Is it inherently evil to summon up a demon?
- Thread starter blackshirt5
- Start date
Celebrim
Legend
I'm really amazed that this is even contriversial.
I can only imagine that the people who don't find summoning a 'demon' evil imagine 'demons' to be something other than the mythic conatation of 'demon' would indicate. Are you sure that at some level you aren't answering the question by say, "No, it is not evil to summon a 13 HD chaotic evil outsider that has 3 attacks per round and .... using a Summon Monster X spell." In other words, is your answer based on the mechanics of summoning a demon being basically no different than summoning any other monster?
It seems that there are four basic camps. One, that summoning a demon to perform a task is basically just another thing that spell casters do, and what they order the demon to do determines the alignment of the act. Two, a group that cites the mechanical rules of summoning demons in D&D and that such act has the [evil] descriptor and therefore is evil by the mechanical definition of 'evil'. Three, a group which says 'It's not evil in my campaign', which sounds to me like 'I have things called demons in my campaign, but they really aren't demons they are just really ugly and powerful evil humanoids.' And, lastly a group that says 'It's a demon for crying out loud.'
I'm in the latter group. Stop with the rules mechanics and the logical philosophical debate. By definition, the word 'demon' means utter evil incarnated. Stop with the logical part of your mind, and imaginatively examine what summoning up a demon means. Smell the thing. Feel the thing. See the taint in the world. Stop imagining it quickly before you become obsessed with the concept, and go vomit while you still have the proper reflexive reaction to evil. Whether the rules mechanics exist or not, this is by definition unspeakable evil. Much like 'the One Ring' this is something that cannot be used for good no matter how good intentioned one begins. Summoning up a demon is so evil that it infuses the very stones in the environment with latent hate and wrath. Don't build a house with them. Don't plant seeds in that soul. Do it a few times in the same spot and the stones will literally howl with madness. The only safe thing is to break the stones, pour holy water over them, and scatter the peices. Even then don't be sure that the stone won't call to some child, trip him, and dash his brains against itself. Mortals simply can't be safely exposed to this level of evil. The taint will creep into thier soul. Simply making the decision to expose yourself to this evil and bring it into this world is enough of an opening in even the holiest persons defences for the evil to breach it. Not even a Celestial will willing expose themselves, and will engage in a ritual of purification after even slaying such a foul thing.
It's a demon for crying out loud.
I can only imagine that the people who don't find summoning a 'demon' evil imagine 'demons' to be something other than the mythic conatation of 'demon' would indicate. Are you sure that at some level you aren't answering the question by say, "No, it is not evil to summon a 13 HD chaotic evil outsider that has 3 attacks per round and .... using a Summon Monster X spell." In other words, is your answer based on the mechanics of summoning a demon being basically no different than summoning any other monster?
It seems that there are four basic camps. One, that summoning a demon to perform a task is basically just another thing that spell casters do, and what they order the demon to do determines the alignment of the act. Two, a group that cites the mechanical rules of summoning demons in D&D and that such act has the [evil] descriptor and therefore is evil by the mechanical definition of 'evil'. Three, a group which says 'It's not evil in my campaign', which sounds to me like 'I have things called demons in my campaign, but they really aren't demons they are just really ugly and powerful evil humanoids.' And, lastly a group that says 'It's a demon for crying out loud.'
I'm in the latter group. Stop with the rules mechanics and the logical philosophical debate. By definition, the word 'demon' means utter evil incarnated. Stop with the logical part of your mind, and imaginatively examine what summoning up a demon means. Smell the thing. Feel the thing. See the taint in the world. Stop imagining it quickly before you become obsessed with the concept, and go vomit while you still have the proper reflexive reaction to evil. Whether the rules mechanics exist or not, this is by definition unspeakable evil. Much like 'the One Ring' this is something that cannot be used for good no matter how good intentioned one begins. Summoning up a demon is so evil that it infuses the very stones in the environment with latent hate and wrath. Don't build a house with them. Don't plant seeds in that soul. Do it a few times in the same spot and the stones will literally howl with madness. The only safe thing is to break the stones, pour holy water over them, and scatter the peices. Even then don't be sure that the stone won't call to some child, trip him, and dash his brains against itself. Mortals simply can't be safely exposed to this level of evil. The taint will creep into thier soul. Simply making the decision to expose yourself to this evil and bring it into this world is enough of an opening in even the holiest persons defences for the evil to breach it. Not even a Celestial will willing expose themselves, and will engage in a ritual of purification after even slaying such a foul thing.
