, to truly condemn evil. I think the creation of a devil would be an evil act, though. I mean, killing a humanoid is generally an evil act, but D&D lets us subvert morality whenever XP is involved. So, would a Paladin fall for unknowingly creating an evil creature?


Maybe, in higher levels, the Good'n travels to hell and witnesses the ranch of lemure devils, cluckin' around, waiting for their creator to feed them or build them a coop or something. Maybe its a kind of Match-Two style of devil, where you can cram two lemures together for an imp, two imps for a quasit, etc.:smalltongue:

[Sigreid]

I don't see why a good character wouldn't use this, if it's targetted towards an enemy who is clearly evil and needs to be banished to hell.

A tavern brawl, where it's a game of cards that turned violent - and the character caught the NPC cheating - No.

A necromancer who has raised the dead of a nearby town to march them against another town - yes, send that soul to the lowest planes of Hell to become a slime creature in Hades.

I mean, it's literally Ghost Rider.

Unless they changed him a lot, Ghost Rider never kills. His big trick is his penance stare which makes the target feel all the physical, mental and emotional pain they have inflicted on others. Potentially giving them the chance to reform.

Side note, I personally find the whole module to be an ill-conceived abomination.

[da newt]

Some of my good PC's would jump at the chance to add the ability to condemn some souls to the hells - I mean they are serving out divine justice in the most judge jury and executioner type way. Would they use it as their primary weapon and send all their foes to hell? Most of them would not, but one certainly would - after all any foe that deserves to be killed also deserves to rot in hell forever.

I mean really - I'm good; my enemies are evil and evil people deserve to be killed and condemned to hell forever - it's just that simple. Besides, it's exactly what the Gods want me to do. What do you think I've been given this power to SMITE for? It's not for getting kittens out of trees ...

[Sigreid]

Some of my good PC's would jump at the chance to add the ability to condemn some souls to the hells - I mean they are serving out divine justice in the most judge jury and executioner type way. Would they use it as their primary weapon and send all their foes to hell? Most of them would not, but one certainly would - after all any foe that deserves to be killed also deserves to rot in hell forever.

I mean really - I'm good; my enemies are evil and evil people deserve to be killed and condemned to hell forever - it's just that simple. Besides, it's exactly what the Gods want me to do. What do you think I've been given this power to SMITE for? It's not for getting kittens out of trees ...

I'd argue that they aren't that good then. The darkest evil often endlessly espouses its virtue.

[Tanarii]

I think I prompted this question so I will answer it : to my own surprise in the circumstances he finds himself the answer is yes.

Its totally specific to one particular king who has taken over and corrupted a kingdom and religion and launched a genocidal war. The party know his ultimate purpose is to serve the cause of the utter destruction of the world and the character witnessed the similar destruction of the feywild (it was full-on genocidal horror). If it was just punishment he would not do it, he's going to do it to prevent further atrocities.

So in that extreme situation and having such a weapon to hand anyway (long story) he has decided to use it. He knows he is taking divine justice into his own hands, he believes the gods might punish him for it (but he sort of thinks the gods are useless jerks) and he's doing it anyway.

So as a player do I think he retains good alignment? Just about, for now. The motivation is the key here, he is doing it to prevent imminent genocidal horrors by someone who has already committed genocide. If he actually pulls it off I might change his alignment to CN - its not the sort of thing you do without it maybe altering who you are.

Thanks for the detailed explanation of e character. I don't really like vaguebooking something into a new thread, but my intent was to avoid the view I was calling you out as 'wrong' in some way. :smallwink:

[Greywander]

I'm typically drawn toward playing LG characters, and most of them would only use such a weapon as a last resort in dire circumstances. For example, if the BBEG kept resurrecting. Same with soul destruction. These are a last resort.

A more principled character, like a paladin, would refuse to use it at all. He'd rather deal with the consequences than commit an evil act in the name of good. He's not responsible for what the BBEG does, only his own actions. If the BBEG does more evil, the BBEG is the one who will be held accountable.

Would any good character use such a weapon as a first or early resort? Well, yes. All it takes is being convinced that anything short of perfection is deserving of damnation. If you let the riffraff into heaven, you just end up corrupting the place, so to preserve the integrity of heaven, you have to send the undeserving to hell. And that's what an LG antagonist looks like. This is also why you need to be very careful when dealing with celestials, since they're probably more inclined toward such a mindset than mortals are.

[Dr.Samurai]

For those not familiar with it, a Hellfire weapon: any humanoid killed by an attack made with this weapon has its soul funneled into the River Styx, where it's reborn instantly as a lemure devil

If you had a Good character, would they consider using such a weapon on a target they thought 'deserved' to go to the Nine Hells? Keep in mind there's very few ways to actually determine the alignment in 5e, let alone soul's destination in the afterlife.

Obviously not all Good characters are the same, and alignment isn't a straight jacket. So what I'm really interested in is if you think it wouldn't be any kind of general moral conflict for most of your Good characters, or if it would generally be a conflict then what kind of special circumstances (either your characters or the targets or both) would apply before they'd consider it.

(This post inspired by a comment in the thread about preventing Raise Dead. So that's an example of a circumstance: You're sure the target is an evil bad word going to the lower planes anyway, and you're trying to make sure they stay dead.)
I think it would definitely be a conflict for the good characters I play.

However, condemning/binding/imprisoning evil beings to nasty places is sort of a thing for good beings in various mythologies/religions etc. In Eberron, Khyber is the evil dragon that slew its sibling Siberys, and Eberron wraps around it and binds it, keeping it imprisoned. And Khyber is the nasty evil underworld where many of Eberron's supernatural baddies are bound to so they can't hurt others.

When thought about in this way, a character can just be sending someone exactly to where they belong with a Hellfire weapon.

However, given the logistics and economy of Avernus... sending souls there does seem a little counter-productive in the sense that lemures will serve the great infernal war machine that is Avernus. But of all the fiends that exist, how many of them have the power and ability to influence the Material Plane?

I don't know, those are my quick takes I guess...

[KorvinStarmast]

For those not familiar with it, a Hellfire weapon: any humanoid killed by an attack made with this weapon has its soul funneled into the River Styx, where it's reborn instantly as a lemure devil Some enemies are better off there (oddly, I am thinking Strahd for one as it would get him out of Barovia, right? :smallwink: )

If you had a Good character, would they consider using such a weapon on a target they thought 'deserved' to go to the Nine Hells?

Keep in mind there's very few ways to actually determine the alignment in 5e, let alone soul's destination in the afterlife. Depends on the foe.

Obviously not all Good characters are the same, and alignment isn't a straight jacket.
And yet this conversation fell into that trap already, if you look at the responses that you got.

Presuming that the player character is fully aware of how that sword works, I still think that it would take that into consideration, and where they don't want a humanoid to go directly to hell, do not pass go, do not collect 200 SP, they can use 'knock out' on the felling blow to prevent that. That is called "applying that rule intelligently" and is a good way to avoid most mistakes that might crop up when using that weapon.

And for a vengeance paladin? I'd guess that for some of their specific enemies this sword is the just the right tool. (Although not all enemies are those specific enemies, right?)

You're sure the target is an evil bad word going to the lower planes anyway, and you're trying to make sure they stay dead.) I am with da newt on this.

Assuming it's a melee weapon, I don't see any reason a good character wouldn't use it. Mostly agree but there will still be cases where you don't want to.

But if this guy does keep coming back after being killed, and is such a big problem that he genuinely cant be allowed to come back any more... I think I'm a step or five beyond caring about the particulars of what happens to his soul at that point. That sword is no worse than anything he would already be getting, and is maybe better than some other options. Nice example of a use case.

It's a magic weapon. There's plenty of non-humanoid resistant or immune to non-magic weapons, the humanoids with such defenses are all basically lycanthropes. It's fine if you don't have better option. Also good example.
Clearly, the angels need to invent some Heavenlight weapons that send any souls killed to the good afterlives to help redeem them and keep them from hell. But then the DM can't play gotcha with the Paladin. :smalltongue:

I mean really - I'm good; my enemies are evil and evil people deserve to be killed and condemned to hell forever - it's just that simple. Besides, it's exactly what the Gods want me to do. What do you think I've been given this power to SMITE for? It's not for getting kittens out of trees ... Heh, that got a smile out of me.

[Sigreid]

Some enemies are better off there (oddly, I am thinking Strahd for one as it would get him out of Barovia, right? :smallwink: )



I don't think that would work as how it is written, even angels, demons, devils and the souls of the dead can't get out of Barovia.

[nickl_2000]

Absolutely when you aren't fighting Humanoids. If I were in the middle of an undead dungeon there is no question that I would pull a magical weapon to make sure I bypass resistance. If he happened to run into a Necromancer who created the dungeons, he would do what he had to to win and survive. He is a person who very much lives in the moment, so a creature sent to the river styx is a problem for later as opposed to right now.

Against other humanoids, probably not, but all my characters have more than one weapon anyways.

[anamiac]

In a regular fight? No. However, if we were executing a prisoner after a fair trial that they lost, then my character might be okay with swinging the hellfire axe that chops their head off, provided she agrees with the ruling.

Another idea occurs to me. What would a campaign be like if your characters were all sent to hell as Lemurs and had to either crawl their way out and find a way to fix/redeem themselves... or take over and rule hell? It sounds pretty interesting to me.

[Dr.Samurai]

Another idea occurs to me. What would a campaign be like if your characters were all sent to hell as Lemurs and had to either crawl their way out and find a way to fix/redeem themselves... or take over and rule hell? It sounds pretty interesting to me.
Anamiac when you are you DMing this and what is the Big 16??? :smallbiggrin::smalltongue:

[Chronos]

Some characters might consider the use of such a weapon morally justifiable. Such characters are not Good. You don't mess around with souls.

[Rashagar]

I don't think any of my Good characters would even understand what the weapon actually does.

[ProsecutorGodot]

I don't think any of my Good characters would even understand what the weapon actually does.

Fiendish appearing magic weapon should be enough of a warning sign to seek an identify spell.

[Sigreid]

Fiendish appearing magic weapon should be enough of a warning sign to seek an identify spell.

All you have to do is meditate on a magic item for an hour to get the full readout.

[sithlordnergal]

Some characters might consider the use of such a weapon morally justifiable. Such characters are not Good. You don't mess around with souls.

You don't mess around with souls...but are they? Is it even a moral concern to begin with. What happens to a soul is the concern of demons, devils, and celestials, not mortals.

[Keltest]

You don't mess around with souls...but are they? Is it even a moral concern to begin with. What happens to a soul is the concern of demons, devils, and celestials, not mortals.

Maybe not, but no genuinely Good character should be comfortable with the idea of just sending a soul to Hell.

[sithlordnergal]

Maybe not, but no genuinely Good character should be comfortable with the idea of just sending a soul to Hell.

I guess, I would say it fully depends on the character. Plus it really depends on if you have other options available...now, if a character is purposely using the weapon specifically to do that, then its an evil act. If its being used because you have no other magic weapons, no moral issues there. It becomes an "any port in a storm" situation.

[Tanarii]

I forget the 5e lore. How likely is a Lemure to get promoted before it's destroyed permanently on some battlefield outside the Nine Hells?

[ProsecutorGodot]

I guess, I would say it fully depends on the character. Plus it really depends on if you have other options available...now, if a character is purposely using the weapon specifically to do that, then its an evil act. If its being used because you have no other magic weapons, no moral issues there. It becomes an "any port in a storm" situation.
I feel like you're glossing straight over the fact that you can opt not to have a magic weapon if the alternative is this.

Like, it's an option. Having no weapon at all is an option.


I forget the 5e lore. How likely is a Lemure to get promoted before it's destroyed permanently on some battlefield outside the Nine Hells?

Well all we've got to go off is that they're most often promoted to imps, so if we had an exact number on lemures and imps we could work out a very rough estimate.

My guess though is that the lemures would probably be more used in home battles, you don't typically see them outside of hell because their ability to be nigh immortal in hell is valuable. Better to send other devils out that will usually respawn in hell even if they're killed outside it.

[SpikeFightwicky]

Keep in mind that LE souls don't normally go to the Nine Hells if they worshiped a deity, so you're technically bypassing/breaking the rules of the cosmic afterlife if you use the hellfire weapon. It feels like anyone who feels like they should be the ones to decide where to send souls for punishment are not on the good aligned spectrum (I mean... they might think they're good, but someone brought up Frolo earlier and he perfectly fits the "evil but tries to justify being good".

[sithlordnergal]

I feel like you're glossing straight over the fact that you can opt not to have a magic weapon if the alternative is this.

Like, it's an option. Having no weapon at all is an option.



