Post/Author/DateTime	Post
CelestialBarbarian 02-17-07, 04:20 PM	I think there's nothing in the rules to support this one way or another--although perhaps someone will correct me if I'm wrong about that--and that this is more a matter of flavor or opinion than of the rules. I think of devils, since they're lawful evil, as, like in stories of the Devil, keeping the letter of any contract or promise they make, while seeking always to pervert the spirt of the contract or agreement. What about lying though in a non-contractual situation? For instance, if a devil made an unprovoked attack on some humanoids minding their own business in the realm of the maug (second layer of Acheron), and (high-level) maug forces showed up to enforce the peace, would a devil just out and out lie and claim that the humanoids started the fight? Or would he only try to use the truth selectively to produce a false impression without every technically saying anything untrue? What do you think? Outright lying would certainly be easier, but do you think it's in the nature of a devil to simply lie? Thanks! :)
fatal error 02-17-07, 04:57 PM	They provoked it with their passivity and weakness! It seems to me a Devil would attempt to bend the truth as much as possible before actually lying, but I can't see them having any sort of code forbidding lies either.
JulesCARV 02-17-07, 05:11 PM	Personally, I like my devils to tell the truth in both letter and in spirit as much as possible.
Thiez 02-17-07, 05:19 PM	The devil probably wouldn't have attacked in the first place unless it had a good excuse ready just in case he got caught.
runestar 02-17-07, 09:23 PM	This reminds me of something. All the devils have ranks in sense motive, with the notable exception of the pit fiend. Is this a design oversight or an intended feature? It seems odd that the most powerful devil in the MM would constantly have the wool pulled over its eyes by mid lv bards...:confused: I am not sure if they would lie. But for flavour purposes, I like to think that they will not explicitly lie, resorting to elaborate half-truths and twistings of the truth at the most.:)
CelestialBarbarian 02-18-07, 12:14 AM	This reminds me of something. All the devils have ranks in sense motive, with the notable exception of the pit fiend. Is this a design oversight or an intended feature? It seems odd that the most powerful devil in the MM would constantly have the wool pulled over its eyes by mid lv bards...:confused: I am not sure if they would lie. But for flavour purposes, I like to think that they will not explicitly lie, resorting to elaborate half-truths and twistings of the truth at the most.:) I hadn't noticed the lack of Sense Motive. I think you're right about it being an oversight. I tend to agree with the notion that for flavor purposes they'd twist rather than outright lie. At the moment, however, all the party has rendered all the devils unconscious, so they're not saying much of anything truthful or otherwise. :D
Nived 02-19-07, 02:46 PM	"What I told you was true. From a certain point of view." Omission, half truths, and metaphor are tools of the trade. Remember truth is not absolute. Two people can witness the same event see different things and believe two radically different senarios happened. Neither one is lying when they tell their side of the story. Devils in essence tell the truth... but not the whole truth.... and not even nothing but the truth. They can logically infer things and lead people to false conclusions... The devil never said the advisor killed the king, he mearly pointed out how oddly the advisor had been acting prior to the assassination. In fact the advisor had mearly been annoyed that his daughter agreed to marry a certain noble he couldn't stand and had nothing to do with the assassination... but the devil wispering in the revenge crazed princes ear is under no cumpulsion to tell the facts... just not lie.
CelestialBarbarian 02-19-07, 03:09 PM	"What I told you was true. From a certain point of view." Obi-wan Kenobi was a devil?! :eek:
Thiez 02-19-07, 03:12 PM	No, merely lawful ;)
Witch 02-19-07, 03:19 PM	For instance, if a devil made an unprovoked attack on some humanoids minding their own business in the realm of the maug Remember that devils don't attack without a good reason. They don't just desire to slaughter. Now, as to lying: I like the idea of half-truths and bending the truth, rather than outright lying.
CelestialBarbarian 02-19-07, 03:22 PM	No, merely lawful ;) :D
Doom_Linnorm 02-19-07, 04:27 PM	I'd say Qui-gon and Obi-wan are both CG or atleast NG personaly. They mostly acted on what they thought is right, not what their superiors told them to, I'm sure Yoda was against the whole Anakin thing. (Cus Yoda is a lvl 60 multi gestalt Wizard(Deviner)/Sorceror/Psion/Psionic Warrior/Cleric/Fighter.) ((Just wanted to add a little sillyness to the thread..... and say: Yeah, Devils would try to avoid point blank lying as much as possible.)) (((Yhough strangely enough I always feel Demons have a greater sense of Honor.....)))
