Is a deal with the devil Evil?

I would have to agree with Elder-Basilisk about the whole deal with the devil and church of Nerull is an evil act. By allowing the church to move out the other good deities and building on the land the PC is basically saying that Nerull is the new state religion. By doing this it ties the hands of good PCs like the cleric of Pelor because they would probably try to overthrow the church and would now be trying to overthrow a religion backed by the government.

I also don't feel the argument that it is for the greater good therefore not evil I don't feel is valid. For one you are not only allowing a church that is known by the PC to be the start of the plague in his city to exist within it, but he is saying even though you did a bad bad thing here is a big piece of land and no other opposition from good churches in the city. Any good character that bargains with and allows an organization that unleashes a plague on an entire city should pretty much shift on the spot to an evil alignment.

The one thing that I don't get though is how Nerull got so much influence so quickly. Anyone should be able to tell that the church and the majority of its members are evil even if the evil acts are not committed out in the open for everyone to see. While some people may be good at hiding how they really are I can't imagine a whole church of evil clerics and members being able to not come off as evil. I'm sure that everyone has been walking somewhere and seen someone that gives you a bad feeling. You may not know the person and have never seen them before but you know something is just not right. If a town has a whole group of people that are by nature evil I can't imagine that the people of the city just ignore that because of some healing. I can see maybe going to get healing from them because it is currently the only option, but I would think it would be with suspicion not open arms.

Anyway sorry for the tangent… the moral of the story is…
(In the voice of Dustin Hoffman from rainman) definitely evil, yeah definitely evil, definitely.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

The true determinant as to whether or not consorting with Nerull is evil is principally dependent not as to what aid Nerull gives the nation, but, and I can scarcely belive that this distinction has been missed, even by Elder_Basilisk's (always) eloquent posts, but the nature of the opposing force.
The OP does not indicate what these two factions against which the country over which Mortimer rules is fighting against . To me, the principal determinant as to whether potential dealings with Nerull is evil or not is almost entirely conditional upon this factor.

Let us posit one hypothetical scenario. The opposing factions are not merely factions, but are in cahoots with Erythnul. If they triumph, something which is virtually guaranteed with Nerull's aid, the world will be subjected to carnage, slaughter and that particularly sadistic CE brand of tyranny for the foreseeable future. In this event, it might be justified to perform an act of the "lesser evil". The BoED, in its crude moral absolutism, asserts that lying is de facto evil. Yet few here would believe that, for example, military espionage during World War II was "evil", in spite of the necessary incorporation of deceit as a means of war. The same system must apply here, albeit to a lesser degree: if seeking the aid of Nerull results in the "lesser evil", it is perfectly feasible- indeed encouraged- for a good non-paladin* non-exalted* character to undertake this course of action.

However, the contrary scenario would be a war in the context of genuine international struggle between powers. War, per se, is neutral. The cosmic balance of good and evil, and largely the lives of the medieval citizenry in general, is unaffected by whichever particular administration is dominant is any particular reason. There is no "lesser evil" here, since allowing the other nation to win is not actually evil in an objective sense (although to nationalists, patriots and generals it may seem evil in a subjective sense). Conscripting the side of evil to further a neutral cause is ipso facto evil, and the PC should have his alignment changed, probably to TN, to reflect that fact.

"Lesser evil" is a doctrine which, whilst contestable, is certainly a valid interpretation of NG. Many may disagree, but to argue for "lesser evil" as an objective and genuine rejection of the values of good is too much of a stretch. The analysis of "lesser evil", however, must posit the counter-factual scenario of what were to happen if an evil course of action is not undertaken. If the opposing country is hell-bent on enslaving and torturing the population, dealing with Nerull may be justified. A simple international power-struggle, a Clausewitzian war or a war where a peace is available invalidates an evil course of action. Power politics is always neutral, and good and evil are little concerned with the vicissitudes of national boundaries. The question thus should not be: is this act evil, but is this act the "lesser evil"?

* Paladins and exalted characters confuse matter since the former adheres the a strict code of conduct on morally absolute principles and the exalted character voluntary subscribes to the moral absolutism expounded by the BoED.

PS: Re: the plague, dealing with Nerull to alleviate the plague is as wrong as it is stupid. It is essentially akin to giving a serial burglar the title deed to your house and the spare key to your neighbour's house if he promises to stop burgling you.
 
Last edited:

Demons, now, that's a different story.
I don't reckon demons even go in for contracts.

Devils are the soul solicitors, with their fine print and their loopholes and their subclauses. Demons would be too busy wondering what kind of noise the would-be bargainer would make whilst being throttled by their own entrails.

That's how I reckon 1st ed demons and devils would act. 2nd ed "baatezu" and "tanar'ri" on the other hand...
 