Unless you're a Monk or Moon Druid, its really not. Too many things resist non-magical weapon damage, and I can't think of a single Wizard I've ever played with that was willing to waste their Concentration on Magic Weapon. Soooo yeah, evil weapon is better than no weapon, especially since its not that evil of an effect.

[Unoriginal]

I think it's important to note that in 5e, people don't get sent to Hell as some kind of punishment for their mortal acts.

They simply get sent to the afterlife that matches their selves the most. If they get tormented there it's only because the other beings here share their mindset.


However, it's also important to note that using an Hellfire weapon means giving more power to the Nine Hells, one soul at a time. Most people want to avoid that.


I forget the 5e lore. How likely is a Lemure to get promoted before it's destroyed permanently on some battlefield outside the Nine Hells?

The large majority of Devil-involved battlefields are in the Nine Hells, specifically in Avernus.

In principle, Devils who get killed (for real, not a question of summoning) outside of the Nine Hells get thrown back into the Styx and become Lemures again unless they've taken precautions to avoid that fate. For Lemures, it doesn't do a big difference.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Unless you're a Monk or Moon Druid, its really not. Too many things resist non-magical weapon damage, and I can't think of a single Wizard I've ever played with that was willing to waste their Concentration on Magic Weapon. Soooo yeah, evil weapon is better than no weapon, especially since its not that evil of an effect.

Resistance is not immunity, I'm very willing to find alternatives if it means saving my roleplay opportunities rather than chasing optimal numbers. If I've got a one note character that becomes unable to effectively contribute without a magic weapon and it's literally impossible to find an alternative, maybe I deserve whatever consequences come of not using it.

Silvering is also an option, there are many nonmagical BPS resistant monsters that take full damage from a silvered weapon. Coincidentally, the vast majority of Devils, which is why even our Evil aligned Barbarian party member opted to silver their weapons rather than wait for a tool (it would have been this one) to fall into their hands. Shillelagh through MI is an option, a small Cleric dip for Bless and Shillelagh through Nature Cleric is an option, useful too since that gives you the ability to actually kill lemures.

No, if my character stopped at Hellfire Weapon and said that was the best they could do I'd fully expect anyone around them to call BS.

Not that evil either? I couldn't disagree more. Please don't forget that this damns the soul regardless of all circumstance. Not to mention if anyone ever managed to disarm you, you risk getting killed by your own soul damning weapon. Not worth the risk or the effort of trying to justify why I have such a thing.

[Tanarii]

In principle, Devils who get killed (for real, not a question of summoning) outside of the Nine Hells get thrown back into the Styx and become Lemures again unless they've taken precautions to avoid that fate. For Lemures, it doesn't do a big difference.
Thank you. For some reason I had it in my head that Lemures killed outside the Nine Hells were permanently dead.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Thank you. For some reason I had it in my head that Lemures killed outside the Nine Hells were permanently dead.

Most likely because that's how their statblock suggests it works through their Hellish Rejuvenation feature, though doing a cursory bit of research MToF suggests that they aren't destroyed full stop unless subjected to holy energy.

I'm not sure though, because every mention of them in MToF places them as a fighting force against invading demons, in hell, to serve as fodder.

Reading this bit, it seems like this is actually an extremely valuable trait and definitely a boon to the devils if you use the hellfire weapons consistently:

The devils view fighting demons on Avernus as a net benefit for their cause. Although most devils slain there are destroyed forever, ready access to supplies and support from the Nine Hells tilts the tide heavily against invading demons. Also, the prospect of a permanent death compels the devils fighting on Avernus to maintain the utmost readiness and coordination. Wounded devils retreat, knowing that fresh reinforcements can continue the fight. Hordes of lemures, devils that are permanently destroyed only if subjected to holy energies, are used to blunt demonic incursions. The terrain of Avernus is thoroughly mapped and festooned with ambush points, strongholds, and other defensive measures.

It says that, at least in Avernus, most devils that are killed are destroyed forever. They want Lemures. Knowingly creating more is actively emboldening the Devils in the Blood War.

[Unoriginal]

Thank you. For some reason I had it in my head that Lemures killed outside the Nine Hells were permanently dead.

It can seems like that because the statblock specifically says they come back if they get killed in Hell (which can give the impression they get destroyed permanently outside of it).

That being said, it seems I've mixed something up. According to the the MM:


If it dies outside the Nine Hells, a devil disappears in a cloud of sulfurous smoke or dissolves into a pool of ichor, instantly returning to its home layer, where it reforms at full strength. Devils that die in the Nine Hells are destroyed forever-a fate that even Asmodeus fears.

[sithlordnergal]

Resistance is not immunity, I'm very willing to find alternatives if it means saving my roleplay opportunities rather than chasing optimal numbers. If I've got a one note character that becomes unable to effectively contribute without a magic weapon and it's literally impossible to find an alternative, maybe I deserve whatever consequences come of not using it.

Silvering is also an option, there are many nonmagical BPS resistant monsters that take full damage from a silvered weapon. Coincidentally, the vast majority of Devils, which is why even our Evil aligned Barbarian party member opted to silver their weapons rather than wait for a tool (it would have been this one) to fall into their hands. Shillelagh through MI is an option, a small Cleric dip for Bless and Shillelagh through Nature Cleric is an option, useful too since that gives you the ability to actually kill lemures.

No, if my character stopped at Hellfire Weapon and said that was the best they could do I'd fully expect anyone around them to call BS.

Not that evil either? I couldn't disagree more. Please don't forget that this damns the soul regardless of all circumstance. Not to mention if anyone ever managed to disarm you, you risk getting killed by your own soul damning weapon. Not worth the risk or the effort of trying to justify why I have such a thing.

It may not be immunity, but it basically halves your effectiveness in combat, especially if you're a martial. You get relegated to grapple/shove checks and being 100% overshadowed by spell casters with everything at that point. Personally, I would be unwilling to be that hamstrung just for RP reasons, nor would I be willing to take a multiclass or feat just to avoid using an obvious magical weapon that's already there. Silvering does help out a lot, but there are also plenty of creatures that don't care if your weapon is silvered or not to make that worth while if you have a magic weapon in hand.

And that line of thinking extends to my characters. I can't name a single character of mine, good or not, that would be willing to hamstring themselves so drastically just because the weapon they find condemns their target's souls to the Nine Hells. Then again, every single one of my non-Lawful characters, Paladins included, are willing to use Blackrazor because they figure the good they can do outweighs the fact that every creature they kill with it has their soul devoured.

[ProsecutorGodot]

And that line of thinking extends to my characters. I can't name a single character of mine, good or not, that would be willing to hamstring themselves so drastically just because the weapon they find condemns their target's souls to the Nine Hells. Then again, every single one of my non-Lawful characters, Paladins included, are willing to use Blackrazor because they figure the good they can do outweighs the fact that every creature they kill with it has their soul devoured.

Sure, right until Blackrazor decides you're not feeding it enough and you go on a rampage against your party. Don't forget to ritualistically kill and devour a creature's soul every 3 days or you might have a problem.

To me, this feels like you're seeing your characters as game pieces. My characters are people, and the good aligned ones would be mortified at doing this even by accident. To do it intentionally would be unthinkable.

Like I said earlier, Hellfire Weapon is Plan Z, Blackrazor/Soul Destruction is Plan Y. There are other options, I'd rather make personal sacrifices than to decide that others should be sacrificed for my convenience.

[Keltest]

Sure, right until Blackrazor decides you're not feeding it enough and you go on a rampage against your party. Don't forget to ritualistically kill and devour a creature's soul every 3 days or you might have a problem.

To me, this feels like you're seeing your characters as game pieces. My characters are people, and the good aligned ones would be mortified at doing this even by accident. To do it intentionally would be unthinkable.

Agreed. "the ends justify the means" is quintessential evil philosophy. Being good means making sacrifices to serve your moral code, which in this case means reducing your combat effectiveness to avoid doing something heinous.

[KorvinStarmast]

However, it's also important to note that using an Hellfire weapon means giving more power to the Nine Hells, one soul at a time. Most people want to avoid that.

Good point. :smalleek:

[Sigreid]

I forget the 5e lore. How likely is a Lemure to get promoted before it's destroyed permanently on some battlefield outside the Nine Hells?

My understanding, which may be wrong, is that Lemure don't get permanently destroyed. Just wind back up at square 1 at the river.

[sithlordnergal]

Sure, right until Blackrazor decides you're not feeding it enough and you go on a rampage against your party. Don't forget to ritualistically kill and devour a creature's soul every 3 days or you might have a problem.

To me, this feels like you're seeing your characters as game pieces. My characters are people, and the good aligned ones would be mortified at doing this even by accident. To do it intentionally would be unthinkable.

Like I said earlier, Hellfire Weapon is Plan Z, Blackrazor/Soul Destruction is Plan Y. There are other options, I'd rather make personal sacrifices than to decide that others should be sacrificed for my convenience.

Keep in mind, Blackrazor isn't evil, so a rampage isn't going to happen unless you have a DM that reads "Chaotic Neutral" as "Chaotic Evil". The kill and devour a soul every 3 days is a somewhat minor concern given adventurers tend to kill a loooot of creatures. It also states "creature", doesn't specify that it has to be Humanoid. So you could technically kill a rat and feed it that way, though I'm sure Blackrazor would eventually want a Humanoid soul. So while Blackrazor may not be good, it is by no means evil.

And I will admit that, I see my characters as game pieces first. Heck, when I make a character I start off with "What do I want this build to do" and come up with personality and history later. Though even from an rp stance, I can't picture my characters concerning themselves that much about what happens to a dead being's soul, as it is no longer in their control as mortals. If by sending some people, typically evil ones, to hell you save the world, then it balances out as far as they're concerned.

And yeah, those weapons aren't great options, but better to use them to do good than do nothing or become a hinderance to your allies.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Keep in mind, Blackrazor isn't evil, so a rampage isn't going to happen unless you have a DM that reads "Chaotic Neutral" as "Chaotic Evil". The kill and devour a soul every 3 days is a somewhat minor concern given adventurers tend to kill a loooot of creatures. It also states "creature", doesn't specify that it has to be Humanoid. So you could technically kill a rat and feed it that way, though I'm sure Blackrazor would eventually want a Humanoid soul. So while Blackrazor may not be good, it is by no means evil.
No, it's not evil, it also doesn't care who's soul it is. Fine, you lose the contest and you kill yourself. It says clear as crystal that Blackrazor would absolutely take the wielders soul.

Personality
Blackrazor speaks with an imperious tone, as though accustomed to being obeyed.

The sword’s purpose is to consume souls. It doesn’t care whose souls it eats, including the wielder’s. The sword believes that all matter and energy sprang from a void of negative energy and will one day return to it. Blackrazor is meant to hurry that process along.
Blackrazor is not evil, but that doesn't make it good. It wants all souls, indiscriminately. It wants yours, it wants your party, it wants everything from the nine hells to mount celestia. Blackrazor will not be sated until every soul in existence is equally destroyed.


And I will admit that, I see my characters as game pieces first. Heck, when I make a character I start off with "What do I want this build to do" and come up with personality and history later. Though even from an rp stance, I can't picture my characters concerning themselves that much about what happens to a dead being's soul, as it is no longer in their control as mortals. If by sending some people, typically evil ones, to hell you save the world, then it balances out as far as they're concerned.

And yeah, those weapons aren't great options, but better to use them to do good than do nothing or become a hinderance to your allies.
I think you're overstating how much it would take to be an active hindrance.

The bolded part is crucial here as well - that's exactly why my characters care so much. It's not their place to decide where someone's soul goes, it's not about being concerned about where it goes it's about being the one to send it there. That's not their responsibility, not their right and not something they should be doing. The hellfire weapon is a tool that lets you intervene in this natural process and not in a nihilistically neutral way like Blackrazor but an actively harmful way that strengthens the nine hells, an army of evil beings that want to hold dominion over all creation.

I suppose I should be direct in this aspect though - I don't disagree with your reasoning here, I just disagree that any characters reasoning like this would be "good". At least, from my point of view, they would not be good for very long after doing this if they continue to disregard the ramifications of using such a weapon.

[brainface]

Yeah my character would use it. And knock them out with the last blow! Loophole found baatezu, balls in your court let's go.

Then the dm would get very upset because it was supposed to be a moral quandary and probably decide it was incapable of nonlethal attacks.

[Bohandas]

For those not familiar with it, a Hellfire weapon: any humanoid killed by an attack made with this weapon has its soul funneled into the River Styx, where it's reborn instantly as a lemure devil

If you had a Good character, would they consider using such a weapon on a target they thought 'deserved' to go to the Nine Hells?

At that point you're just giving resources to Asmodeus.

