Checks of many natures seemed in order, as did pushing the correct narrative from the DMs side of the table. As players you are in charge of playing through the story beset within the overall lore by the DM. This story can alter depending on decisions made by you, the players, and the DM's responsibility requires they keep things on task for you, no matter how subtly. It stands to reason, either out of character or in character, that some form of communication was required or requested to move the story forward, to which the DM should have made appropriate adjustments to keep you on task without an ultimatum which seems to directly conflict with your characters' personalities.
Imo, the DM dropped the ball in controlling the aspect or direction this portion of the story was supposed to go, or what goals, if any, were supposed to be achieved. Forced into a lose/lose situation for your characters and anticipating a purposely callous or contrary outcome suggests you are not at fault.
It need not be the beginning of a life of servitude to a demon. "It was only a little deal with a demon or devil and only once" is really underplaying the concept. If that is all it is with no deeper consequences, why is the DM using a demon? There are plenty of temporal creatures of similar power level. It could have been a Giant or a Dragon or or or....
The only good reason for using a Demon, IMO, is to rile up the 'righteous' in the party. Now ideally, that is just setting up their eventual heroic victory over said demon, but meanwhile, it just makes the players feel not just like they have no agency but that their buttons are being deliberately pushed.
Again, there is no deal. There would have been no deal. It would have been self--preservation and a potential opportunity to deny a demon its prize. If there's an problem of principles here, it would have to be a pretty specific one and we haven't had any information to suggest that's the case.
Furthermore, while I'm sure there are players who don't like their buttons getting pushed there are also a lot of them who do enjoy aspects of their character to be meaningful in the storyline - I'd argue most of them, to be honest. It seems pretty obvious communication was bungled sufficiently to create hard feelings over what happened this session, but I still don't see anything that a typical group might not have gotten a kick out of if the delivery was done properly.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
It need not be the beginning of a life of servitude to a demon. "It was only a little deal with a demon or devil and only once" is really underplaying the concept. If that is all it is with no deeper consequences, why is the DM using a demon? There are plenty of temporal creatures of similar power level. It could have been a Giant or a Dragon or or or....
The only good reason for using a Demon, IMO, is to rile up the 'righteous' in the party. Now ideally, that is just setting up their eventual heroic victory over said demon, but meanwhile, it just makes the players feel not just like they have no agency but that their buttons are being deliberately pushed.
Again, there is no deal. There would have been no deal. It would have been self--preservation and a potential opportunity to deny a demon its prize. If there's an problem of principles here, it would have to be a pretty specific one and we haven't had any information to suggest that's the case.
Furthermore, while I'm sure there are players who don't like their buttons getting pushed there are also a lot of them who do enjoy aspects of their character to be meaningful in the storyline - I'd argue most of them, to be honest. It seems pretty obvious communication was bungled sufficiently to create hard feelings over what happened this session, but I still don't see anything that a typical group might not have gotten a kick out of if the delivery was done properly.
Self preservation does not make it somehow not a deal. There being no good choice does not equate to a lack of a choice.
And meaningful storylines include making deals with demons having repercussions, even when self preservation seems to be involved (which apparently it wasn't, since the DM spared their characters anyway).
Two of the potentially valid character choices were:
Fighting the demon for the sake of a potential surprise round.
Bluffing the demon with a potential danger that the paladins' and cleric's potential deception roles may not have been high enough to fool the demon.
By meta gaming, we may consider that a railroad may have allowed the holy trio to ride through an otherwise potentially tricky social encounter but otherwise, both options could have seemed viable. The fight option might certainly have seemed viable if the party didn't bother with things like perception of insight checks.
1) Self preservation does not make it somehow not a deal. There being no good choice does not equate to a lack of a choice.
2) And meaningful storylines include making deals with demons having repercussions, even when self preservation seems to be involved (which apparently it wasn't, since the DM spared their characters anyway).
1) Then I guess we have a very different idea of what a deal is. There being no good choice does equate to a lack of a good choice. And again, nothing was said by the OP about how the demon would make them comply. It's not a deal if you never have any intention whatsoever of being held to it.
2) Which, as far as I can tell, the characters didn't and couldn't know.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
1) Self preservation does not make it somehow not a deal. There being no good choice does not equate to a lack of a choice.