Last edited:

Wow!!! I want to thank everyone for fantastic responses so far. I have read through them and wanted to provide some insight into some of the questions being asked. Then I will jump into some more of the way my thoughts are drifting.

Some of the questions that seemed to jump up, (a couple that Felix already addressed)
1. Why does Heironeous not grant spells? (and extrapolating) what are the reletive powers of Kord, Cuthbert, and Pelor?

Heironeous has been trapped inside some sort of crystal that is limiting his total influence on the prime plane to a 100 yard radius around that crystal. The party strongly suspects Hextor had a hand in this.

In matters of religion and influence, the party has been gone 1 year and when they left, the relation of religious influence in the country was somewhat similar to the following:
- Heironeous – Modern Day Catholic Church (Large Reach, State Religion, Etc)
- Pelor – Modern day Mormans (not a small religion, tended to do a whole lot of “knocking on doors”)
- Kord – Modern day Ballys Gym (Great facilities, would preach to you their beliefs, but were not a force to be reckoned with)
- St. Cuthbert – Who? Oh, those (5) crazy religious fanatics who meet down at the little hole in the wall?
- Nerull – Who? You mean those undertakers are part of some freaky death cult?

With the party returning to the country after a year, the largest change was that the Church of Heironeous was no longer helping anyone out really (no healing, no blessings, service attendance was dropping drastically, no miracles). The church of Nerull is only really regarded as a religion by the military, which is where their healing is being most directly expierineced. The church of Nerull, in offering “healing” to non-military is doing it through free clinics and assistance to the poor, not through any Magic or Miracles. Their priests are known in the military, and through those associated with the military, but the common people just see those black-cloaked charity social workers. This is the first major move toward a significant visible religious presence that the church has taken. Also, Pelor hasonly begun to rise in prominence within 4 weeks of game time, only in the city of AT.

2. Now, that leads nicely into the explanation of the influence the clerics of Nerul have over Mortimers military generals, and also to their influence over him. Basically, Mortimer has just been notified (upon his return), that with his brother (the old leader of the country) MIA, he is to take over. The 2 military generalswere caught with their proverbial pants down, with the Clerics and Paladins of Heironeous who were attached to the military drastically reduced in their effective rolls. Shortly thereafter, the church of Nerull (just black robed priests at the time) stepped in and provided the needed magics. It was only after a time that these priests were revealed as who they are, but at that point, the Generals saw no evil actions from them, so they embraced the healing, miracles, potions, and support. The generals have expressed to Mortimer that as far as they are concerned, they do not care who supports the military with healing and divine magics, as long as the support is there. With the church of Heironeous being integral to the military for currently remembered history, the generals do not know how to operate at peak effectiveness without access to divine magic.

3. This also leads to who the enemies are that the country is at war with. Mortimer returned to find he is put in control of only a third of his country. An additional third of his country, to include the capitol city containing the primary church of Heironeous, the Crystal trapping Heironeous, and the primary leaders residence, is controlled by enemy number 1. This enemy is understood by Mortimer and the party to be composed of doppelgangers lead by an advanced Medusa. The party does know that Mortimers brother is currently a guest of the medusa, in a very stoned state.

The second third of the country, the party has discovered upon their return, is controlled by the remnants of an Orc hoard that they assisted in scattering early in the campaign. This Orc hoard has built 3 small towns/cities and seized control of the land surrounding those cities. The party knows that the orcs are lead by a group of advanced orcs known as War Orcs along with a young Red Dragon.

The party was also informed upon their return that while there was much upheaval in the year they were absent from their country, the last 3 months has seen things stabilize into the divisions that are currently in place. There are still skirmishes, but no all out war. Mortimer has begun to take measures, with pressure from his generals, to marshal his forces and “liberate” the other 2/3 of the country.

4. So, some other important information that may/may not bring thoughts to bear. While E-B’s points of view were excellent, there was one part (and pretty much only one part) of his post that would not be part of Mortimers thinking. In the majority of the game world, Undead are a bedtime story told to scare children. As far as 90% of the world are concerned, undead are a myth and simply not true. The only member of the party who actually knows the truth about undead is the cleric of Pelor, who comes from that section of the world where there is a plague of undeath and evil. Also, as she is a Sacred Exorcist with a focus on undead eradication, she knows the truth first hand. Unfortunately, this character just joined the party when the party returned to the country.

5. Oh, and Mortimer is not a paladin. He is actually a Ranger who’s primary favored enemy is Orcs and secondary is Shape Changers. Mortimer is Neutral Good, who was once Chaotic Good and got shifted to NG for recurring actions.

