Is a deal with the devil Evil?

[The Grackle]

Neutral Dumb.

Come on, you can't take devils at their word. And deamons even less so.

This is a classic set up. It seems like there are only 2 options A & B. A means things stay bad, B means things get better but will end up much worse in the end. There's always some other option that's out of plain sight and requires some serious heroing and sacrifice to accomplish and THAT's the path a really good character would take.

Not only that, this demon isn't being tricky about it. His terms are horrible. Now if it seemed like a perfect deal w/no strings; you'd be suspicious, but you might think about it. But this contract is obviously bogus.

What Mortimer should do is wait for the plague to pass, take the healing potions, and when the clerics and builders get there, kill them all. Then attack the other city immediately. That way his alignment would switch to chaotic good instead of neutral.


(also, you should try to work in a violin showdown)

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Demons and Devils have their own goals, which are irrefutably Evil. Making a deal with a devil helps further that devil's goals, which are irrefutably Evil. Regardless of what you gain from the deal, then, you're helping the devil perpetrate Evil. Not a good thing.

E-B did a great (and hilarious) breakdown of this particular deal. I might not shift Mortimer's alignment immediately, depending on the rest of his behavior, but at best he'd be Neutral Good (tending toward True Neutral) and at worst he'd shift to True Neutral. If he's a cleric (I didn't notice his class anywhere), he'd lose his powers for betraying his god.

I don't think it would have any impact on his alignment, because of his intent. He's going into this proposed deal with good intentions

You know what they say about the road to hell. Doing Evil with good intentions is still doing Evil.

 

[Staffan]

Come on, you can't take devils at their word.

I definitely disagree. You can trust a devil to honor the terms of a contract - that's why they're Lawful evil. You just have to make damn sure exactly what those terms are.

Demons, now, that's a different story.

 

[shilsen]

I definitely disagree. You can trust a devil to honor the terms of a contract - that's why they're Lawful evil. You just have to make damn sure exactly what those terms are.

Demons, now, that's a different story.

I don't think the two of you are actually in disagreement. You can trust a devil to honor the terms of a contract, but you can't take it at its word, since it will manipulate those words to most benefit itself and harm the other party, while staying within the letter of the contract.

 

[HeavyG]

Not only that, this demon isn't being tricky about it. His terms are horrible. Now if it seemed like a perfect deal w/no strings; you'd be suspicious, but you might think about it. But this contract is obviously bogus.

No kidding.

Fortunately, there's no way the rest of the party will let him go through with this. I hope.

Why aren't the three good churches helping with the plague and all, again ?

I smell a player trap DM Setup.

 

[Sejs]

Is Mortimer now an enemy of Pelor, Heironeous, and Kord? Without a doubt.

Is the latter more significant than the alignment? That only depends on whether those gods decide to respond with Flame Strike or Holy Word.

This assumes that the gods are actually themselves involved, or in fact even care. If messing one temple earned a diety's eternal wrath, to be delivered in smite-size packets, then nobody would ever screw with the church.

Having a god come marching downstairs to give you a sound thrashing upon the backside and send you to your room without supper for daring to mess with his stuff seems... wrong. Downright petty for a being with so broad a perspective.

You know what they say about the road to hell. Doing Evil with good intentions is still doing Evil.

*shrug* Heh, you know me - I'm real big on motivation and intent when it comes to alignment stuff like this.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

This assumes that the gods are actually themselves involved, or in fact even care. If messing one temple earned a diety's eternal wrath, to be delivered in smite-size packets, then nobody would ever screw with the church.

Having a god come marching downstairs to give you a sound thrashing upon the backside and send you to your room without supper for daring to mess with his stuff seems... wrong. Downright petty for a being with so broad a perspective.

I don't know. Tearing down a god's altar was pretty much always seen as a direct challenge to a god's power. Historically, if nothing happened to you, it was generally taken to mean that you had a stronger divine protector. That's evident in any number of stories (and whether or not they are historically accurate is irrelevant from the point of view of establishing what seems to have been expected for defiling a god's altar)--from the biblical story of Gideon who tore down Baal's altar to the story of the saint considered apostle to the Germans (whose name I forget at the moment) who won his converts at least in part by finding a tree sacred to Thor, cutting it down and surviving. Somewhat similar are stories of direct power encounters like the story of Elijah and the prophets of Baal (we'll set up two altars and whoever answers with fire from heaven is the real god that Israel should follow) to the test described in the saga of Burn Njal (we'll consecrate three fires, one to Odin, one to Thor, and one to Jesus and see which ones the Beserk can walk over without being hurt). In all of these cases, the actions of men were seen as direct challenges or appeals to a god's (or God's, as the case may be) power. And the god was expected to respond or forfeit any claim to worthiness.

Of course, Mortimer in the story is not just tearing down the altar of a god. He's tearing down the altar of three gods and erecting a larger altar to their hated enemy on the very spot that he removed the gods altars from. That seems like it should be construed as a direct challenge to the gods' power and authority and would attract their attention. It might pass if your gods follow something of a Christian model and are supposed to be patient and without a really direct connection to the physical sites of their worship (normal Christian doctrine is that the church and the locus of God's presence is properly the people who meet in the building rather than the building itself). However, a more properly polytheistic model with idols, etc would definitely construe such action as a direct assault on the gods. If Nerull were directly protecting Mortimer as his patron, he might get away with it. However, if he lacks a divine protector, he should catch it in the chin.