It's a demon for crying out loud.
Blood Jester
First Post
Celebrim said:
Said ring was used once or twice by both Bilbo and Frodo to get out of tight spots. Used rarely when desparate can be done without falling straight to the bottom of the pit.
Analogy police.
Celebrim
Legend
Blood Jester: I've read LotR 18 times. I don't need policing.
I never said summoning demons always and immediately drove you straight to the bottom of the pit. I said that it was always evil.
I don't want to get into textually disecting Bilbo's ring in the Hobbit. At the time the story was written JRRT did not himself 'know' that the ring was 'the One Ring', so its dangerous to draw extensive conclusions about it. The conception of the ring as evil was not fully devoloped. As the story did develop, Bilbo was protected largely by his innocence. He didn't know the thing was evil, and he always used it for a basically good purpose. The closest analogy would be summoning up a demon by accident, not knowing what it was after summoning it, and then getting it to do something fairly trivial and harmless and putting it away. Even that is evil, but the harm it did to him was understandably small and slow to develop. One thing was clear however, even used just _once_ by Bilbo in direst need to save his life and the thing started effecting his behavior.
Frodo's ring even more so. Sure Frodo (and Sam) used it several times in great need, but Frodo did not come out of that unscathed and most of the times Frodo was using it he very nearly got himself killed or worse. At the very least he was taking great risk. Moreover, the whole class of Halflings seems to have a 'supernatural' (though not total) resistance to evil corruption. Regular humans probably wouldn't have faired as well.
Lastly, I just brought up the One Ring because it is something I thought everyone would recognize. I'm not saying that there is complete and utter parallel between the two, only that both share the trait of turning even good purposes to evil.
I never said summoning demons always and immediately drove you straight to the bottom of the pit. I said that it was always evil.
I don't want to get into textually disecting Bilbo's ring in the Hobbit. At the time the story was written JRRT did not himself 'know' that the ring was 'the One Ring', so its dangerous to draw extensive conclusions about it. The conception of the ring as evil was not fully devoloped. As the story did develop, Bilbo was protected largely by his innocence. He didn't know the thing was evil, and he always used it for a basically good purpose. The closest analogy would be summoning up a demon by accident, not knowing what it was after summoning it, and then getting it to do something fairly trivial and harmless and putting it away. Even that is evil, but the harm it did to him was understandably small and slow to develop. One thing was clear however, even used just _once_ by Bilbo in direst need to save his life and the thing started effecting his behavior.
Frodo's ring even more so. Sure Frodo (and Sam) used it several times in great need, but Frodo did not come out of that unscathed and most of the times Frodo was using it he very nearly got himself killed or worse. At the very least he was taking great risk. Moreover, the whole class of Halflings seems to have a 'supernatural' (though not total) resistance to evil corruption. Regular humans probably wouldn't have faired as well.
Lastly, I just brought up the One Ring because it is something I thought everyone would recognize. I'm not saying that there is complete and utter parallel between the two, only that both share the trait of turning even good purposes to evil.
(Psi)SeveredHead
Adventurer
Casting Protection from Evil is good - huh? So if a diabolist uses an inward Magic Circle against Evil to contain a demon, he's performing a good act?
Anyway, Palladium has it's (huge) balance problems, but they do demon calling very well.
Generally speaking, only an insane wizard would call a demon for information in the first place. Cast Contact Other Plane or something - sheesh! You're actually less likely to go mad that way.
Anyway, Palladium has it's (huge) balance problems, but they do demon calling very well.
Generally speaking, only an insane wizard would call a demon for information in the first place. Cast Contact Other Plane or something - sheesh! You're actually less likely to go mad that way.
Bob Aberton
First Post
I agree with the poster who said that it is very difficult to give a demon/devil good-aligned instructions because...
...the concept of "good" is so alien, so completely unknown, to a demon, that the word does not even exist in the Abyssal vocabulary. Much the same with the concept of "truth."
And Celebrim's right on. It's a demon, for crying out loud. An eternal force of hatred and pain that has been around since the Creation. To think that a mere mortal, no matter how powerful, can actually gain an advantage over such a thing is pure hubris.