2) And meaningful storylines include making deals with demons having repercussions, even when self preservation seems to be involved (which apparently it wasn't, since the DM spared their characters anyway).
1) Then I guess we have a very different idea of what a deal is. There being no good choice does equate to a lack of a good choice. And again, nothing was said by the OP about how the demon would make them comply. It's not a deal if you never have any intention whatsoever of being held to it.
2) Which, as far as I can tell, the characters didn't and couldn't know.
1) A deal is something for something. In this case, survival for the performing of a task. Now it is under duress, so would not hold up in any modern court but on a metaphysical level where being killed while holding true to the faith and basically innocent is not necessarily considered a hardship, since your soul almost certainly ascends. However if you make a deal and go back on it, even with a demon and even with duress, that could, on a metaphysical level, be a blot on your soul and setting on on a path to corruption.
2) They are two paladins and a cleric. They could reasonably be either expected to assume, or to write their faith off as meaningless. I agree that one can take a deeper view but again, real life 'faithful' of various religions are often not capable of such a deeper look. It is risky to assume the players are or that the DM is (although frankly, I would not be surprised to learn that the DM treats faith and religion as meaningless since there are no formal mechanics for them).
1) The paladins and cleric would not have wanted to make a deal with a demon. They might have tried a bluff; they might have encountered magic that might enforce the terms of a deal but they wouldn't just make a deal without further conditions being added to the situation.
1) Self preservation does not make it somehow not a deal. There being no good choice does not equate to a lack of a choice.
2) And meaningful storylines include making deals with demons having repercussions, even when self preservation seems to be involved (which apparently it wasn't, since the DM spared their characters anyway).
1) Then I guess we have a very different idea of what a deal is. There being no good choice does equate to a lack of a good choice. And again, nothing was said by the OP about how the demon would make them comply. It's not a deal if you never have any intention whatsoever of being held to it.
2) Which, as far as I can tell, the characters didn't and couldn't know.
1) A deal is something for something. In this case, survival for the performing of a task. Now it is under duress, so would not hold up in any modern court but on a metaphysical level where being killed while holding true to the faith and basically innocent is not necessarily considered a hardship, since your soul almost certainly ascends. However if you make a deal and go back on it, even with a demon and even with duress, that could, on a metaphysical level, be a blot on your soul and setting on on a path to corruption.
2) They are two paladins and a cleric. They could reasonably be either expected to assume, or to write their faith off as meaningless. I agree that one can take a deeper view but again, real life 'faithful' of various religions are often not capable of such a deeper look. It is risky to assume the players are or that the DM is (although frankly, I would not be surprised to learn that the DM treats faith and religion as meaningless since there are no formal mechanics for them).
1) A deal is something you can take or leave. By my standards, if "leave" means "die an otherwise meaningless death" we're not talking about a deal. If you deceive a demon and make it believe it has a deal, without having any intention of going through with it, to me that's not making a deal either. And dying means your patron deity loses a believer and agent on the Material Plane - yes, this is a hardship. Your soul may end up in the right place, but an unnecessary death is still a failure in your service. Moreover, the characters' deaths in this case not only don't accomplish anything, the PCs were also the first and best opportunity to thwart the demon's plan; with them gone, so is that opportunity. A demon loose in the world will be free to pursue its undoubtedly evil goals without anyone knowing to stand in its way. Is that supposed to be an acceptable outcome?
2) They could be reasonably expected to assume what? That a demon would spare them, after literally threatening their life? And if they didn't assume that, their faith would have been meaningless? This is the argument you're making?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
1) You are conflating a fair deal with a deal. A deal can be completely unfair or nearly one sided and still be a deal.
2) You seem to be arguing that clerics and paladins have no training whatsoever that teaches them about dealing with fiends (or their servants) and no teachings regarding morality at all above and beyond the basics everyone is taught... I am assuming otherwise. Moreover, I am assuming that, this being a magical world where Gods do exist, divine power exists and Demons do exist, that faith does actually matter for something other than just a nice hobby, at least for paladins and clerics.
1) No, I'm saying a deal is negotiable. You make an offer or counteroffer, you can accept or you can walk away. It can be fair or it can be the dumbest deal in history. But if you acquiesce only because you will be killed if you don't - not even just die through inaction, deliberately killed - that's not a deal. Police telling you to put your hands up at gunpoint is not trying to make a deal. A torturer telling you the pain will end if you confess isn't offering a deal either. If you're not at least to a minimal extent willing to come to the table by yourself you're being coerced, plain and simple.