Thiez 02-19-07, 04:39 PM	Nah. Yoda's only got levels in Rogue and he uses Sleight of Hand and Bluff so others will believe he's really using the force. He is also under the effect of continual Glibness. Really. I saw him use tumble. But, but, but how did he hold up that pillar in Ep II that would have crushed Obi and Ani? I'll tell you a little secret. He burned through an entire bag of holding filled with hands of the mage to pull that off.
CelestialBarbarian 02-19-07, 04:52 PM	I'd say Qui-gon and Obi-wan are both CG or atleast NG personaly. They mostly acted on what they thought is right, not what their superiors told them to, I'm sure Yoda was against the whole Anakin thing. (Cus Yoda is a lvl 60 multi gestalt Wizard(Deviner)/Sorceror/Psion/Psionic Warrior/Cleric/Fighter.) ((Just wanted to add a little sillyness to the thread..... and say: Yeah, Devils would try to avoid point blank lying as much as possible.)) (((Yhough strangely enough I always feel Demons have a greater sense of Honor.....))) Yeah, I'm not sure that I'd consider Obiwan lawful either. The problem is that in the D&D game lawful has at least three different meanings. Lawful can mean that someone, like a monk or Jedi, is very self-disciplined. Lawful can mean that somneone follows a strict code of personal behavior (like never lying, or never cheating), although he might not be especially self-disciplined. Lawful can also mean that someone believes that individual rights must be sacrificed to some degree for the good of the whole. These three different meanings for lawful cause many debates over how someone who's lawful is supposed to behave. Not every good, self-disciplined person necessarily believes in a strict moral code of behavior like a paladin's. Not everyone with a strict moral code of personal behavior has the self-discipline to master the martial arts (or Jedi training). And certainly not every advocate of subordinating individual rights for the greater good has either a strict moral code nor a great self-discipline. The Jedi in general didn't want to be a police force, suggesting that they weren't too keen on being the ones who subordinated individuals for the greater good. So in the political sense they probably weren't too lawful. From a discipline sense obvious they had to be or they wouldn't have been able to master the Jedi training. (Note however that even there some of them suffer from a lack of discipline in handling their emotions that leads to the dark side.) As far as a personal code goes, they all seemed to have one to some degree, but it didn't prevent them from, say dealing amicably at times with slavers and thieves. Anyway, it's probably futile to try to pigeonhole the Jedi along the law-chaos axis. I think in general though it would be fair to say only that the Jedi who followed the dark side were evil, and the other Jedi good (and I wouldn't be surprised if one or two people argue even with that!). So why are demons more honorable than devils? Devils will honor the letter of the contract, whereas demons won't honor even that. Edit: I migh add that lawful can have at least two more meanings as well. Lawful can refer to one's willingness to carry out orders in your organization, even when you don't like them, and to your willingness to follow laws even when you don't like them. One can fit under one of the other three defintions of lawful without fitting under either of these two.
Doom_Linnorm 02-19-07, 04:55 PM	But he's got 1337 Light Saber SKILLZ!! :duel: Surelyz that earnz him the right to have a few Fighter or atleast Swashbuckler levelz. No insulting Yoda's 1337nezz, cuz he iz teh bombe! (No I did not lose my ability to write coherently, I just wanted to make sure people understand I am not being completely serious about this.) ((When reading back... this hurts my eyes.))
Thiez 02-19-07, 04:56 PM	Yes, but who will feel more insulted when you spit him in the face, the demon or the devil? :D Jedi are lawful. As you said, some lack discipline and fall to the dark side. That means they were not lawful enough to become a jedi, not that jedi are not lawful. Edit: Yoda just has a high dex, a +1 bonus on attacks for being small, a +1 bonus for higher ground (the little bastard hardly touches the ground while fighting), and weapon finesse. And bluff to catch his enemies flat-footed. And sneak attack.
CelestialBarbarian 02-19-07, 05:04 PM	Yes, but who will feel more insulted when you spit him in the face, the demon or the devil? :D Jedi are lawful. They fail 4 out of 5 definitions of lawful.
Thiez 02-19-07, 05:20 PM	Personal Code of Honor? Check. (Usually) Obey a council of some sort? Check. Self-disciplined? Check. I don't think policing others has anything to do with being lawful. More with being obnoxious. What was the other definition?