6. Which leads nicely to the next point I wanted to say. I actually like the fact that in 3rd edition (3.0/3.5), alignment changes are no longer necessarily a punishment. I try to maintain alignment as a proper reflection of how the player is playing their character so that the in game ramifications of alignment are effective. Now, in this case (which is why I was/am struggling with my consideration), the current campaign does not allow evil characters. I should note that with a drastic move to evil, I seize the character. Now, to be fair, I have seized 2 characters so far and then returned the characters so the players could rethink/readdress their actions. Mortimers actions happened at the end of the game, and my immediate consideration was 2 fold. 1. this was done for the greater good, but utilized clearly bad bad evil, and as such it’s a drastic action that should push Mort back to CG. 2. This was a drastic action utilizing clearly bad bad evil that was done so Mort could assuage his own ego and did not need help from the party. The player has walked a thin line of actions along both of these motivations from time to time, and the depth of the evil he was dealing with in this case was an escalation to drastic motivations in my thinking. Then again, I still have not decided my final actions yet.

7. And finally for those still reading I will explain the demon. This is a teaser for the party, adding to their meta-game knowledge, but that’s ok.
It is a demon, and a very bad one. It is a “mildly” advanced Shadow Demon (BoVD) who has possessed a mortal. Shadow demons trade in souls to gain power. Often they work as advisors behind the scenes of evil power centers. (Powerful fiends, powerful demonologists, evil kings, evil dragons, etc) In this case, the shadow demon has somehow entered the service of Nerull, which it has openly revealed to the party once they ascertained its true nature. Advancing the standing of the church of Nerull in this part of the world is actually providing the shadow demon with a direct percentage of the souls that are reaped by Nerull and the church. This reason alone is enough to cause this demon to consort with devils to create contracts that it will happily abide by. Interestingly enough, the contract completed with Mortimer is between the country and the church, not directly with the demon and Mortimer. Mortimer and the demon simply acted as the rightful executors of their respective organizations.


My current thoughts from the posts to date are still not firmed up as a decision. I am leaning toward an alignment change to CG, along with the fact Mortimer and party have a whole host of in game consequences to deal with. I have to admit that BardStephenFox had a suggestion that strikes deeply into my Dark DM heart. The idea of moving Mortimers alignment but not officially telling him, and allowing the parties “Detect Evil” sensors to start ringing has a certain likable taste to it. This would be especially confusing for parts of the party because much of the party are most likely to refuse to believe that Mortimer has gone to the dark side. I am only worried in this case about causing inter-party conflict that begins to make the game not enjoyable, so I have to consider this a great deal more.

If there are more comments, suggestions, or just thoughts, I would love to hear them.
 

I think people (even Elder B) are confusing two things. There is the contract and there is fulfillling your end of a contract. Making the deal with the demon has not moral weight. It is fully neutral. Mortimer should not have any alignment issues with signing the contract. It is the acting out of the contract that will cause alignment issues.
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.
The contract does not stipulate the terms of the deed. Being a demon, I guess they forgot to have a devil look it over for loopholes:

Deed to PL churches:
1) Church of Nerull owns the following parcels (etc)
2) Existing structures on parcels may not be destroyed nor their residents hindered.
3) Existing owners of existing structures will pay 1 cp per decade as rent on land owned under this deed.
4) Deed owner may do nothing to interfere with the free travel all persons on the land
5) Deed owner may erect temple to Nerull such that the alter is visible in all directions by all people.
6) Publicly viewable locations on the land may not offend passers by. Complaints by three or more citizens within a one-year period will void this deed and return the land to (Mortimer)
etc
etc
 

I cannot understand why the demon and Nerull are even making this deal - what do they get out of this? A plot of land? Big deal! It seems to me that at the moment they are right where they wish to be - in charge and on the brink of death and destruction, exactly what they should be after.

Plus, they might even have the chance to get rid of the big H.

There's got to be more to it. Nerull is losing out big time.
 

jmucchiello said:
I think people (even Elder B) are confusing two things. There is the contract and there is fulfillling your end of a contract. Making the deal with the demon has not moral weight. It is fully neutral. Mortimer should not have any alignment issues with signing the contract. It is the acting out of the contract that will cause alignment issues.

I have to whole heartedly agree with this. In fact, it is the centerpiece of a chaotic good character. He might easily make a deal with a bad guy with no intentions of keeping it. Now, this gets a bit trickier with a Neutral Good character. Below is the SRD quote on Neutral Good:

Neutral Good, “Benefactor”: A neutral good character does the best that a good person can do. He is devoted to helping others. He works with kings and magistrates but does not feel beholden to them.

The Neutral Good character does the best that a good person can do. From what I've read - that the church of Nerull has solidified its position within the military and within the populace and is offering a solution to the plague - I think the best thing he can do is agree, even if only to gain the benefits from the military alliance. I do agree with someone from earlier in the thread that it will get better before it gets much worse (worse in the notion that no deal had been made). Mortimer might be deciding to take advantage of that good time before breaking the deal.