The only time I can see where it would be appropriate for a good character to use this weapon is if they know for a fact that the person they're using it on has sold their soul to an abyssal prince or an altroloth. Because then you're causing trouble for the forces of darkness

[tokek]

Keep in mind that LE souls don't normally go to the Nine Hells if they worshiped a deity, so you're technically bypassing/breaking the rules of the cosmic afterlife if you use the hellfire weapon. It feels like anyone who feels like they should be the ones to decide where to send souls for punishment are not on the good aligned spectrum (I mean... they might think they're good, but someone brought up Frolo earlier and he perfectly fits the "evil but tries to justify being good".

This is the bit of the story that prompted this thread that is where the DM has been very clever.

The NPC that my character intends to kill with a hellfire weapon serves something evil other than a devil - and both he and the party believe he will escape going to hell for his crimes due to his patron. So my character is aware they are trying to send someone to hell who will not go there if killed normally.

But that character is an eye-witness to crimes by that NPC which certainly deserve hell as a destination. (Its a long list, from murdering his own mother to full genocide)

Its interesting watching a lot of the same thoughts I have had being reflected here in a number of ways. I don't think there is a completely correct answer to the question, for my personal case I will do what makes sense for the character and then resolve with the DM if the people around him (he is a quite high ranking Harper) then treat him as having crossed a line and no longer want to be around him. The funniest twist might be if we restore Tyr by doing this (that is part of what this is about, the overthrow and probable imprisonment of Tyr) and the god himself condemns the act.

[sithlordnergal]

No, it's not evil, it also doesn't care who's soul it is. Fine, you lose the contest and you kill yourself. It says clear as crystal that Blackrazor would absolutely take the wielders soul.

Blackrazor is not evil, but that doesn't make it good. It wants all souls, indiscriminately. It wants yours, it wants your party, it wants everything from the nine hells to mount celestia. Blackrazor will not be sated until every soul in existence is equally destroyed.

I think you're overstating how much it would take to be an active hindrance.


That's perfectly fine, and if Blackrazor decides to have my character kill themselves and my character loses the contest, then that's on me. Because yeah, Blackrazor certainly isn't good, but its not "I'm gonna make my wielder go on a murder spree and kill everyone in that town" evil. So I could easily see Good Characters using it. As for how much of a hinderance it would be...I mean, I still don't think it'd be that much of a hinderance. Even the most lawful good Paladin is basically a mass murderer, has likely killed hundreds, probably wiped out a Goblin tribe or three because "they're evil", and goes on with their day. Its really not that hard to find a creature to kill, especially since it can be any creature, not a Humanoid creature.



The bolded part is crucial here as well - that's exactly why my characters care so much. It's not their place to decide where someone's soul goes, it's not about being concerned about where it goes it's about being the one to send it there. That's not their responsibility, not their right and not something they should be doing. The hellfire weapon is a tool that lets you intervene in this natural process and not in a nihilistically neutral way like Blackrazor but an actively harmful way that strengthens the nine hells, an army of evil beings that want to hold dominion over all creation.

I suppose I should be direct in this aspect though - I don't disagree with your reasoning here, I just disagree that any characters reasoning like this would be "good". At least, from my point of view, they would not be good for very long after doing this if they continue to disregard the ramifications of using such a weapon.

Eh, guess its just a difference in perception of Good vs. Evil. I just don't see that action as being inherently evil or good, no more than killing any other creature with a regular weapon that doesn't consign a soul to hell. And neither do my characters as a result of that. Given most Good characters are fighting Evil ones, then its safe to say whatever they kill is going to hell anyway, may as well turn them into a weak devil instead of letting them start out potentially strong.

[Amnestic]

Given most Good characters are fighting Evil ones, then its safe to say whatever they kill is going to hell anyway, may as well turn them into a weak devil instead of letting them start out potentially strong.

It's absolutely not safe to say that? There's a whole spectrum of neutrality/unaligned in the middle that you could come to blows with for any reason.

[Mastikator]

I suppose I should be direct in this aspect though - I don't disagree with your reasoning here, I just disagree that any characters reasoning like this would be "good". At least, from my point of view, they would not be good for very long after doing this if they continue to disregard the ramifications of using such a weapon.

As a point of reference Decent into Avernus

Decent into Avernus has soul coins which are also considered to be an evil invention, doing anything with a soul coin other than freeing the soul is considered evil and only non-good characters can carry such items without discomfort. It explicitly states that even if the person who's imprisoned in the soul coin is evil, using them is still evil.
I think the same logic should apply to hellfire weapon, even if the enemy you are slaying is evil you're still doing an evil act by choosing to use a hellfire weapon if you know what it does.


If I were DMing a game with hellfire weapons and a good aligned PC was using a hellfire weapon to send evil humanoids to the river styx I'd warn them that by doing so they are changing their alignment to neutral.

[JackPhoenix]

It says that, at least in Avernus, most devils that are killed are destroyed forever. They want Lemures. Knowingly creating more is actively emboldening the Devils in the Blood War.

Which, considering the alternative, is not that bad thing. And creating lemures with Hellfire weapon is akin to spitting into an ocean. Does it add something? Sure. Does it matter? No, not really.

[Amnestic]

Does it add something? Sure. Does it matter? No, not really.

Absolutely wilding attitude for a Good character to have when applied to murdering people.

"Sure, it kills someone, but there's a *lot* of people out there, so grand scheme, does it matter? Not really."

[Satinavian]

Most of my good characters would use it.

But only against devils and demons.



Edit :

Oh, it only works with humanoids ? Pity. No, they wouldn't use it against humanoids.

[Mastikator]

Most of my good characters would use it.

But only against devils and demons.



Edit :

Oh, it only works with humanoids ? Pity. No, they wouldn't use it against humanoids.

It would have some use against fiends: bypassing their non-magical damage resistance and reducing their HP to 0 does send them back where they belong.

[Angelalex242]

I said earlier this is exactly the sort of weapon a Judge Frollo type wants.

The bad guy from the Hunchback would LOVE the ability to make sure he can damn people to Hell just by using a sword.

He's...really really evil, as an aside.

[nickl_2000]

Also the primary antagonist in one of my campaigns has already made a deal with a devil for power. Max would absolutely use a hellfire weapon on her.

[da newt]

So all you claimers of goodness so chaste that your PCs wouldn't touch a hellfire weapon, what do your campaigns look like? I mean certainly your extra good PCs must never kill anything or anyone, right? Your final blow is always non-lethal and then you spend the next 10 sessions RPing rehabilitating your former foes, right?

Help me understand how a good adventurer behaves that includes the killing of dozens of creatures and people - sending their various souls off to whatever afterlife they 'deserve' which is the paragon of GOOD BUT killing them with a weapon that ensures they go to hell is EVIL ...

[Unoriginal]

So all you claimers of goodness so chaste that your PCs wouldn't touch a hellfire weapon, what do your campaigns look like? I mean certainly your extra good PCs must never kill anything or anyone, right? Your final blow is always non-lethal and then you spend the next 10 sessions RPing rehabilitating your former foes, right?

Help me understand how a good adventurer behaves that includes the killing of dozens of creatures and people - sending their various souls off to whatever afterlife they 'deserve' which is the paragon of GOOD BUT killing them with a weapon that ensures they go to hell is EVIL ...

Well to put things in perspective: would your good characters make a deal with a Devil to send a bad guy's soul to Hell?

[Dr.Samurai]

So all you claimers of goodness so chaste that your PCs wouldn't touch a hellfire weapon, what do your campaigns look like? I mean certainly your extra good PCs must never kill anything or anyone, right? Your final blow is always non-lethal and then you spend the next 10 sessions RPing rehabilitating your former foes, right?

Help me understand how a good adventurer behaves that includes the killing of dozens of creatures and people - sending their various souls off to whatever afterlife they 'deserve' which is the paragon of GOOD BUT killing them with a weapon that ensures they go to hell is EVIL ...
This is sort of where I am on this as well, kind of.

I don't think a good person would condemn any humanoid they come across to Avernus just because they have a weapon that lets them do it. But for evil people, cultists and the like, I don't really see the issue. As has been mentioned previously by me and others, this is sort of par for the course for goodly spiritual beliefs so...

In other words, I can square that a good person believes an evil person DESERVES to go to Avernus. I mean... if a goodly person believes it is their place in life to save souls and redeem people, lead them on the righteous path, etc., I think we can see the other side of that where a good person believes it is their place to clean up all the bad acts.

[Amnestic]

So all you claimers of goodness so chaste that your PCs wouldn't touch a hellfire weapon, what do your campaigns look like? I mean certainly your extra good PCs must never kill anything or anyone, right? Your final blow is always non-lethal and then you spend the next 10 sessions RPing rehabilitating your former foes, right?

Help me understand how a good adventurer behaves that includes the killing of dozens of creatures and people - sending their various souls off to whatever afterlife they 'deserve' which is the paragon of GOOD BUT killing them with a weapon that ensures they go to hell is EVIL ...

Who is my character to judge where the person I kill deserves to go? I don't know their heart, I don't know what they're like. Chances are for the vast majority of them this is our first, and only, interaction and it's at the point of a blade. Maybe they're Evil and deserve Hell for their crimes. Or maybe they've been forced into this job at threat of death. Maybe they're just doing it for the money to support their ailing family. Maybe it's a massive misunderstanding because actually a third party cast illusions over both sides to make them appear more monstrous and evil and the people you're fighting actually Lawful Good Paladins on the side of the righteous*. Or maybe they want to bring about the apocalypse and Hell isn't actually evil enough for them.

I really don't see how it's that hard to play an adventurer who views violence as a last resort, but will kill in self-defence. It's absolutely not unreasonable for someone to go "yeah maybe this weapon that damns souls to hell isn't something a good character should be using".

*stolen from Baldur's Gate 2, where that happened.

[Keltest]

Who is my character to judge where the person I kill deserves to go? I don't know their heart, I don't know what they're like. Chances are for the vast majority of them this is our first, and only, interaction and it's at the point of a blade. Maybe they're Evil and deserve Hell for their crimes. Or maybe they've been forced into this job at threat of death. Maybe they're just doing it for the money to support their ailing family. Maybe it's a massive misunderstanding because actually a third party cast illusions over both sides to make them appear more monstrous and evil and the people you're fighting actually Lawful Good Paladins on the side of the righteous*. Or maybe they want to bring about the apocalypse and Hell isn't actually evil enough for them.

I really don't see how it's that hard to play an adventurer who views violence as a last resort, but will kill in self-defence. It's absolutely not unreasonable for someone to go "yeah maybe this weapon that damns souls to hell isn't something a good character should be using".

*stolen from Baldur's Gate 2, where that happened.

Indeed. Even if youre a paladin who views proactively picking fights with evil as their sacred duty, it strikes me as the height of arrogance to believe that you can be the final arbiter of the disposition of the souls of your enemies. And if you genuinely dont care what youre doing to people, i have to seriously question your claim to goodness.

[Unoriginal]

This is sort of where I am on this as well, kind of.

I don't think a good person would condemn any humanoid they come across to Avernus just because they have a weapon that lets them do it. But for evil people, cultists and the like, I don't really see the issue. As has been mentioned previously by me and others, this is sort of par for the course for goodly spiritual beliefs so...

In other words, I can square that a good person believes an evil person DESERVES to go to Avernus. I mean... if a goodly person believes it is their place in life to save souls and redeem people, lead them on the righteous path, etc., I think we can see the other side of that where a good person believes it is their place to clean up all the bad acts.

A good person who believes that would be mistaken, though. On a factual level, I mean.

No one "deserves" to go to Avernus. Saying that a soul deserves to go to Avernus is like saying that a river deserves to end up in the ocean, or that a rock floating in space deserves to be caught into the gravitational field of a bigger rock.

Now, maybe that some people can argue that evil individuals deserves the whole erasure-of-personality deal that taking a dip in the Styx results in. And some people may argue that making the Nine Hells more powerful by their own, personal action is a small price to pay in order to inflict erasure-of-personality to evil individuals.

But personally I would be skeptical of anyone calling themselves "good" who argue that they must keep paying Hell in order to ensure bad guys get soul lobotomies.

[Dr.Samurai]

I guess the question is... can mortals condemn someone's soul to some fate?

I don't see why they couldn't, but others obviously disagree.

EDIT:


A good person who believes that would be mistaken, though. On a factual level, I mean.

No one "deserves" to go to Avernus. Saying that a soul deserves to go to Avernus is like saying that a river deserves to end up in the ocean, or that a rock floating in space deserves to be caught into the gravitational field of a bigger rock.
I'm not sure how they are mistaken on this and your analogies are not really clarifying it for me.