CelestialBarbarian 02-19-07, 05:30 PM	Personal Code of Honor? Check. (Usually) Obey a council of some sort? Check. Self-disciplined? Check. I don't think policing others has anything to do with being lawful. More with being obnoxious. What was the other definition? Actually they often did not obey the council. They obeyed it when they agreed with it or at least didn't disagree too much. I didn't say anything about a "code of honor" but rather about a strict moral code. Maybe they did have one, because they prohibited romantic and other family involvements, but they didn't, for instance, have any problem in dealing with slavers, thieves and murderers. So they had some code but not a strict, all-encompassing code like a paladin's. So they probably fall neutral there. As far as discipline goes, both the good and the evil ones had physical and mental discipline. What they didn't all have was emotional discipline, and that applies to some of the good ones who came close but didn't fall to the dark side. Qui-gon, (young) Obi-wan and Luke were all emotionally-driven rather than disciplined. If you read the description of lawful good in the book you will see that it specifically addresses the political issues of the rights of individuals versus the greater good, with the lawful good putting the greater good ahead of any individual rights. The Jedi, however, refused to be the enforcers of anyone's notion of greater good over individual rights. They weren't necessarily big advocates of individual rights (chaotic good) either, so there again they probably fall into the neutral category. I'd say only on the phsyical/mental discipline do they fall under the category of lawful.
runestar 02-19-07, 11:04 PM	I think dark jedi are LE, not CE...so a jedi would still be lawful regardless of what path he follows...:P
Raymond_Luxury_Yacht 02-19-07, 11:08 PM	Remember that devils don't attack without a good reason. They don't just desire to slaughter. Of course, a good reason for a fiend pretty much consists of "I felt like it".
CelestialBarbarian 02-20-07, 01:08 AM	I think dark jedi are LE, not CE...so a jedi would still be lawful regardless of what path he follows...:P Ah well, so much for my complex analysis of what people mean by "lawful." :rolleyes:
CelestialBarbarian 02-20-07, 01:11 AM	Of course, a good reason for a fiend pretty much consists of "I felt like it". In this case the pit fiend saw the half-celestial wearing a holy symbol of Thor (i.e. chaotic good--his alignnment opposite) and did indeed feel like killing him. The pit fiend did offer the party the option of living if the party would turn over the treasure it was carting to sell to the maug so the pit fiend could sell the treasure itself. The pit fiend knew, however, that most likely a half-celestial follower of Thor wouldn't agree to such a deal and would fight instead. :)
runestar 02-20-07, 03:03 AM	Yeah, I suppose you don't even need a modified sense motive check of 8 to infer that...:P That and surrender is rarely an option people take in a game where the first thing which comes to people's minds when you say "There is a big, bad, powerful fiend before you" is "More yummy magic items/treasure!!!:cloud9: "
CelestialBarbarian 02-20-07, 04:26 AM	Yeah, I suppose you don't even need a modified sense motive check of 8 to infer that...:P That and surrender is rarely an option people take in a game where the first thing which comes to people's minds when you say "There is a big, bad, powerful fiend before you" is "More yummy magic items/treasure!!!:cloud9: " The current players aren't all that mindful of treasure. One of the recently-departed players was more mindful, although he wanted to leave behind about 570,000 gp worth of maug weapons, armor and grafts because it was too much work to figure out how to transport it all. (In fairness he had no idea of the value of the maug items, but even if it had been worth only a fifth of what it's worth, it still would have been worth the effort.:D) The pit fiend arrived just after the party and waited impatiently while the party signed in with a maug gatekeeper, yelling at them to quit blocking the line. The party's wizard decided not to go back to his wagon in the rear near the pit fiend but have the half-celestial go back and get that wagon for him, at which time the pit fiend and half-celestial glared at each other. The pit fiend overheard the party saying that they were there to selling maug equipment. The pit fiend was there to hire some maug mercenaries, but he said he was there to do that and to sell items so nobody would question him going to the part of the realm where the party went to sell items. It was quite a distance away so the pit fiend flew past the slow moving party and set up his (its?) ambush. It turned invisible, put up a persistent image of itself, summoned two horned devils, and then hid in case anyone was using true seeing or see invisibility. Then it teleported behind the party and opened fire. At one point the party cast a thunderstorm spell which cut off their view of the persistent image. They've knocked the pit fiend and horned devils unconscious but they still think that persistent image is a second pit fiend waiting for them somewhere. :devil: I have to say that devils have what seem to me to be two glaring design flaws. They can see in darkness, even magical darkness, but can't create darkness. I think that most devils should get as a spell-like ability the lowly second-level darkness spell, and the more powerful devils should get deeper darkness. Tanar'ri from glabrezu (CR only 13) on up all get true seeing, but even the mighty pit fiend doesn't get even a lowly see invisiblity, much less true seeing. The pit fiend had basically no way to deal with the wizard and sorceress who turned invisible. Each would cast spells and then move so that he or she wasn't even within 20' of the spellcasting location. So even if the pit fiend targeted one of the casters' last-known locations with a greater dispel magic, it would have had no effect. I think that at the least a pit fiend, and probably a maralith, should have access to see invisibility if not true seeing.