That tricky part I mentioned with Neutral Good is that they can occasionally break deals. They certainly aren't lawful and always beholden to their word, however they aren't chaotic either. It is a tough call, but I wouldn't change his alignment yet. Bill, you say that you took old PCs for their evil actions. They were repeated actions that proved the alignment change. I think Mortimer should have to commit a chaotic act in terms of breaking the deal in order to change to Chaotic Good. If he can wiggle around within the words of the deal with perhaps only a little breaking of the deal (perhaps he wiggles around in two areas while only breaking one) then I'd keep him NG. If he managed to wiggle around in all of the areas without breaking it, then I'd perhaps consider him for Lawful (perhaps Lawful Neutral, though even I'm not sure about that). If he breaks each term of the deal somehow, then I'd change him over to Chaotic Good.

Any which way, I think you need to see where Mortimer is going first. True, he might suffer a visit by a very pissed angel or three about his actions and could suffer some punishment for it - that is up to you and I think it would make good sense unless he can give the angel a good reason why he has done it (even then, the angel might have to "punish" him just to keep appearances up and getting cursed by three seperate gods (well, two if Heironeous can't curse outside that 100 yard radius)). However, the alignment shouldn't change quite yet.

If you want to find out, have angels visit him. I might make it kinda like a nighttime visit to Scrooge with the angels taking the place of the spirits of christmas. Each one would have his own ideas and theories and might teleport him around some to show him what his decisions have wrought. They would question him about his actions and expect an answer, including why and how he plans on handling what he's done. It might be a little forced, however I think it would also be something a god or several gods might do.

One question I do have for you Bill is what is Mortimer going through internally with the decision? I know you probably haven't had a lot of time to see his reaction(s) but I think this is another important thing, as has been mentioned before. Is he relieved that he has help for the army? Thats just foolish and stupid and would tend to a more evil alignment since he's totally neglecting the innocents that will likely suffer since Nerull is evil. Is he happy he'll be ending the plague in a city? Thats foolish since he should be aware that no good can come from a deal with an evil deity. Is he fighting with decisions on how to come out on top and best Nerull? Thats a good character! As I mentioned before, how he does it (in terms of the contract) would decide whether he's Neutral or Chaotic, but that is still definately a good character. He's working with what he has and believes he can turn the tables on Nerull and the demon or at least die trying.

knifespeaks said:
I cannot understand why the demon and Nerull are even making this deal - what do they get out of this? A plot of land? Big deal! It seems to me that at the moment they are right where they wish to be - in charge and on the brink of death and destruction, exactly what they should be after.

Plus, they might even have the chance to get rid of the big H.

There's got to be more to it. Nerull is losing out big time.

One thing that I think a God of Death and Undeath must realize is that it is not good to kill off followers or a large number of potential followers. I think it is a pretty good idea on Nerull's part. He attracts living followers and with a potential war (and he can manipulate a war since he has the support of the generals) he'll have plenty of undead soon enough. Gods get power from worshippers. God's of Undeath don't have their skeletons worshipping them...they can't get power via worship.

However, there is something to your words knifespeaks if a god acquires a much much much larger portion of power from a person turned to undeath. I think there is sense in that logic of Godly Might and fits well for a God of Undeath (else it becomes a much much much harder portfolio to have).

Just my two cents.
 
Last edited:

rounser said:
Devils are the soul solicitors, with their fine print and their loopholes and their subclauses. Demons would be too busy wondering what kind of noise the would-be bargainer would make whilst being throttled by their own entrails.

That's how I reckon 1st ed demons and devils would act. 2nd ed "baatezu" and "tanar'ri" on the other hand...

Nah, that's pretty much the same thing for 2E baatezu and tanar'ri.
 

bill2825 said:
2. They would lower the current mortality rate in PL to mimic AT

I can just imagine, that the devil would change AT mortality rate worse than PL's and then keeping his bargain, and making PL mimic it...IMO any time someone works with the devil, they should get screwed over, at least a little, so that Satan is maxamizing on his profit.
 

Is a deal with the devil evil? If the devil has anything to say, it will be. It may be possible to deal with the devil and come out with your soul unscathed, but such things are the subject of folk tales and legends. The devil would hold up his part of the bargin and evil follow the intent, but they'll make sure that there's something in that bargin that will be a not so good act. Each deal will require a little more deviation from good to get the devil to do what they want, until finally, the dealer has done enough that the only one he can turn to will be the devil. Tearing down churches and letting them become the clerics of the army. Even if he is doing what he thinks is good and doesn't know they're totally evil, by time he finds out, his only choices will be to continue to deal with them or destroy everything he has worked for. Remember, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Justifying evil actions for the "greater good" or choosing "the lesser of two evils" is still comitting evil actions. Once they are justified to the point that they are always being commited rather than the occational breach, then he becomes evil.
 

Remove ads

Top