Now, maybe that some people can argue that evil individuals deserves the whole erasure-of-personality deal that taking a dip in the Styx results in. And some people may argue that making the Nine Hells more powerful by their own, personal action is a small price to pay in order to inflict erasure-of-personality to evil individuals.

But personally I would be skeptical of anyone calling themselves "good" who argue that they must keep paying Hell in order to ensure bad guys get soul lobotomies.
As I said, the economics of Avernus is a complication in this, and that's why it matters what the character knows about Hell, and how often a lemure becomes something worse, and how often that something worse can influence the Material Plane, etc.

But sending bad people to an eternity of bad things is par for the course for good. If it is good enough for celestial beings, surely the paladin isn't any better than them?

[KorvinStarmast]

So all you claimers of goodness so chaste that your PCs wouldn't touch a hellfire weapon, what do your campaigns look like? I mean certainly your extra good PCs must never kill anything or anyone, right? Your final blow is always non-lethal and then you spend the next 10 sessions RPing rehabilitating your former foes, right?
*snicker* Not sure how once they have been killed the distinction of where the soul goes is that big of a difference unless one is applying gotcha DMing. :smallconfused:

Indeed. Even if youre a paladin who views proactively picking fights with evil as their sacred duty, it strikes me as the height of arrogance to believe that you can be the final arbiter of the disposition of the souls of your enemies. Divine smite. Divine magic. Hardly the height of arrogance for a paladin, it's a fulfillment of their oath. (And with Vengeance paladin it goes quite a bit further than that).

No one "deserves" to go to Avernus. That's opinion, not fact.

Being against evil does not by itself require one to attempt to rehabilitate evil doers. (particularly if one is neutral). But there are some sub sets of evil-opposers who do feel that rehab is a part of their mission (Redemption paladin comes to mind as a good example of a particular sub class is most likely of a Good alignment that would likely be very reluctant, based on their Oath, to use that weapon against humanoids).

[Unoriginal]

I guess the question is... can mortals condemn someone's soul to some fate?

I don't see why they couldn't, but others obviously disagree.

Mortals are certainly able to do it.

For example, you can sacrifice people so that they end up sent to the entity of your choice.

Would your good character go "alright, we have to take down the evil Earl of Iron. Zoltan the Cultist over here tells me that if we capture him, his friends can do a 5 min ceremony and send the Earl's soul to the Styx, where it'll be turned into a Lemure, and I think we should do that."?

EDIT:



That's opinion, not fact.

It is fact, not opinion.




I'm not sure how they are mistaken on this and your analogies are not really clarifying it for me.

Maybe a different analogy would help.

Saying that a soul deserves to go to Avernus is like saying that an item falling out of a window deserves to hit the ground.

It's not a question of "deserving", it's a natural fact of the world that things that fall from a height will hit the ground unless something interferes.

Your soul doesn't end up in the Nine Hells as some kind of cosmic punishment for your deeds. Your souls end up into the Nine Hells because that's the plane the most similar to your soul, and as such it's attracted to it while it journeys into the Astral.




As I said, the economics of Avernus is a complication in this, and that's why it matters what the character knows about Hell, and how often a lemure becomes something worse, and how often that something worse can influence the Material Plane, etc.

Fair point. Characters don't have all the facts, oftentime.



But sending bad people to an eternity of bad things is par for the course for good. If it is good enough for celestial beings, surely the paladin isn't any better than them?

Celestial beings do not send bad people to an eternity of bad things, in 5e.

If you kill someone, you send them to the eternity that is the most like them. Celestial beings are no exception to that.

5e thankfully did away with the idea that the good entities actually totally approved and signed the paperwork for Asmodeus to have a dimensional torture cellar in order to scare people into being good.

[Amnestic]

I guess the question is... can mortals condemn someone's soul to some fate?

I don't see why they couldn't, but others obviously disagree.

Lack of information, mostly. While you can certainly have a problem with gods judging souls for a variety of reasons (Hello NWN2: Mask of the Betrayer), divine judges are generally operating on a much more informed level than a player character is. "Weigh their heart against a feather", and all that. Consider the humanoid enemies that you kill over a campaign - what did you know about them? Most of the time they won't even know the opposition's name, because they'll be "Bandit C," or "Castle Guard 2", or "Cultist E" to them. Do you feel comfortable saying that yes, every single one deserved Hell? And those that you do think it...how much did you really know about them?

Any character who believes that "anyone who stands in my way or against me is Evil, and therefore deserves to go to Hell" is one that I would very much struggle to call 'Good'.

[Sigreid]

So all you claimers of goodness so chaste that your PCs wouldn't touch a hellfire weapon, what do your campaigns look like? I mean certainly your extra good PCs must never kill anything or anyone, right? Your final blow is always non-lethal and then you spend the next 10 sessions RPing rehabilitating your former foes, right?

Help me understand how a good adventurer behaves that includes the killing of dozens of creatures and people - sending their various souls off to whatever afterlife they 'deserve' which is the paragon of GOOD BUT killing them with a weapon that ensures they go to hell is EVIL ...

Nope. Most of my characters aren't good at all. They lie, they cheat, they steal. On occasion they murder. But damning a soul to Hell for all eternity through no fault of their own? Nope. too far.

[Damon_Tor]

It depends. As far as I can tell the weapon has no useful properties beyond the send-victim-to-hell, so either:

1. The wielder wants to send the enemy to Hell. Maybe this is someone who has no faith in the Gods choosing an appropriate punishment when left to their own devices, a Chaotic Good type vigilante who trusts no authority but his own. When fighting the arch priest of an evil god, are you content to send him off to his master's astral domain where he will reap the rewards of his years of grisly human sacrifice? No, to Hell you go.

2. The wielder needs the soul accounted for. There are plenty of ways an enemy might escape death, and this sword negates most of them. Clones, Resurrection, even True Resurrection... all shut down by an uncommon magic item. When getting rid of a guy forever serves the greater good, I see no problem with this.

[Mastikator]

But sending bad people to an eternity of bad things is par for the course for good. If it is good enough for celestial beings, surely the paladin isn't any better than them?

Celestial beings don't send lawful evil souls to Avernus. Souls just flow to whatever outer plane matches their alignment, they're drawn there like iron is drawn to magnets. There's no judgement or action involved, rather it's the mortal who decided where they end up by the choices they made in life. Their choices shaped their alignment and their alignment guided their afterlife.

The only exception is contracts with fiends (or *celestials) that may bind the soul, magical weapons like hellfire weapons that force the soul's path, or gods that have special rules for their followers/covenant.
It's not celestials sending souls to Avernus, it's mortals themselves and sometimes devils.

*celestials do not trick mortals with their contracts, as beings of pure good they make sure informed affirmative consent is given


-


So all you claimers of goodness so chaste that your PCs wouldn't touch a hellfire weapon, what do your campaigns look like? I mean certainly your extra good PCs must never kill anything or anyone, right? Your final blow is always non-lethal and then you spend the next 10 sessions RPing rehabilitating your former foes, right?

Help me understand how a good adventurer behaves that includes the killing of dozens of creatures and people - sending their various souls off to whatever afterlife they 'deserve' which is the paragon of GOOD BUT killing them with a weapon that ensures they go to hell is EVIL ...

Yes actually. My good aligned PCs will prefer to not kill mortals, to try diplomacy, to try to convince them to change their ways, to try to have the law of the land deal with their crimes. And only to kill if no other method is available. Fiends and monsters get no such chance though, they may be taken alive only for interrogation and executing a fiend is A-OKAY for good aligned characters IMO.

If I wasn't having my character doing any of that I'd just write "neutral" on their character sheet and call it a day. If I'm playing a good aligned character I'll actually try to do the good thing, every time, yes, really. Even if it's inconvenient, that's what roleplaying is for me.

[Keltest]

* Divine smite. Divine magic. Hardly the height of arrogance for a paladin, it's a fulfillment of their oath. (And with Vengeance paladin it goes quite a bit further than that).

You may be empowered by a divine entity, but you arent divine yourself. Forgetting that is how you become an Oathbreaker. To say nothing of the fact that youre empowered to deal with mortal issues on the mortal plane, not to start meddling with the disposition of souls.

I mean seriously, the fact that this is an evil weapon made by evil beings to further serve the cause of evil should already tell you that this thing is not going to default to netural.

[Dr.Samurai]

Mortals are certainly able to do it.

For example, you can sacrifice people so that they end up sent to the entity of your choice.

Would your good character go "alright, we have to take down the evil Earl of Iron. Zoltan the Cultist over here tells me that if we capture him, his friends can do a 5 min ceremony and send the Earl's soul to the Styx, where it'll be turned into a Lemure, and I think we should do that."?
Would a good character work alongside an evil cultist in a profane ritual? No, probably not.

But would a good character wield a Hellfire weapon against someone they judge as suitably evil? I don't see why not. I believe the default assumption is that souls go to the realm of their deity, and if not there then a plane of sympathetic alignment. But instead, this good and righteous judge of evil is denying them that and sending them to Hell.

Sending them to Hell as a punishment is well within the bounds of good as has been depicted since the beginning of time...

And in-game, let's not forget that freeing a soul from a Soul Coin is a GOOD act, even if that soul is lawful evil and winds up in the Styx re-emerging as a Lemure. So even condemning a soul to Avernus is a good act if it's done freeing the soul from a Soul Coin. All to say that alignment is pretty wonky in the game (but you all know this already :smallamused: ).


Lack of information, mostly. While you can certainly have a problem with gods judging souls for a variety of reasons (Hello NWN2: Mask of the Betrayer), divine judges are generally operating on a much more informed level than a player character is. "Weigh their heart against a feather", and all that. Consider the humanoid enemies that you kill over a campaign - what did you know about them? Most of the time they won't even know the opposition's name, because they'll be "Bandit C," or "Castle Guard 2", or "Cultist E" to them. Do you feel comfortable saying that yes, every single one deserved Hell? And those that you do think it...how much did you really know about them?
Correct. I said above I don't think a good character would use it against any humanoid they fought, so I agree with this.

But I also think mortals can judge and condemn, so I'm also fine with that aspect as well.

Any character who believes that "anyone who stands in my way or against me is Evil, and therefore deserves to go to Hell" is one that I would very much struggle to call 'Good'.
Well, I agree :smallsmile:.

[KorvinStarmast]

I mean seriously, the fact that this is an evil weapon made by evil beings to further serve the cause of evil should already tell you that this thing is not going to default to netural. The first half of your post does not fit some of the paladin oaths, but this part is certainly a practical take: this weapon is made by Evil for Evil; if I care about being Good with a capital G, do I really want to have anything to do with that? Probably not.

[Keltest]

The first half of your post does not fit some of the paladin oaths, but this part is certainly a practical take: this weapon is made by Evil for Evil; if I care about being Good with a capital G, do I really want to have anything to do with that? Probably not.

Granted, but the ones it doesnt fit are also ones that are, to a greater or lesser degree, described as being non-good.

[Unoriginal]

Would a good character work alongside an evil cultist in a profane ritual? No, probably not.

But would a good character wield a Hellfire weapon against someone they judge as suitably evil? I don't see why not.

What is the difference?




I believe the default assumption is that souls go to the realm of their deity, and if not there then a plane of sympathetic alignment.

That is correct, yes. I've stated it several times, including the post you're replying to.



But instead, this good and righteous judge of evil is denying them that and sending them to Hell.

The debate is specifically on how good someone who does that would be.



Sending them to Hell as a punishment is well within the bounds of good as has been depicted since the beginning of time...

Are you talking about D&D 5e here, or real life?

Because in D&D 5e, no, it has never been depicted as something within the bounds of good. It is not how the setting works.

If you're talking about real life, well, without going against the forum rules I'll just point out that the idea of the forces of good sending people to be tortured for eternity as punishment is both far newer than one may think AND one that is fairly disputed in our era like in others(especially when the discussion goes into what kind of deeds will get you into the forever torture room).



And in-game, let's not forget that freeing a soul from a Soul Coin is a GOOD act, even if that soul is lawful evil and winds up in the Styx re-emerging as a Lemure. So even condemning a soul to Avernus is a good act if it's done freeing the soul from a Soul Coin. All to say that alignment is pretty wonky in the game (but you all know this already :smallamused: ).

Keep in mind that most Soul Coins are made *from* Lemures.

Regardless, destroying the evil prison that is a Soul Coin is something someone who typically do good would typically do. Even if it ends up with the Lemure the coin was made of to go back to the Styx and maybe get re-turned into a Soul Coin down the line.

Why? Because beside being used as trading medium, Soul Coins are also used fuel for various device or even emergency healing, annihilating the soul in the process.

[Greywander]

Blackrazor is not evil, but that doesn't make it good. It wants all souls, indiscriminately. It wants yours, it wants your party, it wants everything from the nine hells to mount celestia. Blackrazor will not be sated until every soul in existence is equally destroyed.
Eh? Wouldn't that still be Chaotic Evil?