For a few more perspectives, the greek gods were even touchier than that. Arachne was transformed into a spider for just boasting that she was better than Athena. The greek gods--even the generally nice ones like Athena were directly involved in a heck of a lot and tended to, in fact, be spiteful and petty. But that ought to be par for the course for a setting with gods rather than God.

All that said, I think a curse would probably be a more mythologically appropriate way of dealing with it than a Flame Strike or Holy Smite. Probably Daylight sensitivity and being treated as one step worse on all [light] spells (so 1d6/level instead of 1d8/2 levels for searing light, etc) from Pelor, -6 to all saves vs. fear effects and immunity to heroism, hero's feast, cloak of bravery, etc from Heironeous, and -6 to str from Kord. One curse from each god. That's probably along the lines of what should happen to someone who tears down the altar of those gods without a divine protector.

 

[BSF]

I would like to point out a couple of things that seem to be overlooked here.

- "The Church of Heironeous was the primary religion in the country, but has recently lost access to divine spells and abilities."
- "The Church of Pelor, via the party member, is slowly growing to fill the role that the church of Heironeous used to fill, but they were essentially a cult prior to Heironeous’s loss of influence, so they are still small"
- "The Church of Nerull has stepped forward to fill the gap."

Nerull has already gained influence without any action on the part of Mortimer.

"Mortimers 2 generals fully support the assistance of the church of Nerull and are primarily blinded by the health of their troops and the inability of the church of Heironeous to help out the military."

Heironeous is already 'losing' somewhere. Mortimer is in a terrible position as he is 'negotiatiing' from a weak position to begin with. The country is at war and Mortimer has ended up as a de-facto head of state. He is in a 'screwed no matter what' position since his decisions and actions affect the entire country.

The agreement stinks. No apparent alternative options have been presented. Sure, he can (an probably should) look for other options. But he is saddled with responsibility. I would probably be looking into reasons why Heironeous has stopped giving his agents powers, or is unable to. But skipping out for a couple of weeks to find out might not be an option. By the time he gets back, there might not be anybody in the country left.

He has taken the easy route. He may be approaching things pragmatically. Is Mortimer screwed? Most likely he is. But with thousands of lives on the line when you have to make a decision, your judgement may falter. It's a tough road to be a hero. But why nealize the PC by arbitrarily moving alignment toward Evil?

Look at it this way: What RP potential can come from this by just taking it through the rest of the paces?

The situation goes from bad to worse and Mortimer has to take up the fight he should be doing now at a later stage - the PC is 'punished' if he remains good by knowing he faltered at a key early moment.

The situation gets worse and Mortimer keeps accepting new 'deals', knowing he is sliding down the path of evil and is unwilling to completely embrace it, or to avoid the temptation. What kind of story comes from that?

The situation seems to improve and Mortimer fully embraces evil as a solution to his woes. At some point, the real 'Good' guys (perhaps including former companions of Moritmer) come to take care of Mortimer.

What other situations might arise?

The only real reason to implement an alignment change is when you start using alignment specific spells. By the time that really becomes an issue, I would think it would be very clear to the entire group if Mortimer's alignment has changed. Let the PC be and have NPCs treat him according to their morals and agendas. At this level of the game, the rest will probably begin to fall into place when it becomes necessary to figure it out.

*shrug* I think it would even be possible for Mortimer to become Evil while thinking he has done nothing but Good. Maybe the Player would even be that delusional. But I think it would be clear to everyone else around the table and will make for a great campaign story as it unfolds.

 

[Tessarael]

As part of their discussion, the demon offered Mortimer the following deal [..]

In exchange, Mortimer would have to deed a specific plot of land in PL to the church of Nerulls use for 50 years. The plot of land would be used to build a church of Nerull. This specific plot of land covered 3 of the 4 churches in PL, and would cover the land currently held by the churches of Pelor, Heironeous, and Kord. The ony remaining church owning land in PL would be Nerull (massive plot of land), and a small chapel of St. Cuthbert.

Mortimer agreed.

I don't think Mortimer's alignment would be affected _yet_. Mortimer can always renege on the deal - this may be a temporary agreement until there is a better solution (e.g. killing the demon) and a way to buy time in the meantime.

Now if Mortimer goes through with the deal, sees the Church of Nerull is actually bad (well so the demon has caused plague, but the Church of Nerull from your description hasn't done anything bad yet apart from that), and still supports the Church of Nerull and his agreement ... then okay it's time for an alignment change.

Wait to see how things play out before castigating the player for what may have been a smart move.

 

[Felix]

Fortunately, there's no way the rest of the party will let him go through with this. I hope.

Unfortunately, none of the other party members know about the deal. And since it's going to be carried out in a city far away from where we are, we arn't going to hear about it until the Pelorians in Port Laguna come running to Ar Tolor saying their lands have been confiscated. Until that happens, our hands are tied with meta-game bonds and after that happens, it's too late.

Unless, of course, Mort comes out and tells us. But that would mean telling the Pelorian PC, and Mort seems the kind of guy to keep that a secret to avoid the conflict.

Does the party know why Heironeous isn't dispensing powers?

Yeah, we know why. His essence has been trapped within a crystal... sort of a divine magnet that keeps all of his power localized. He can grant things within a radius of that crystal, but not beyond it. We strongly suspect the church of Hextor, and are kinda looking for a way to return the favor.