As to the example of King Solomon, I would argue that he was not, in fact, Good, but Neutral. Summoning demons isn't okay for Solomon, just because he was King.
...the concept of "good" is so alien, so completely unknown, to a demon, that the word does not even exist in the Abyssal vocabulary. Much the same with the concept of "truth."
And Celebrim's right on. It's a demon, for crying out loud. An eternal force of hatred and pain that has been around since the Creation. To think that a mere mortal, no matter how powerful, can actually gain an advantage over such a thing is pure hubris.
As to the example of King Solomon, I would argue that he was not, in fact, Good, but Neutral. Summoning demons isn't okay for Solomon, just because he was King.
(Psi)SeveredHead
Adventurer
If a wizard wants info, they should cast Contact Other Plane. They're actually less likely to go mad doing that.
Palladium RPG (not balanced...) has it's own good take on summoning evil outsiders. The answer is that only the craziest wizard would do that under any circumstances.
It's a bit silly that a wizard can call a demon, then cast Magic Circle against Good to keep the demon in one place, then be considered neutral (one evil + one good spell).
Palladium RPG (not balanced...) has it's own good take on summoning evil outsiders. The answer is that only the craziest wizard would do that under any circumstances.
It's a bit silly that a wizard can call a demon, then cast Magic Circle against Good to keep the demon in one place, then be considered neutral (one evil + one good spell).
Afrodyte
Explorer
Celebrim said:
This is pretty much my viewpoint as well. When I think of conjuring a demon, I don't think of a puff of green, black, or red smoke and a really ugly thing standing in front of me. I think of a tower of flame transforming into the most vile thing imaginable. Flowers wilt as it passes. Animals panic in its presence, and the little critters die outright. Even the most craven of people feel uncomfortable around it. I mean, just becuase it's summoned doesn't mean that it stops being what it is. A demon is more than a creature. It is a manifestation of a cosmic force. And when the purpose of said cosmic force is to corrupt and destroy everything orderly, virtuous, and beautiful, the powers that be could be justifiably upset when its servants are thwarted in this pursuit.
Then again, I'm just getting my ideas from Goethe and Marlowe.
I'm A Banana
Potassium-Rich
I'm with the 'almost irrevocably evil' camp.
If you summon a demon and tell him to kiss a baby, he'll kiss it by biting it's head off.
If you summon a fiendish hawk and tell it to attack and kill the dark king, it'll first perch on his head, then slowly gouge out his eyes, scraping them out with a beak dripping with foul fluids.
If you summon a Balor and say "Hey, mack, how do I kill Dr. Evil!" he'll tell you a way to kill the doc, and that same way will put him in power.
By summoning something evil to do your bidding, you're performing your act in the most evil and dispicable way possible. When there are less wicked options open to you, willfully choosing not to take them and to expressly select to use the most diabolical, cruel, and wicked tools at your disposal is most certainly Evil.
Now, IMC, you could probably get away with having a Neutral demonologist...an 'end justifies the means' kinda guy who doesn't like what he does, but who sees it as the best way to accomplish his goals, or as a reasonable extention of his learning. Such a character would, however, be in continual lure of dropping over to evil, and all it would take would be a carefully-worded suggestion from a demon that he summoned that he actually followed to do it.
....not that being evil is nessecarily a bad thing IMC.
If you summon a demon and tell him to kiss a baby, he'll kiss it by biting it's head off.
If you summon a fiendish hawk and tell it to attack and kill the dark king, it'll first perch on his head, then slowly gouge out his eyes, scraping them out with a beak dripping with foul fluids.
If you summon a Balor and say "Hey, mack, how do I kill Dr. Evil!" he'll tell you a way to kill the doc, and that same way will put him in power.
By summoning something evil to do your bidding, you're performing your act in the most evil and dispicable way possible. When there are less wicked options open to you, willfully choosing not to take them and to expressly select to use the most diabolical, cruel, and wicked tools at your disposal is most certainly Evil.
Now, IMC, you could probably get away with having a Neutral demonologist...an 'end justifies the means' kinda guy who doesn't like what he does, but who sees it as the best way to accomplish his goals, or as a reasonable extention of his learning. Such a character would, however, be in continual lure of dropping over to evil, and all it would take would be a carefully-worded suggestion from a demon that he summoned that he actually followed to do it.
....not that being evil is nessecarily a bad thing IMC.