Sure, most people think of indiscriminate murder sprees when they hear "Chaotic Evil", but let's distinguish between Chaotic Evil behavior and Chaotic Evil philosophy. In my mind, a Chaotic Evil person believes that the world is destined for destruction, and sees that as a desirable thing. They want the world to be destroyed. And so they do what they can to speed up the process.

With that in mind, we can understand a bit better why a CE character would go on a murder spree. But we can also see why a CE character would want to destroy all the souls.

This view of CE allows us to have CE characters who are also functioning members of society, and not just crazy axe murderers. It also allows for CE PCs who can work with the rest of the party. The axe murderer is really just a cartoonish version of CE. Blackrazor is more sophisticated.

That's what I think, at least.

[KorvinStarmast]

Eh? Wouldn't that still be Chaotic Evil?
Pretty much. Apologists for Blackrazor are out there, though, since they (at least some of them) want to have a cool rip off of Stormbringer / Mournblade for their PC to kill things with.
Blackrazor was indeed inspired by / modeled after Elric's sword and its twin (somewhere on the interwebz is Laurence Schick's confession); if one reads the stories, to include the ultimate story where Elric's own soul is eaten by Stormbringer its inherent evil and its chaotic origin are blatantly obvious. Even though the structure Moorcock used was Law/Neutrality/Chaos, it wasn't too hard to sniff the overarching Evil involved.

[Keltest]

Eh? Wouldn't that still be Chaotic Evil?

Sure, most people think of indiscriminate murder sprees when they hear "Chaotic Evil", but let's distinguish between Chaotic Evil behavior and Chaotic Evil philosophy. In my mind, a Chaotic Evil person believes that the world is destined for destruction, and sees that as a desirable thing. They want the world to be destroyed. And so they do what they can to speed up the process.

With that in mind, we can understand a bit better why a CE character would go on a murder spree. But we can also see why a CE character would want to destroy all the souls.

This view of CE allows us to have CE characters who are also functioning members of society, and not just crazy axe murderers. It also allows for CE PCs who can work with the rest of the party. The axe murderer is really just a cartoonish version of CE. Blackrazor is more sophisticated.

That's what I think, at least.

I would suggest you have it backwards. People who want to watch the world burn, who want to actively set it ablaze, are chaotic evil because of that desire. They didnt wake up and decide to be chaotic evil then read a handbook about what that means. Which is to say, i think you are correct about Blackrazor being CE due to the desire for indiscriminate and total entropy of everything, but thats hardly the only way to be Chaotic Evil.

[KorvinStarmast]

I would suggest you have it backwards. People who want to watch the world burn, who want to actively set it ablaze, are chaotic evil because of that desire. They didnt wake up and decide to be chaotic evil then read a handbook about what that means. Which is to say, i think you are correct about Blackrazor being CE due to the desire for indiscriminate and total entropy of everything, but thats hardly the only way to be Chaotic Evil. golf clap, well said.

[Thunderous Mojo]

I see no reason my Good characters wouldn't. This is especially true if the being keeps their name, and you can find a way to summon them as a Familiar. You can force them to do good. Plus if that's the only magical weapon any of my characters have access to, they will use it without really worrying about the consequences. Is it evil, yes. But its a necessary evil, at least until they find a different weapon

I, find this response to be terrifying.

The ‘Good’ character is engaging in murder, coercion, and enslavement.
(Sith Lord Ethics, in action🃏)

Grand moral proclamations, about the Greater Good, usually are rather vague in terms of showing the actual math behind their Moral Calculus.

Killing one’s way to one’s view of a ‘Better World’, and then enslaving souls, and controlling the afterlife of those deemed unworthy….that does not seem like justice, to me.

It seems like horror.

[Unoriginal]

You can force them to do good.

You can't force people to do good. It's even directly stated in the PHB.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Eh? Wouldn't that still be Chaotic Evil?

I'd personally agree, though by a technicality Blackrazor manages neutral because it doesn't pick a side in regards to morality, it's motivated to consume souls for a purpose, not by an urge to kill or destroy arbitrarily. Simply another example of the PHB alignment definitions being pretty bad.

[False God]

So all you claimers of goodness so chaste that your PCs wouldn't touch a hellfire weapon, what do your campaigns look like? I mean certainly your extra good PCs must never kill anything or anyone, right? Your final blow is always non-lethal and then you spend the next 10 sessions RPing rehabilitating your former foes, right?

Help me understand how a good adventurer behaves that includes the killing of dozens of creatures and people - sending their various souls off to whatever afterlife they 'deserve' which is the paragon of GOOD BUT killing them with a weapon that ensures they go to hell is EVIL ...

Not using a weapon that explicitly sends a soul to hell and creates a lemure (which not all souls sent to hell get to do), and not killing anyone at all ever are not the same thing.

To the question though, yes. My good characters avoid killing as much as possible. And yes, we have spent sessions rehabilitating baddies, especially of the more misguided sort (peons and the like). My tables are typically killing-light and RP-heavy, so this is far more engaging for us than carving through waves of enemies. An important RP moment where a good character MUST use a Hellfire Sword to take out an enemy is terribly enjoyable rather than ya know, using it to slice and dice up any old random bandit camp.

This is why, I noted that without "special circumstances" my good characters wouldn't use the sword. Because as a matter of practice not every person they kill goes to hell, and not every soul that goes to hell becomes a lemure. Using the Hellfire Sword as a matter of regular business does nothing but add to Hell's forces, which is something I'd imagine most "good" characters probably want to avoid. You're effectively damning good souls, neutral souls, evil souls that wouldn't become devils, to become devils.

Which really only leaves "special circumstances" where any of my good characters would use a Hellfire Sword. The Baddie is about to complete an evil ritual that will grand them godhood, oh wait they just got cut down by the Hellfire Sword and sent to Hell as a pitiful lemure. Oh no, the Ultimate Weapon is about to go off and the only way to stop it is to kill the Baddie and the only way to kill them is with this Hellfire Sword. Again, these are all "special circumstances".

A couple bandits ambush us on the road and I've got a Hellfire Sword handy? No. I'll beat them up with my fists if I have to.

[Satinavian]

So all you claimers of goodness so chaste that your PCs wouldn't touch a hellfire weapon, what do your campaigns look like? I mean certainly your extra good PCs must never kill anything or anyone, right?Killing is generally seen as far more forgivable than sending souls to hell.

Your final blow is always non-lethal and then you spend the next 10 sessions RPing rehabilitating your former foes, right? And yes, even killing is not done reckless. Using non-lethal options and taking prisoners is common. Of course that is system dependend, not every system makes it exactly easy to capture people alive and still fight at full power.


Help me understand how a good adventurer behaves that includes the killing of dozens of creatures and people - sending their various souls off to whatever afterlife they 'deserve' which is the paragon of GOOD BUT killing them with a weapon that ensures they go to hell is EVIL ...If people die and things happen to their souls, that is how the universe works. Blame the creator gods or whatever. If a PC sends souls to hell, it is his fault alone.


I remember a campain a while back where there was a certain sieged town defended by PCs who were clearly losing. But there was the option to drive the (evil) invadors back sending some souls to hell. It didn't even require any additional killing. The quite railroady modul meant that to be a victory at great cost. But the PCs decided that it was morally better to let the eil forces win, slaughter thaousands of innocents and let the PCs and their allies be killes than sending a single soul to hell.
Railroady as the adventure was, the allied NPCs used the option behind the back of the PCs anyway so the campaign went on instead of TPKing here. But the PCs made sure, those allies who saved everyone burned at the stake for that when all was over.

[PhoenixPhyre]

You can't force people to do good. It's even directly stated in the PHB.

More specifically, you can force people to do works that are generally considered to be good. Feeding the poor. Petting the dogs (instead of kicking them). Etc.

But that doesn't mean that the person is becoming more good. In fact, what it means is that, in many cases, you're becoming more evil. Because one of the core principles of D&D-Good is freedom of will. People become good by choosing to do good and choosing to change toward desiring that which is good (changing their natures so that that becomes their default, which is what D&D alignment is). Evil people can do "good deeds". In fact, one very common Evil tactic is to do lots of Good Deeds...with the hidden (from others) intent of gaining power by doing so.

Tactical goodness (doing good for other reasons) isn't good. It's at best neutral. And often evil.

Good and Evil (in D&D terms) aren't bank accounts or morality meters where you deposit X good works to counter out Y bad works. They speak to the default, knee-jerk, not-entirely-conscious-level desires, attitudes, and impulses of a soul.

Now very strong influences (some of the Outer Planes) can overwrite those desires, at least in canon. But frankly I find that creepy and not in keeping with Goodness as defined elsewhere. And 3e's (and earlier) forced alignment changes are, to me, abhorrent.

But then again, I don't uses cosmological alignment at all, so who am I to talk...

-----

On the main topic, no. If I were playing a good character in FR, I'd stay really far away from such things. Evil, fiendish weapons that fuel evil forces? No. Evil people can be redeemed sometimes; other times they can be killed without a guaranteed lemure "promotion". Or won't go to the Evil planes anyway (due to which god they worship). And while even a Devotion Paladin may serve justice and right, he also serves mercy and redemption. And recognizes that he is not himself justice. Nor is it just to meddle in the destination of a soul after death, because that upsets the order of creation. And having any truck with fiends or their devices is evil--he who uses the devils' tools does the devilish work of their creators.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Tactical goodness (doing good for other reasons) isn't good. It's at best neutral. And often evil.

The Cassalanter in Waterdeep are seen publicly as paragons of virtue and generously philanthropic. They have done numerous objectively good things for the city, they're still terribly evil people.

[Unoriginal]

Fun fact: consuming souls is an act considered to be loathsome and taboo by most Demons.The few Demons who do it are considered pariahs even in the Abyss (unless they're powerful enough to make themselves be in charge, like Orcus).

Would be fun for a PC using Blackrazor to discover that even Demons have standards and that the PC's actions arw below that (according to the Demons themselves).

[Tanarii]

So all you claimers of goodness so chaste that your PCs wouldn't touch a hellfire weapon, what do your campaigns look like? I mean certainly your extra good PCs must never kill anything or anyone, right? Your final blow is always non-lethal and then you spend the next 10 sessions RPing rehabilitating your former foes, right?

Help me understand how a good adventurer behaves that includes the killing of dozens of creatures and people - sending their various souls off to whatever afterlife they 'deserve' which is the paragon of GOOD BUT killing them with a weapon that ensures they go to hell is EVIL ...
Killing, taken alone without qualifiers, isn't something specifically associated with Evil alignment associated behaviors or avoided by Good alignment associated behaviors in D&D.

If you're putting that as a restriction on your Good characters that's a personal choice you're making, not a system choice.

[Dr.Samurai]

What is the difference?
One is a good person making a judgement.

The other is some hypothetical "cultist" which I assume is evil and performs evil rituals.

You are attempting to say there is no difference because the soul winds up in Hell. Obviously, there is still a difference.

That is correct, yes. I've stated it several times, including the post you're replying to.
Oh no, passive aggressive replies to a forum post... what am I going to do??

You said people can sacrifice someone to send them to a specific place. Maybe I missed something else there.

The debate is specifically on how good someone who does that would be.
The thread is specifically titled "Would your Good character consider using a Hellfire weapon?"

I think some would, yes, for the reasons I've given.

Are you talking about D&D 5e here, or real life?
Both. This is a staple of "good" in real life, and I don't see why a good character in D&D world couldn't also believe it is good as well.

Keep in mind that most Soul Coins are made *from* Lemures.

Regardless, destroying the evil prison that is a Soul Coin is something someone who typically do good would typically do. Even if it ends up with the Lemure the coin was made of to go back to the Styx and maybe get re-turned into a Soul Coin down the line.

Why? Because beside being used as trading medium, Soul Coins are also used fuel for various device or even emergency healing, annihilating the soul in the process.
Sure, which leads us to "a good person thinks it is far better for an evil soul to be a lemure and potentially a pit fiend one day than to annihilate the soul". And now I have to be convinced that this is somehow the "one true GOOD" but "sending wicked people to Hell" is "evil or neutral at best".


But mostly, the economics of Hell would stop me from doing this. But most answers aren't really speaking to that, and instead saying that sending someone to Hell is either evil, not good, or not the purview of mortals. And I disagree with those ideas because I think it's perfectly fine for a good paladin to think sending an evil dark knight or something to Hell is just desserts for the evil they've done in the world.