Banatine 02-20-07, 04:51 AM	i can imagine them bending the truth before ethey would lie, because they are intelligent evil creatures, and its more fun to do it that way. and remember, "It's not a lie, if you beleive it".
CelestialBarbarian 02-20-07, 05:02 AM	i can imagine them bending the truth before ethey would lie, because they are intelligent evil creatures, and its more fun to do it that way. and remember, "It's not a lie, if you beleive it". :D And it depends on what your definition of "is" is. ;)
Witch 02-20-07, 05:53 AM	Of course, a good reason for a fiend pretty much consists of "I felt like it". Not really. That'd be for a demon.
mvincent 02-20-07, 07:28 PM	Devils can certainly lie (just look at their 'bluff' bonuses). Lying is not against the law and they certainly don't feel 'guilt'. However, they are unlikely to lie in regard to legal contracts and such (and would expect no leniency if caught doing so). Think of them similarly to a fascist regime (or similar tyrannical dictatorships). They would be capable of keeping huge secrets if need be, but would otherwise be very... reliable.
Raymond_Luxury_Yacht 02-20-07, 08:49 PM	Not really. That'd be for a demon. Pray tell, why wouldn't a devil, a being of incarnate evil, kill people for fun?
Darth Syntax 02-20-07, 08:57 PM	Killing for fun is killing on a whim. Killing on a whim is chaotic. A devil would have to have a good reason for killing someone, preferably one put down in writing, in triplicate, officially notarized, and witnessed by several parties. Once all that is taken care of, then the killing can begin, because it must be done. And to a devil, nothing is more enjoyable than knowing what you are doing is absolutely necessary for the preservation of order, and that your impending cruelty and general death-dealing has been duly approved.
fatal error 02-20-07, 08:57 PM	Pray tell, why wouldn't a devil, a being of incarnate evil, kill people for fun? Well, they might have fun killing people, but a Devil would be lawful enough to come up with a cover story, attack plan, backup plan, contingency plan, and plan B, before acting on such an emotional impulse as "fun".
Darth Syntax 02-20-07, 09:02 PM	And fatal error is right. There would have to be a plan, and at least fifty-eleven different variations, backups, writs of cause, and the like. However, I don't think they would need a cover story, mostly because they would believe that their actions are inherently justified before the fact.
EyeHunter 02-20-07, 09:16 PM	"Bending" the truth is hard on the DM, so you may have to out right lie sometimes. Remember, Devils won't speak the truth because it's "pure", but because it's better (to them) not to imagine a falsehood. Speaking of Devils and hard on DM's, some "myths" have the devils talk only in rhyme. :yuck:
Witch 02-21-07, 03:11 AM	Pray tell, why wouldn't a devil, a being of incarnate evil, kill people for fun? Because "killing on a whim" is chaotic. A Devil has reasons - they could be general, or specific. They could be as silly as "I wanted to defend Avernus from intruders, or as specific as "I wanted to prevent him discovering this plan we have running". But he doesn't just do it because he feels like it. Devils are being of incarnate law as well.
Raymond_Luxury_Yacht 02-21-07, 03:55 AM	Because "killing on a whim" is chaotic. A Devil has reasons - they could be general, or specific. They could be as silly as "I wanted to defend Avernus from intruders, or as specific as "I wanted to prevent him discovering this plan we have running". But he doesn't just do it because he feels like it. Devils are being of incarnate law as well. Is it killing on a whim? Devils experience emotions. They would have a perfectly logical reason to kill. It satisfies their pleasure drive. How is taking care of one's basic needs whim?
Darth Syntax 02-21-07, 04:27 AM	Without a larger context, the act of killing has only the single purpose of bringing joy to the individual devil. No joy is given to the other devils, no purpose is served by the killing, any 'positive' effects of the killing are fleeting. One could argue that the act of inflicting pain or death for it's own sake is alien to the diabolic nature. Instead pleasure is derived from the process, the knowing that the act was justified, necessary, and carried out properly. Devils are inherently 'just' beings, it is simply that their sense of justice is cruel, draconian, and horrific. Their joy is derived from carrying out justice, not from the act of killing itself.