2) No, I'm arguing that if a demon tells you it will kill you, you can't be certain it's bluffing having had training as a paladin or cleric or not. Nothing in the rules suggests any such thing either.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I do not see how this was a deal. A deal implies some kind of compromise. There was no negotiation here, it was coercion with the threat of death. If there is no bargaining, only extortion, then there is no accord. It seems to me that domination was all that was done - an ultimatum, definitionally the breakdown of a deal. An order with an attached ultimate consequence is not a deal.
I think we are getting caught up on the "deal" or "not deal" aspect of this.
If the holy characters are presented with a demon threatening them saying "Do my bidding or die" then they can go two routes
1) They do the task to help the demon in order to save their own skin (maybe with the plan to double cross).
2) They die upholding their values and tenets.
If the idea is that these characters are devout followers of a god of good alignment, then choosing to help a demon in any way to prolong their own lives will more than likely be viewed unfavorably by their order. Even if you justify it as "we want to live to fight this demon another day" they still acted to further the demon's goals.
So, I think it comes down to the simple question of "Does the end justify the means?" That is to say, is doing a demon's bidding justified if the end goal is to double cross and kill the demon? I think that for any other class this would be an easy question to answer. For clerics and paladins, who either have higher powers or strict oaths they follow, the means by which they achieve their goals will matter significantly to upholding their values. If the means conflict with the holy characters' values/beliefs, then choosing death is the more justified path.
I know that the D&D pantheon will have its own unique interactions/systems in place, but if we viewed this same conflict hypothetically through the lens of Christianity, then choosing to serve evil in order to prolong mortal life would be viewed as a deadly sin.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews!Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
Let me answer your question with some of my own. If you are a prisoner and you are told by a prison guard “Lights out, no more talking”, and you keep bumping your gums, are you entering into a deal? Are you proposing some kind of counter-offer that they must consider? What is the negotiation here?
Kotath, I honestly do not have the energy to wrestle with internet contortionists and it is clear from this thread that you are prepared to invest a lot more time into this topic than I am. If there is some compulsion to have the final word, please feel free to ascend the mountain and claim the shallow final word victory over me. I see no benefit in getting into a protracted argument with someone who will argue over the color of the sky.
Can we please stop arguing about what a "deal" is? It is far from relevant. The arguments surrounding the justifications of the character's actions can be had just as easily if we consider the interaction to be a "threat" instead of a deal.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews!Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
The only way to reject the deal is to refuse to do the task and survive. Which the party failed to do. Their souls are corrupt, or whatever.
Im no master of theology, but Im pretty sure choosing death over serving evil would not constitute corruption. If anything, isnt that basically what makes someone a martyr? Doing good (or refusing to do evil) knowing it will result in your death?
Again, I think people are getting too caught up on how deals work rather than digging into the meat of this thing
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews!Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
Can we please stop arguing about what a "deal" is? It is far from relevant. The arguments surrounding the justifications of the character's actions can be had just as easily if we consider the interaction to be a "threat" instead of a deal.
Well, apparently the claim is that going along with a demon in any way corrupts one's immortal soul - possibly always, possibly only by the higher standards of paladins or clergy - regardless of circumstances, regardless of motivation and regardless of intent, with the argument for that claim being that doing so constitutes accepting a deal regardless of circumstances, regardless of motivation and regardless of intent and accepting a deal from a demon is a no-no. The "regardless of circumstances, regardless of motivation and regardless of intent" part means that it doesn't matter if we consider the interaction to be a threat or not, so I'm not sure how I can argue against that claim without arguing against whether something is a deal regardless of circumstances, regardless of motivation and regardless of intent.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Can we please stop arguing about what a "deal" is? It is far from relevant. The arguments surrounding the justifications of the character's actions can be had just as easily if we consider the interaction to be a "threat" instead of a deal.