[Tanarii]

But mostly, the economics of Hell would stop me from doing this. But most answers aren't really speaking to that, and instead saying that sending someone to Hell is either evil, not good, or not the purview of mortals. And I disagree with those ideas because I think it's perfectly fine for a good paladin to think sending an evil dark knight or something to Hell is just desserts for the evil they've done in the world.
Hold on, is it clear in 5e lore that going to the Nine Hells is any kind of punishment for Lawful Evil souls?

Personally I'd consider it so, but my head is full of 2e Planescape lore. So I'm not sure that viewing the Nine Hells as punishment for evildoers is justified or not.

This debate is making it clear to me that a large part of my initial reaction is based on the idea that it is some kind of punishment. But I'm no longer sure that's the case.

[Dr.Samurai]

Hold on, is it clear in 5e lore that going to the Nine Hells is any kind of punishment for Lawful Evil souls?

Personally I'd consider it so, but my head is full of 2e Planescape lore. So I'm not sure that viewing the Nine Hells as punishment for evildoers is justified or not.

This debate is making it clear to me that a large part of my initial reaction is based on the idea that it is some kind of punishment. But I'm no longer sure that's the case.
I don't know, and I'm not confident it is.

I think it's where lawful evil souls go if they don't go to the plane of their god. It's a question of whether turning into a lemure is a punishment or not. Most of the forces fighting in the Blood War are lemures according to Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes.

Probably not a punishment per se, given that they have no memory of who they were. But when compared to spending eternity with your god? I don't know. Also, I think devils die for good if they die in the Nine Hells so... a lemure killed in the Blood War is dead dead?

[Unoriginal]

Hold on, is it clear in 5e lore that going to the Nine Hells is any kind of punishment for Lawful Evil souls?

It isn't some kind of cosmic punishment for their deeds. Souls are simply attracted to the plane that is the most like them as they float in the Astral, and for lawful evil souls it's often the Nine Hells. Acheron and Gehenna also attracts lawful evil souls, to a lesser extent, as

On the other hand, getting your personality erased aside from the glimmers of how you manifested your evilness and your lawfulness, and then being enslaved into the Devil hierarchy, does suck.

And even if you made a pact to start with a better job and avoid losing your personality, you're still facing an eternity of having to deal with one terrible boss after the other, while handling one terrible subordinate after the other and while having your colleagues disposed of without them disposing of you first.

Everyone in the Nine Hells is unhappy (aside arguably from Asmodeus), but it's a consequence of how they're all terrible people, not some kind of punishment for their misdeeds.


Also, I think devils die for good if they die in the Nine Hells so... a lemure killed in the Blood War is dead dead?

Lemures are the only Devils who inherently don't die for good if they die in the Nine Hells.

[sithlordnergal]

You can't force people to do good. It's even directly stated in the PHB.

You can force them to do good acts with evil means if need be. Their heart may not be in it, but if I cast Dominate Monster at 9th level on a an evil Lich and force them to, say, cast Wish to create a 25,000 gp shelter for some homeless people, despite the risk of the Wish hitting the Lich with its backlash effect, I have forced it to do a good act. Now, was it something they wanted to do? Probably not. Is that going to change them to Good aligned? Nope. But was it a good act? Absolutely.

Same with casting Find Familiar. If a Pact of the Chain Warlock casts Find Familiar and summons an imp, then starts forcing that Imp to do charitable work for others at the expense of itself, it has no recourse but to do what their Warlock tells them to.

Because the key thing to note is I only said force them to do good, never mentioned making them good. IF they eventually start becoming good on their own through their forced acts, that's on them. Its not on me or my characters to change them into being good.

[Keltest]

You can force them to do good acts with evil means if need be. Their heart may not be in it, but if I cast Dominate Monster at 9th level on a an evil Lich and force them to, say, cast Wish to create a 25,000 gp shelter for some homeless people, despite the risk of the Wish hitting the Lich with its backlash effect, I have forced it to do a good act. Now, was it something they wanted to do? Probably not. Is that going to change them to Good aligned? Nope. But was it a good act? Absolutely.

Same with casting Find Familiar. If a Pact of the Chain Warlock casts Find Familiar and summons an imp, then starts forcing that Imp to do charitable work for others at the expense of itself, it has no recourse but to do what their Warlock tells them to.

That just makes you a non-good person employing slave labor (which is the big part that disqualifies you from being good here) for ends you have decided are justified.

[sithlordnergal]

That just makes you a non-good person employing slave labor (which is the big part that disqualifies you from being good here) for ends you have decided are justified.

To be fair, anyone that casts Find Familiar is employing slave labor. Familiars have no choice but to follow the orders of whoever summoned them, even if it means being killed over and over again. This is especially true for familiars like Imps, Sprites, Pseudodragons, or Quasits. Heck, even Paladins employ slave labor if they cast Find Steed, and summon an intelligent creature that is now forced to serve them.

Same with anyone who casts Conjure Fey, Conjure Elemental, Summon Greater, Demon, or any of those conjuration spells.

Do we see the casting of Find Familiar as an evil act because its basically forcing a creature to be your slave? No, we don't.

Now, the Dominate Monster thing is an evil act, I won't argue that. But you can force a creature to do good acts against their will.

[PhoenixPhyre]

You can force them to do good acts with evil means if need be. Their heart may not be in it, but if I cast Dominate Monster at 9th level on a an evil Lich and force them to, say, cast Wish to create a 25,000 gp shelter for some homeless people, despite the risk of the Wish hitting the Lich with its backlash effect, I have forced it to do a good act. Now, was it something they wanted to do? Probably not. Is that going to change them to Good aligned? Nope. But was it a good act? Absolutely.

Same with casting Find Familiar. If a Pact of the Chain Warlock casts Find Familiar and summons an imp, then starts forcing that Imp to do charitable work for others at the expense of itself, it has no recourse but to do what their Warlock tells them to.

Note that doing so, despite the good effects, is generally not considered an action that a good person will do. Because D&D-Good people, by core definitions, respect and protect the free will of others. It's one of the core differences between Good and Evil, and one of the reasons that Good gods (and celestials, et al) operate at somewhat of a handicap. They don't willingly resort to forcing people to do things. And a willingness to do such things (that and other similarly questionable things) "for the greater good" is a major part of the reason Zariel fell.

Personally, I'd put any use of dominate effects in the "morally questionable" bucket. Not outright evil, but definitely not a first resort or even a comfortable resort for someone striving to be good. They're fundamentally in tension with the nature of Goodness. Persuade the wicked? Punish the evil acts of the wicked, by force if necessary? Try to prevent the wicked from doing evil things in other ways? All normal tactics. Enslave the mind and soul? Not so much.

[sithlordnergal]

Note that doing so, despite the good effects, is generally not considered an action that a good person will do. Because D&D-Good people, by core definitions, respect and protect the free will of others. It's one of the core differences between Good and Evil, and one of the reasons that Good gods (and celestials, et al) operate at somewhat of a handicap. They don't willingly resort to forcing people to do things. And a willingness to do such things (that and other similarly questionable things) "for the greater good" is a major part of the reason Zariel fell.

Personally, I'd put any use of dominate effects in the "morally questionable" bucket. Not outright evil, but definitely not a first resort or even a comfortable resort for someone striving to be good. They're fundamentally in tension with the nature of Goodness. Persuade the wicked? Punish the evil acts of the wicked, by force if necessary? Try to prevent the wicked from doing evil things in other ways? All normal tactics. Enslave the mind and soul? Not so much.

I can agree with that, especially the Dominate Monster. I'd put that in morally questionable at best. I was merely stating that, in DnD, you can absolutely force someone to do an act of good against their will. Is it a good thing to do? Ehhh, depends on the spell being used. Geas is often used to force people to change as a sort of punishment, that's typically seen as ok. Dominate Person/Monster? Nope, not a good act. Find Familiar? Neither good nor evil.

[Keltest]

I can agree with that, especially the Dominate Monster. I'd put that in morally questionable at best. I was merely stating that, in DnD, you can absolutely force someone to do an act of good against their will. Is it a good thing to do? Ehhh, depends on the spell being used. Geas is often used to force people to change as a sort of punishment, that's typically seen as ok. Dominate Person/Monster? Nope, not a good act. Find Familiar? Neither good nor evil.

You can force somebody to do something generally regarded as positive, but without the ability to actually decide to do it of their own volition, such acts generally are not considered to be aligned at all.

[sithlordnergal]

You can force somebody to do something generally regarded as positive, but without the ability to actually decide to do it of their own volition, such acts generally are not considered to be aligned at all.

Oh I know, I'm not saying forcing them to do that would make them good. I probably worded my statement poorly: You can force people to do good, positive acts in DnD, though it'll make no actual difference on their alignment. If your goal is to make them change, this isn't the way to do it. But if you're not concerned with actually changing them, and just concerned with helping people via whatever means you have available...then yeah, that's forcing them to create a positive change in the world.

Does doing so make you good or evil? Again, depends on the methods used. Find Familiar and Geas are morally neutral, Dominate Person and Suggestion would be evil, convincing them to do it without force would be good.

[KorvinStarmast]

Simply another example of the PHB alignment definitions being pretty bad. That, and a fine illustration of how quickly any discussion of alignment in D&D rapidly approaches the point of diminishing returns. :smallyuk:

[Tanarii]

"Doing good" in D&D 5e terms can mean one of two things:
1) typically behaving like one of the three good alignments associated behaviors
2) holding moral and social attitudes that usually result in #1

You could theoretically do force #1, but it'd take some long term mind control.

It is worth noting that conversation about good or evil acts are outside the scope of 5e alignment, which is about attitudes and an associated typical but not required behavior. Not acts.

I know that seems contradictory when I'm the one asking about if your good character would choose to take a specific action and under what circumstances, but I'm not asking it from perspective of the action carrying D&D alignment moral weight. I'm just asking if it's something they'd be inclined to do given their alignment (and potentially associated typical behavior) and their personality, and under what circumstances. I'm not assuming that using such a weapon might be or not be an (D&D alignment) Evil action, because that doesn't make sense within the 5e Alignment framework.

[Amechra]

If I'm playing in a game that bothers with alignment... no. Dear makers no.

Leaving aside the fact that forcibly consigning someone's soul to the armies of the Abyss is a massive act of hubris at best and a heinous crime otherwise... there's no way for my character to know that the sword isn't going to screw with my head in a way that's going to lead to me stabbing someone who very much doesn't "deserve" to be forcibly press-ganged into a forever war in a way that involves complete personality death. Oh, sure, as a player I'm aware that that's not the case, but I doubt that I'd trust an Identify spell that told me that it was A-OK, honest!

...

Also, half of the "Good" characters that people are describing in this thread who would be willing to use an Evil Blade Wot Consigns A Victim's Soul To Being A Devil... look, if you presented those characters to me as a DM and I was using alignment, I'd look you dead in the eyes and ask whether or not you were actually angling for a Neutral character. Because while "I have an unrealistically high standard of behavior" is a Good failing, following that up with "and anyone who fails that standard is worthy of death" is decidedly not. Same goes for "my Paladin sees the fact that they have violence powers as a license for them to use them" — that's a fine way to play a Neutral Paladin, but if you're Good you'd better have a higher moral standard.

[Dr.Samurai]

"Doing good" in D&D 5e terms can mean one of two things:
1) typically behaving like one of the three good alignments associated behaviors
2) holding moral and social attitudes that usually result in #1

You could theoretically do #1, but it'd take some long term mind control.

It is worth noting that conversation about good or evil acts are outside the scope of 5e alignment, which is about attitudes and an associated typical but not required behavior. Not acts.

I know that seems contradictory when I'm the one asking about if your good character would choose to take a specific action and under what circumstances, but I'm not asking it from perspective of the action carrying D&D alignment moral weight. I'm just asking if it's something they'd be inclined to do given their alignment (and potentially associated typical behavior) and their personality, and under what circumstances. I'm not assuming that using such a weapon might be or not be an (D&D alignment) Evil action, because that doesn't make sense within the 5e Alignment framework.
You helped me understand 5E alignment from a previous thread so I think I understand what you're saying here and that's why I've been answering from the perspective of how the person would see it and what they know. (I don't know if sending souls to Avernus is a "good" or "evil" act, but I can see why a good person might do it.)

Given the lore of Baator, I'm not sure that a swordsman would believe Avernus to be a place where evil spirits go to get punished. So my previous answers might be inappropriate.

That said, I don't know that all souls in Baator are lemures or soul coins. I mean... there have to be Diablo-esque souls-chained-to-a-pillar-on-fire writhing in eternal torment, etc. Or maybe not?

[Tanarii]

Circling back to this one, missed the responses.


Probably not a punishment per se, given that they have no memory of who they were. But when compared to spending eternity with your god? I don't know.



On the other hand, getting your personality erased aside from the glimmers of how you manifested your evilness and your lawfulness, and then being enslaved into the Devil hierarchy, does suck.
If they're generally suffering by any reasonable mortal's given standards, it might not be "punishment" on a cosmic morality scale, but certainly could be viewed as getting their just desserts by a Good aligned character.

Of course, they might change their mind if they ever learned that Devils are all "nope, I love I had to go through all those hard times, it just makes me a stronger and better person". Or they might not believe them, or think Devils are mad, and still consider it suffering anyway. /shrug

[JackPhoenix]

To be fair, anyone that casts Find Familiar is employing slave labor. Familiars have no choice but to follow the orders of whoever summoned them, even if it means being killed over and over again. This is especially true for familiars like Imps, Sprites, Pseudodragons, or Quasits. Heck, even Paladins employ slave labor if they cast Find Steed, and summon an intelligent creature that is now forced to serve them.

Do we see the casting of Find Familiar as an evil act because its basically forcing a creature to be your slave? No, we don't.

Perhaps the familiars and mounts are into that. Nothing suggest you're "forcing" the creature into anything. For all we know, the spirit knows and accepts all the terms and conditions of the servitude willingly. It's especially true for familiars like Imps, Sprites, Pseudodragons or Quasits (not just spirits taking the form chainlocks get), who explicitly make deal with the spellcaster to serve as familiars, and can end the deal at any time.


Same with anyone who casts Conjure Fey, Conjure Elemental, Summon Greater, Demon, or any of those conjuration spells.

There's a difference between these spells and Find Familiar/Find Steed: summoned demons or whatever are hostile to the caster and clearly serving against their will.

[sithlordnergal]

Perhaps the familiars and mounts are into that. Nothing suggest you're "forcing" the creature into anything. For all we know, the spirit knows and accepts all the terms and conditions of the servitude willingly. It's especially true for familiars like Imps, Sprites, Pseudodragons or Quasits (not just spirits taking the form chainlocks get), who explicitly make deal with the spellcaster to serve as familiars, and can end the deal at any time.



There's a difference between these spells and Find Familiar/Find Steed: summoned demons or whatever are hostile to the caster and clearly serving against their will.

I don't actually think they get a choice once they've been summoned. There's nothing in Find Familiar that allows a Familiar to end their service to a spellcaster at any time. Technically, Find Familiar doesn't even state you summon the same creature every time. They're just stuck serving whoever summoned them, for good or for ill, doesn't matter if they like it or not.

And true, summoned demons and elementals are hostile to the caster, but is it slavery to summon them? Is it an evil act to use Planar Binding to force them to serve you for a a week or more?

[Keltest]

I don't actually think they get a choice once they've been summoned. There's nothing in Find Familiar that allows a Familiar to end their service to a spellcaster at any time. Technically, Find Familiar doesn't even state you summon the same creature every time. They're just stuck serving whoever summoned them, for good or for ill, doesn't matter if they like it or not.

And true, summoned demons and elementals are hostile to the caster, but is it slavery to summon them? Is it an evil act to use Planar Binding to force them to serve you for a a week or more?

Find familiar says you "gain the service" which implies some kind of partnership at the very least. What, exactly, the familiars get out of it is nonspecified, but given that the default options are all non-sapient, it may very well be the relationship between a pet and owner.

And yes, i would say that using a planar binding on a demon or devil to force it to do your bidding against its will is slavery. Also, incredibly, indescribably foolish, since they will absolutely act against your desires to the best of their ability. Another area that a good aligned character would generally feel uncomfortable meddling in if they have the ability to get on without doing so.

[Argis13]

Some of my good characters would, but only if the weapon was necessary to defeat [generic world-ending BBEG]. For them, it's all about tradeoffs: sure, sending people to a unjust permanent fate is bad, but it's not evil, because not stopping what [generic world-ending BBEG] is doing is worse.

Some of my good characters would never even touch one of these weapons expect to throw them into Mt. Doom, because a weapon of this type is basically an infinite torture sword, and there is no justification for using an infinite torture sword, that's not a tradeoff you make.

Basically, the disagreement boils down to this: is there such thing as an evil so bad that any means to stop it are justified? Is there such a thing as "no cost too great?" On one hand, things can be genuinely awful. On the other, we are only human(oids), we make mistakes, and this kind of moral logic is one of the things consistently used to justify those very things. There's no real clear-cut answer here on what is good, it's the primary dividing line between utilitarianism and deontology, from a practical perspective.

[Zevox]

So all you claimers of goodness so chaste that your PCs wouldn't touch a hellfire weapon, what do your campaigns look like? I mean certainly your extra good PCs must never kill anything or anyone, right? Your final blow is always non-lethal and then you spend the next 10 sessions RPing rehabilitating your former foes, right?

Help me understand how a good adventurer behaves that includes the killing of dozens of creatures and people - sending their various souls off to whatever afterlife they 'deserve' which is the paragon of GOOD BUT killing them with a weapon that ensures they go to hell is EVIL ...
My current, highly idealistic Paladin actually has gone out of his way on many an occasion to spare enemies and try to offer them a second chance at a better life. Even when he has no reason to believe they can be redeemed, in some cases. Not always, sometimes it's not practically possible to do so, and certain foes clearly can't be spared, but when it is possible, he'll do so. Which leads to plenty of moments you wouldn't otherwise get, like a bunch of Goblins he spared and taught herbalism to starting a business making potions in the kingdom capital, or a Bugbear he spared getting a job as a bouncer at a bar. Or a fallen Paladin that he spared whom he's trying to help on the road to redemption, despite her also being on trial for treason against her own nation, and there not being a lot that he can do to help her with that even if she manages to see the light.

So, yeah, the campaign I'm in is a lot of fun, I feel, and in part because we don't just kill everything we fight.

[JackPhoenix]

I don't actually think they get a choice once they've been summoned. There's nothing in Find Familiar that allows a Familiar to end their service to a spellcaster at any time. Technically, Find Familiar doesn't even state you summon the same creature every time. They're just stuck serving whoever summoned them, for good or for ill, doesn't matter if they like it or not.

Once the spell is cast? No. But for all we know, the spirit chooses to answer the spell, and is fine with having to obey.


And true, summoned demons and elementals are hostile to the caster, but is it slavery to summon them? Is it an evil act to use Planar Binding to force them to serve you for a a week or more?

Probably.

[Tawmis]

Unless they changed him a lot, Ghost Rider never kills. His big trick is his penance stare which makes the target feel all the physical, mental and emotional pain they have inflicted on others. Potentially giving them the chance to reform.


There was nothing about redemption. It was always about punishing.

From a Marvel Wiki about the Penance Stare -

The Penance Stare is a supernatural ability that incapacitates victims and is only performed by the Spirits of Vengeance or Ghost Rider. When in close combat, the Ghost Rider locks eyes with his opponent and induces self-mortification by imposing him or her every negative actions, behavior and sensation, and sins to the pain of others that individual has ever committed in their lifetime. Its effects are similar to the soul searing effect of hellfire.

[Ehcks]

I've been creating an evil character, and they still wouldn't use one of these. Sending more souls to the Abyss makes it more likely for fiends to win their endless war and take over the material plane, and then I'd lose all the power and wealth I've hoarded to the invading demons.

But a good character? Absolutely not ever.

[Keltest]

I'm going to be honest, concerns about meaningfully influencing the Blood War are probably misplaced. Even if use of one of these weapons would somehow tilt the entire infinite war in the favor of the devils, there are other parties like the Celestials that deliberately give subtle support to one side or the other to make sure that the whole thing stays a wash. You are, quite simply, not operating on enough of a scale to affect things one way or the other.

[Sigreid]

There was nothing about redemption. It was always about punishing.

From a Marvel Wiki about the Penance Stare -

The Penance Stare is a supernatural ability that incapacitates victims and is only performed by the Spirits of Vengeance or Ghost Rider. When in close combat, the Ghost Rider locks eyes with his opponent and induces self-mortification by imposing him or her every negative actions, behavior and sensation, and sins to the pain of others that individual has ever committed in their lifetime. Its effects are similar to the soul searing effect of hellfire.

And yet back when I was reading Ghost Rider comics, it wasn't infrequent for people hit with the pennance stare to reform. Either way, it still did not kill.

[Unoriginal]

I'm going to be honest, concerns about meaningfully influencing the Blood War are probably misplaced. Even if use of one of these weapons would somehow tilt the entire infinite war in the favor of the devils, there are other parties like the Celestials that deliberately give subtle support to one side or the other to make sure that the whole thing stays a wash. You are, quite simply, not operating on enough of a scale to affect things one way or the other.

Your good characters have no problem helping Devils get souls, then?

[Sigreid]

Funnily, thinking more about it I don't really think my aversion to using it is a good/evil thing anyway. I just think about the description of them and I personally think they'd fell "icky" to even touch.

[Keltest]

Your good characters have no problem helping Devils get souls, then?

My good characters have problems with using the weapon because it sends innocent souls to hell. The implications of that for the blood war dont even get a back seat to the immediate moral issues with it.

[Dr.Samurai]

Not any sort of gotcha question or anything, I think I generally understand why most people would say "no" to the OP and my own answers have admitted that the weapon wouldn't be used against just anyone, etc.

BUT, would it make a difference to anyone if the sword ONLY sent evil souls to the Styx?

I should add, I generally agree with the below sentiments as well:


I'm going to be honest, concerns about meaningfully influencing the Blood War are probably misplaced. Even if use of one of these weapons would somehow tilt the entire infinite war in the favor of the devils, there are other parties like the Celestials that deliberately give subtle support to one side or the other to make sure that the whole thing stays a wash. You are, quite simply, not operating on enough of a scale to affect things one way or the other.


It depends. As far as I can tell the weapon has no useful properties beyond the send-victim-to-hell, so either:

1. The wielder wants to send the enemy to Hell. Maybe this is someone who has no faith in the Gods choosing an appropriate punishment when left to their own devices, a Chaotic Good type vigilante who trusts no authority but his own. When fighting the arch priest of an evil god, are you content to send him off to his master's astral domain where he will reap the rewards of his years of grisly human sacrifice? No, to Hell you go.

2. The wielder needs the soul accounted for. There are plenty of ways an enemy might escape death, and this sword negates most of them. Clones, Resurrection, even True Resurrection... all shut down by an uncommon magic item. When getting rid of a guy forever serves the greater good, I see no problem with this.

[PhoenixPhyre]

BUT, would it make a difference to anyone if the sword ONLY sent evil souls to the Styx?


Not to me. Two reasons--
* Not all evil people are Lawful Evil. So you're miscategorizing people inherently.
* Do I trust a sword made by a devil to really be scrupulous about the details of who "deserves" to be there?
* There are lawful evil people who won't, by the natural order, end up in the 9 hells, because they worship a god who doesn't reside there. So even in the best case, you're stealing souls.
* It's not my place to decide who is irredeemable. I may have to slay them to prevent worse things, but it's up to <someone/something else> to decide their fate. I am not the Judge of the Dead; acting in that role is usurping divine authority.
* I still don't trust fiendish weapons. Period. Using fiends' tools serves a fiend's purpose. And as a Good person, I'd rather not serve the purposes of a fiend. I don't have the confidence that I can see through all the twisty paths to make sure this one is actually fine. Best to stay well away from the edge instead of seeing how close I can come.

Edit: No one expects the Lawful Inquisition...that's not just off-by-one, it's off by lots.

[Amnestic]

Not to me.

Same, for similar reason.

[Greywander]

I think this has less to do with Good vs. Evil and more to do with principled vs. unprincipled, which more closely relates to Law vs. Chaos. Unprincipled characters are more likely to be willing to use these weapons, though perhaps only in extreme circumstances. For principled characters, it depends what those principles are. If it aligns with their principles, they will use them without hesitation. If it does not align with their principles, they won't use them under any circumstances.

This is how you can end up with an LG character who uses them because the people they kill are sinners guilty of damnation, but an NE character who won't use them because it's not their place to decide where someone goes when they die.

[Dr.Samurai]

This is how you can end up with an LG character who uses them because the people they kill are sinners guilty of damnation, but an NE character who won't use them because it's not their place to decide where someone goes when they die.
Yeah, I mostly take issue with the idea that it's not the place of people to "mess with souls".

I get the sense that if someone could judge people as good and somehow make sure they wind up in some sort of paradise like Celestia or something in the afterlife, people would generally be okay with that. In fact, many belief systems have people going around actively trying to save souls to go somewhere really nice when they die.

But somehow humans are not worthy of judging bad people to hell without relinquishing that trait of "goodness". This to me seems to prioritize "redemption" as the ultimate priority and trait of "goodness" above all others, and that to me is not necessarily true.

This is like a very cuddly version of "good" being put forth as "THE good" when really it's just one way of being "good".