Well, apparently the claim is that going along with a demon in any way corrupts one's immortal soul - possibly always, possibly only by the higher standards of paladins or clergy - regardless of circumstances, regardless of motivation and regardless of intent, with the argument for that claim being that doing so constitutes accepting a deal regardless of circumstances, regardless of motivation and regardless of intent and accepting a deal from a demon is a no-no. The "regardless of circumstances, regardless of motivation and regardless of intent" part means that it doesn't matter if we consider the interaction to be a threat or not, so I'm not sure how I can argue against that claim without arguing against whether something is a deal regardless of circumstances, regardless of motivation and regardless of intent.
The intent doesnt matter. It doesnt matter if the demon threatened their lives. Choosing to save your own skin by aiding an unholy power is grounds for straying away from a holy path. They dont have to sign a contract saying they will help the demon for it to be a sinful act. Allowing yourself to promote evil deeds would more than likely be considered a sinful act.
The only situation which could throw a wrench into it is if there is a third party involved (like if the demon threatened to drown a bag of puppies or school children if you dont comply). At that point we have a weird theological trolly problem on our hands. But thats not what happened so it hardly matters.
So, to summarize
Doing a demon's bidding for the sole purpose of saving your mortal life: A no-no {doesnt matter if it threatened you or offered you a fair trade}
Allowing the demon to behead you or whatever because you will not serve it: A righteous sacrifice (character becomes a martyr)
Fighting the demon to not only refuse to serve it but also have a chance at removing it from power: A heroic, righteous act.
Can we please stop arguing about what a "deal" is? It is far from relevant. The arguments surrounding the justifications of the character's actions can be had just as easily if we consider the interaction to be a "threat" instead of a deal.
Well, apparently the claim is that going along with a demon in any way corrupts one's immortal soul - possibly always, possibly only by the higher standards of paladins or clergy - regardless of circumstances, regardless of motivation and regardless of intent, with the argument for that claim being that doing so constitutes accepting a deal regardless of circumstances, regardless of motivation and regardless of intent and accepting a deal from a demon is a no-no. The "regardless of circumstances, regardless of motivation and regardless of intent" part means that it doesn't matter if we consider the interaction to be a threat or not, so I'm not sure how I can argue against that claim without arguing against whether something is a deal regardless of circumstances, regardless of motivation and regardless of intent.
Free will. They have the choice to obey and do the bidding of the Demon, or refuse and die. This is the underlying law of all faiths. You can sin or you can refuse to sin.
Can we please stop arguing about what a "deal" is? It is far from relevant. The arguments surrounding the justifications of the character's actions can be had just as easily if we consider the interaction to be a "threat" instead of a deal.
Well, apparently the claim is that going along with a demon in any way corrupts one's immortal soul - possibly always, possibly only by the higher standards of paladins or clergy - regardless of circumstances, regardless of motivation and regardless of intent, with the argument for that claim being that doing so constitutes accepting a deal regardless of circumstances, regardless of motivation and regardless of intent and accepting a deal from a demon is a no-no. The "regardless of circumstances, regardless of motivation and regardless of intent" part means that it doesn't matter if we consider the interaction to be a threat or not, so I'm not sure how I can argue against that claim without arguing against whether something is a deal regardless of circumstances, regardless of motivation and regardless of intent.
The intent doesnt matter. It doesnt matter if the demon threatened their lives. Choosing to save your own skin by aiding an unholy power is grounds for straying away from a holy path. They dont have to sign a contract saying they will help the demon for it to be a sinful act. Allowing yourself to promote evil deeds would more than likely be considered a sinful act.
The only situation which could throw a wrench into it is if there is a third party involved (like if the demon threatened to drown a bag of puppies or school children if you dont comply). At that point we have a weird theological trolly problem on our hands. But thats not what happened so it hardly matters.
So, to summarize
Doing a demon's bidding for the sole purpose of saving your mortal life: A no-no {doesnt matter if it threatened you or offered you a fair trade}
Allowing the demon to behead you or whatever because you will not serve it: A righteous sacrifice (character becomes a martyr)
Fighting the demon to not only refuse to serve it but also have a chance at removing it from power: A heroic, righteous act.
So if the intent is to thwart the demon, to foil its plans and make them impossible to achieve, that doesn't matter?