[ProsecutorGodot]

Yeah, I mostly take issue with the idea that it's not the place of people to "mess with souls".

I get the sense that if someone could judge people as good and somehow make sure they wind up in some sort of paradise like Celestia or something in the afterlife, people would generally be okay with that. In fact, many belief systems have people going around actively trying to save souls to go somewhere really nice when they die.

But somehow humans are not worthy of judging bad people to hell without relinquishing that trait of "goodness". This to me seems to prioritize "redemption" as the ultimate priority and trait of "goodness" above all others, and that to me is not necessarily true.

This is like a very cuddly version of "good" being put forth as "THE good" when really it's just one way of being "good".
Well, to be fair at least to my perspective, the good aligned character I think of when speaking on this is my 19th level Redemption Paladin. It might be worth pointing out that potential bias.

[Sigreid]

Yeah, I mostly take issue with the idea that it's not the place of people to "mess with souls".

I get the sense that if someone could judge people as good and somehow make sure they wind up in some sort of paradise like Celestia or something in the afterlife, people would generally be okay with that. In fact, many belief systems have people going around actively trying to save souls to go somewhere really nice when they die.

But somehow humans are not worthy of judging bad people to hell without relinquishing that trait of "goodness". This to me seems to prioritize "redemption" as the ultimate priority and trait of "goodness" above all others, and that to me is not necessarily true.

This is like a very cuddly version of "good" being put forth as "THE good" when really it's just one way of being "good".

Well, I know I can personally be a pretty terrible person and it would be a mistake to have me judge someone's eternal fate. I also know I'm a mortal and therefore prone to making mistakes or not knowing the whole story when I make my judgements. :smallbiggrin:

[Frogreaver]

It depends on circumstances.

[Dr.Samurai]

Well, to be fair at least to my perspective, the good aligned character I think of when speaking on this is my 19th level Redemption Paladin. It might be worth pointing out that potential bias.
Lol, well, I hadn't even read your previous reply actually but this is a fair point :smallbiggrin:

Well, I know I can personally be a pretty terrible person and it would be a mistake to have me judge someone's eternal fate. I also know I'm a mortal and therefore prone to making mistakes or not knowing the whole story when I make my judgements. :smallbiggrin:
Fair.

But also... we're not adventurers :smalltongue:.

I mean... I wouldn't do a ton of stuff that adventurers normally do, so this is not a standard I hold to them.

Cultists sacrificing innocent people to an archdevil, so their souls are trapped in Avernus? Nah, I'm okay sending them to Hell instead :smallamused:

Werewolves spreading their curse across the countryside to build an army of lycanthropes and conquer the region? Yeah, you can go to Hell too :smallamused:

Drow raiders looting and pillaging topside and kidnapping innocents to bring back to be slaves or tortured or sacrificed? To the Nine with you all! :smallamused:

An evil archmage that keeps cloning themselves to continue wreaking havoc after they've been defeated? Not anymore bucko! :smallamused:


I think there is space under the "Good" umbrella to vanquish evil without giving it every opportunity to trick you into thinking it's going to surrender and change its ways :smallamused:.

[Tanarii]

I doubt it's in the lore, but I'm curious what percentage of Prime LE souls actually end up in Avernus as Lemures, discounting any Devils actively recruit (via contract). As opposed to going to their Dieties / Patheons realm, or one of the other LE-adjacent planes.

If it's a fairly low percentage, it makes much more sense for Devils to do whatever they can to increase that percentage. Be it through contracts / trickery, or mass production of weapons like these.

[Greywander]

Yeah, I mostly take issue with the idea that it's not the place of people to "mess with souls".
[...]
But somehow humans are not worthy of judging bad people to hell without relinquishing that trait of "goodness".
[...]
This is like a very cuddly version of "good" being put forth as "THE good" when really it's just one way of being "good".
Did... did you even read my post?

I think this has less to do with Good vs. Evil and more to do with principled vs. unprincipled, which more closely relates to Law vs. Chaos. Unprincipled characters are more likely to be willing to use these weapons, though perhaps only in extreme circumstances. For principled characters, it depends what those principles are. If it aligns with their principles, they will use them without hesitation. If it does not align with their principles, they won't use them under any circumstances.

This is how you can end up with an LG character who uses them because the people they kill are sinners guilty of damnation, but an NE character who won't use them because it's not their place to decide where someone goes when they die.
The entire point of my post is that it's not about Good or Evil.

Heck, I even said in one of my earlier posts that a lot of celestials were more likely to have this mindset that even "good" mortals weren't good enough, and still deserving of punishment. Celestials are likely to have much higher standards of Goodness than mortals do, so for some of them, no mortal is Good enough to gain entrance into the Upper Planes, and therefore they might decide to take matters into their own hands and insure said mortals end up where they rightfully belong (that is, the Lower Planes, not necessarily the Nine Hells specifically, but it's as good as any).

[JackPhoenix]

I've been creating an evil character, and they still wouldn't use one of these. Sending more souls to the Abyss makes it more likely for fiends to win their endless war and take over the material plane, and then I'd lose all the power and wealth I've hoarded to the invading demons.

But a good character? Absolutely not ever.

That's fine. Hellfire weapon does not send anything to the Abyss, and create extra ammunition for the OTHER side of the Blood War. The more you're using it, the less likely you'll have to deal with demon invasion!

Devils may even have a job for you once THEY invade.

[Dr.Samurai]

Did... did you even read my post?
I did. It was unclear, but my "Yeah" was basically agreeing with your sentiment, even though I think you sort of undermined your point I think by the end. As principled characters could go either way depending on their principle, and unprincipled characters may go either way depending on their character so... not really about principle vs unprincipled in the end.

Then I immediately wandered off into my own realization about what I felt about some of the other responses. Sorry for being unclear.

[Greywander]

Ah, I see. Nevermind then.

As for not being about principled or unprincipled, I disagree. An unprincipled character, by nature, is capable of just about anything so long as they can justify it. A principled character, on the other hand, draws a hard line and will or will not do something, no matter the circumstances. For a principled character, it's already decided by that characters principles if they are or aren't willing to do something, and if they are willing to do it, there generally isn't much hesitation, as they've already long since justified that position. But for the unprincipled character, there's always the chance they could be worked around toward commiting a specific act.

So I think principles or lack thereof are an important factor for something like this. It's not so much that a principled person wouldn't but an unprincipled person would, rather it's that a principled person gives either a hard yes or hard no and won't budge, while an unpricipled person would flip-flop back and forth but eventually give in. If you like, you could think of it like an alignment axis that runs Principled Yes - Unprincipled - Principled No. Those on one side or the other are fully commited to their position, while those in the middle don't have a strong feeling and can go either way.

[Keltest]

Ah, I see. Nevermind then.

As for not being about principled or unprincipled, I disagree. An unprincipled character, by nature, is capable of just about anything so long as they can justify it. A principled character, on the other hand, draws a hard line and will or will not do something, no matter the circumstances. For a principled character, it's already decided by that characters principles if they are or aren't willing to do something, and if they are willing to do it, there generally isn't much hesitation, as they've already long since justified that position. But for the unprincipled character, there's always the chance they could be worked around toward commiting a specific act.

So I think principles or lack thereof are an important factor for something like this. It's not so much that a principled person wouldn't but an unprincipled person would, rather it's that a principled person gives either a hard yes or hard no and won't budge, while an unpricipled person would flip-flop back and forth but eventually give in. If you like, you could think of it like an alignment axis that runs Principled Yes - Unprincipled - Principled No. Those on one side or the other are fully commited to their position, while those in the middle don't have a strong feeling and can go either way.

That's certainly a way to describe it, but it falls into the idea that Chaotic Good is less good than Lawful Good because, well, they could waffle on their commitment to goodness if they had a strong enough justification. I also pretty firmly reject the idea that Chaotic people are unprincipled. Its entirely possible for a chaotic character to have a line they Will Not Cross, and indeed Chaotic Good characters are defined by having such lines in relative abundance.

[Greywander]

I do think there's a correlation between being Lawful and being Principled. But I also think almost everyone has principles of some kind. They might be weak principles that they'd be willing to compromise under pressure. They might be standard stuff that wouldn't surprise most people. But everyone has a line that they either won't cross at all, or will actively resist crossing until they're coerced.

I do think it's more in the nature of Chaotic characters to do whatever seems right in the moment. Whereas Lawful characters tend to have some kind of code they adhere to at all times. But it's not a binary thing. You can easily have two principled characters whose principles relate to very different things, so the things that one character thinks are important don't really matter to the other character, and vice versa. Not every principle is strongly held, either. So there's a broad spectrum of how many principles, which ones, and how strong. And, at least from the view of a Chaotic character, there is such a thing as being too rigid. Sometimes, compromise is the best option. It all depends what it is we're talking about. Not all principles are good, and not all principles are important. What matters is if your priorities are in the right place, and that could easily be more true of a CG character than an LG character.

[Sigreid]

Lol, well, I hadn't even read your previous reply actually but this is a fair point :smallbiggrin:

Fair.

But also... we're not adventurers :smalltongue:.

I mean... I wouldn't do a ton of stuff that adventurers normally do, so this is not a standard I hold to them.

Cultists sacrificing innocent people to an archdevil, so their souls are trapped in Avernus? Nah, I'm okay sending them to Hell instead :smallamused:

Werewolves spreading their curse across the countryside to build an army of lycanthropes and conquer the region? Yeah, you can go to Hell too :smallamused:

Drow raiders looting and pillaging topside and kidnapping innocents to bring back to be slaves or tortured or sacrificed? To the Nine with you all! :smallamused:

An evil archmage that keeps cloning themselves to continue wreaking havoc after they've been defeated? Not anymore bucko! :smallamused:


I think there is space under the "Good" umbrella to vanquish evil without giving it every opportunity to trick you into thinking it's going to surrender and change its ways :smallamused:.

"It is the god's job to determine a person's eternal hereafter. It's the adventurer's job to arrange the meeting." :smallbiggrin:

[TMac9000]

Personally, I'd avoid it. I mean, you're sending recruits to the armies of the Nine Hells. Why make their job easier? It seems like I'd be more interested in making their jobs harder.

[loki_ragnarock]

Hellfire weapons are my least favorite thing in all of Fifth Edition. Anything that can take a good aligned creature and force their soul to be pure evil is ridiculous. It's so stupid it beggars belief that they put it in. Devils have, in the past, spent years painstakingly corrupting people so that when they die, hell has another soldier. No reason to bother with that, just start handing out Hellfire Weapons! Murder a hundred kobolds in an afternoon, that's a hundred fresh devils. Go to an orphanage and kill a bunch of babies? New devils for hell's armies.

It's inexcusably bad worldbuilding to just throw something like that into the game and not consider the implications AT ALL.

That said, if your campaign does have those weapons, a character who knows what it is and willingly kills with it is not a good aligned character. Full stop. You don't spawn more devils (or demons) if you're good. I don't even think a neutral alignment could be justified.

Well, I read through six pages to find the best take on page one.

Right on.

[Phhase]

...huh. Guess Most of my characters aren't Good are they? Well,

-True Neutral Undead Thri-kreen Mystic: Usually he wouldn't use one, but he's currently on a warpath to free his people from an evil god Price of Egypt style, so against those enemies, he'd relish its use, given that it's an almost foolproof way to ensure none of his enemies ever rise again.

-Lawful Evil Moulg (Warforged variant) Cleric/Artificer/Mystic: He might use one, given he's a bit of a fundamentalist that considers anyone who's truly on his dookie-list to be less than human (though it's a difficult thing to do in practice). But complicating things, he has ambitions to godhood, so he'd be loath to funnel souls to the benefit of a different divine faction. He'd likely try to find a way to modify the weapon's material properties such that the souls were funneled to him somehow instead.

-Lawful Neutral Dragonborn Rogue/Fighter: No. It violates his idea of fairness, and he's not the most wrathful person.

-Lawful Neutral Githyanki Artificer/Wizard: Usually no. He's a consummate professional, and vengeance beyond death seems gauche to him. However, he'd still likely keep it on hand in the case he finds another use for it/to keep it from others.

-Lawful Good Plasmoid (Flavored as a being of liquid night) Cleric/Warlock: Hard no. He believes strongly in allowing the metaphysical substructures of the universe decide a soul's fate for themselves. He'd probably destroy such a weapon.


Hellfire weapons are my least favorite thing in all of Fifth Edition.
Honestly, I agree with the sentiment, the fact of their existence as a weapon template, never mind as a single unique weapon of artifact-tier, does inspire a certain discomfort in me. Honestly, the more I think on it, in my setting, the use of this sort of weapon would invariably attract the attention of the inevitables, given that it violates the metaphysical laws of nature.