Checks of many natures seemed in order, as did pushing the correct narrative from the DMs side of the table. As players you are in charge of playing through the story beset within the overall lore by the DM. This story can alter depending on decisions made by you, the players, and the DM's responsibility requires they keep things on task for you, no matter how subtly. It stands to reason, either out of character or in character, that some form of communication was required or requested to move the story forward, to which the DM should have made appropriate adjustments to keep you on task without an ultimatum which seems to directly conflict with your characters' personalities.
Imo, the DM dropped the ball in controlling the aspect or direction this portion of the story was supposed to go, or what goals, if any, were supposed to be achieved. Forced into a lose/lose situation for your characters and anticipating a purposely callous or contrary outcome suggests you are not at fault.
Loading...
Watch DnD Shorts on youtube.
Chief Innovationist, Acquisitions Inc. The Series 2
Successfully completed the Tomb of Horrors module (as part of playing Tomb of Annihilation) with no party deaths!
Again, there is no deal. There would have been no deal. It would have been self--preservation and a potential opportunity to deny a demon its prize. If there's an problem of principles here, it would have to be a pretty specific one and we haven't had any information to suggest that's the case.
Furthermore, while I'm sure there are players who don't like their buttons getting pushed there are also a lot of them who do enjoy aspects of their character to be meaningful in the storyline - I'd argue most of them, to be honest. It seems pretty obvious communication was bungled sufficiently to create hard feelings over what happened this session, but I still don't see anything that a typical group might not have gotten a kick out of if the delivery was done properly.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Two of the potentially valid character choices were:
Fighting the demon for the sake of a potential surprise round.
Bluffing the demon with a potential danger that the paladins' and cleric's potential deception roles may not have been high enough to fool the demon.
By meta gaming, we may consider that a railroad may have allowed the holy trio to ride through an otherwise potentially tricky social encounter but otherwise, both options could have seemed viable. The fight option might certainly have seemed viable if the party didn't bother with things like perception of insight checks.
1) Then I guess we have a very different idea of what a deal is. There being no good choice does equate to a lack of a good choice. And again, nothing was said by the OP about how the demon would make them comply. It's not a deal if you never have any intention whatsoever of being held to it.
2) Which, as far as I can tell, the characters didn't and couldn't know.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
1) The paladins and cleric would not have wanted to make a deal with a demon. They might have tried a bluff; they might have encountered magic that might enforce the terms of a deal but they wouldn't just make a deal without further conditions being added to the situation.
1) A deal is something you can take or leave. By my standards, if "leave" means "die an otherwise meaningless death" we're not talking about a deal. If you deceive a demon and make it believe it has a deal, without having any intention of going through with it, to me that's not making a deal either. And dying means your patron deity loses a believer and agent on the Material Plane - yes, this is a hardship. Your soul may end up in the right place, but an unnecessary death is still a failure in your service. Moreover, the characters' deaths in this case not only don't accomplish anything, the PCs were also the first and best opportunity to thwart the demon's plan; with them gone, so is that opportunity. A demon loose in the world will be free to pursue its undoubtedly evil goals without anyone knowing to stand in its way. Is that supposed to be an acceptable outcome?
2) They could be reasonably expected to assume what? That a demon would spare them, after literally threatening their life? And if they didn't assume that, their faith would have been meaningless? This is the argument you're making?
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
1) No, I'm saying a deal is negotiable. You make an offer or counteroffer, you can accept or you can walk away. It can be fair or it can be the dumbest deal in history. But if you acquiesce only because you will be killed if you don't - not even just die through inaction, deliberately killed - that's not a deal. Police telling you to put your hands up at gunpoint is not trying to make a deal. A torturer telling you the pain will end if you confess isn't offering a deal either. If you're not at least to a minimal extent willing to come to the table by yourself you're being coerced, plain and simple.
2) No, I'm arguing that if a demon tells you it will kill you, you can't be certain it's bluffing having had training as a paladin or cleric or not. Nothing in the rules suggests any such thing either.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I do not see how this was a deal. A deal implies some kind of compromise. There was no negotiation here, it was coercion with the threat of death. If there is no bargaining, only extortion, then there is no accord. It seems to me that domination was all that was done - an ultimatum, definitionally the breakdown of a deal. An order with an attached ultimate consequence is not a deal.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
I think we are getting caught up on the "deal" or "not deal" aspect of this.
If the holy characters are presented with a demon threatening them saying "Do my bidding or die" then they can go two routes
1) They do the task to help the demon in order to save their own skin (maybe with the plan to double cross).
2) They die upholding their values and tenets.
If the idea is that these characters are devout followers of a god of good alignment, then choosing to help a demon in any way to prolong their own lives will more than likely be viewed unfavorably by their order. Even if you justify it as "we want to live to fight this demon another day" they still acted to further the demon's goals.
So, I think it comes down to the simple question of "Does the end justify the means?" That is to say, is doing a demon's bidding justified if the end goal is to double cross and kill the demon? I think that for any other class this would be an easy question to answer. For clerics and paladins, who either have higher powers or strict oaths they follow, the means by which they achieve their goals will matter significantly to upholding their values. If the means conflict with the holy characters' values/beliefs, then choosing death is the more justified path.
I know that the D&D pantheon will have its own unique interactions/systems in place, but if we viewed this same conflict hypothetically through the lens of Christianity, then choosing to serve evil in order to prolong mortal life would be viewed as a deadly sin.
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
I see another thread went off rails lol
Info, Inflow, Overload. Knowledge Black Hole Imminent!
Hello Kotath,
Let me answer your question with some of my own. If you are a prisoner and you are told by a prison guard “Lights out, no more talking”, and you keep bumping your gums, are you entering into a deal? Are you proposing some kind of counter-offer that they must consider? What is the negotiation here?
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
Kotath, I honestly do not have the energy to wrestle with internet contortionists and it is clear from this thread that you are prepared to invest a lot more time into this topic than I am. If there is some compulsion to have the final word, please feel free to ascend the mountain and claim the shallow final word victory over me. I see no benefit in getting into a protracted argument with someone who will argue over the color of the sky.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
Nobody said haggling is required for a deal to be struck.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Can we please stop arguing about what a "deal" is? It is far from relevant. The arguments surrounding the justifications of the character's actions can be had just as easily if we consider the interaction to be a "threat" instead of a deal.
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
Do this or die.
If you "do this," you're accepting the deal.
If you "die," you're still accepting the deal.
The only way to reject the deal is to refuse to do the task and survive. Which the party failed to do. Their souls are corrupt, or whatever.
Im no master of theology, but Im pretty sure choosing death over serving evil would not constitute corruption. If anything, isnt that basically what makes someone a martyr? Doing good (or refusing to do evil) knowing it will result in your death?
Again, I think people are getting too caught up on how deals work rather than digging into the meat of this thing
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
Well, apparently the claim is that going along with a demon in any way corrupts one's immortal soul - possibly always, possibly only by the higher standards of paladins or clergy - regardless of circumstances, regardless of motivation and regardless of intent, with the argument for that claim being that doing so constitutes accepting a deal regardless of circumstances, regardless of motivation and regardless of intent and accepting a deal from a demon is a no-no. The "regardless of circumstances, regardless of motivation and regardless of intent" part means that it doesn't matter if we consider the interaction to be a threat or not, so I'm not sure how I can argue against that claim without arguing against whether something is a deal regardless of circumstances, regardless of motivation and regardless of intent.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
The intent doesnt matter. It doesnt matter if the demon threatened their lives. Choosing to save your own skin by aiding an unholy power is grounds for straying away from a holy path. They dont have to sign a contract saying they will help the demon for it to be a sinful act. Allowing yourself to promote evil deeds would more than likely be considered a sinful act.
The only situation which could throw a wrench into it is if there is a third party involved (like if the demon threatened to drown a bag of puppies or school children if you dont comply). At that point we have a weird theological trolly problem on our hands. But thats not what happened so it hardly matters.
So, to summarize
Doing a demon's bidding for the sole purpose of saving your mortal life: A no-no {doesnt matter if it threatened you or offered you a fair trade}
Allowing the demon to behead you or whatever because you will not serve it: A righteous sacrifice (character becomes a martyr)
Fighting the demon to not only refuse to serve it but also have a chance at removing it from power: A heroic, righteous act.
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
Free will. They have the choice to obey and do the bidding of the Demon, or refuse and die. This is the underlying law of all faiths. You can sin or you can refuse to sin.
So if the intent is to thwart the demon, to foil its plans and make them impossible to achieve, that doesn't matter?
So going along without the intention of giving the demon the item, or even to destroy or abscond with it, is obeying then?
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].