JulesCARV 02-21-07, 04:31 AM	Personally, I don't think devils really experience much pleasure, in killing or many other things. I picture them as a bit like Scrooge. They look at all the punk demons having a good time raping, murdering, and defiling, scowl, and say "bah! Humbug!"
Raymond_Luxury_Yacht 02-21-07, 04:38 AM	no purpose is served by the killing, A purpose is served. An evil act was committed. Devils will kill just as much as demons, the difference is in how they kill. Demons will just butcher a whole village. Devils will line everyone in the village up and kill them all at once. Devils use industrialised killing. Anyways, it has been established that devils will do things for their own personal pleasure. They'll eat, even though they have no need to do so.
CelestialBarbarian 02-21-07, 07:22 AM	Personally, I don't think devils really experience much pleasure, in killing or many other things. I picture them as a bit like Scrooge. They look at all the punk demons having a good time raping, murdering, and defiling, scowl, and say "bah! Humbug!" Heh. Good image. :) Somewhere though I read a published adventure (I think it was 2nd Ed) in which two groups--one demon, the other devil--each approach the party in human form and try to hire them to help in an uncoming fight. If the demons hire them the party gets to see them engaging in all sort of gross pleasures, like going to the *****house. If the devils hire them, the party gets to see them engage in more subtle pleasures, basically subtle cruelties of verbal humilitation and the like. So do have an image of devils enjoying themselves, just in a more subtle fashion than demons do.
ArcTan 02-21-07, 10:49 PM	Yeah, I'm not sure that I'd consider Obiwan lawful either. The problem is that in the D&D game lawful has at least three different meanings. Lawful can mean that someone, like a monk or Jedi, is very self-disciplined. Lawful can mean that somneone follows a strict code of personal behavior (like never lying, or never cheating), although he might not be especially self-disciplined. Lawful can also mean that someone believes that individual rights must be sacrificed to some degree for the good of the whole. Well, to a point. The more important thing is that all three of these are facets of a broader definition for a philosophy -- that lesser things should be suborned to higher things, that individual pieces should be combined into a greater whole. The kind of self-discipline you need to be a Monk comes from believing that your own individual physical and mental and spiritual impulses must be suborned to a higher system of training that transforms you. This same kind of suborning might manifest as an obvious code of conduct, though it doesn't necessarily have to -- it could just be an attitude, something unspoken. And you'll try to enforce this kind of suborning on others, too, given the choice. But it's not necessarily for the "greater good" -- LE characters exist, after all. It's not necessarily for the sake of any particular code of conduct you can articulate. The recurring theme simply is that you want to take lesser things and make them part of greater things. As opposed to Chaos, which is the principle of allowing bigger things to break up into small, free individual parts. The Jedi in general didn't want to be a police force, suggesting that they weren't too keen on being the ones who subordinated individuals for the greater good. They didn't? Really? They seemed to spend a lot of time doing it. They may have spent a lot of time talking about how doing so was dangerous and they had to be absolutely certain about what was right before acting and so on. This is all part of Law -- the Law is so important you must be absolutely sure of what it really is before acting upon it. Being willing to make your own decisions about things without reference to a higher order is Chaos. So in the political sense they probably weren't too lawful. From a discipline sense obvious they had to be or they wouldn't have been able to master the Jedi training. (Note however that even there some of them suffer from a lack of discipline in handling their emotions that leads to the dark side.) Yeah, I've always thought that as a general rule Light Side = Law and Dark Side = Chaos, in D&D terms. The fact that in the Star Wars universe people assume Law means Good and Chaos means Evil is one of their problems. As far as a personal code goes, they all seemed to have one to some degree, but it didn't prevent them from, say dealing amicably at times with slavers and thieves. Well, sure. No one says you have to have a personal code that prevents you from dealing with people who don't follow it. After all, the ultimate goal of Law is to integrate as much of your world as you can into the Law, the way you believe the world must be -- total isolation isn't a good way to do this. Note, though, that even stuffy old Obi-Wan was somewhat of a maverick among the Jedi for how close he was to the gritty criminal element of the world. Anyway, it's probably futile to try to pigeonhole the Jedi along the law-chaos axis. I think in general though it would be fair to say only that the Jedi who followed the dark side were evil, and the other Jedi good (and I wouldn't be surprised if one or two people argue even with that!). I think there's an ingrained assumption among the Jedi that the only Good is Lawful Good and the only Evil is Chaotic Evil, and that this assumption would eventually lead them to ruin down the line. So why are demons more honorable than devils? Devils will honor the letter of the contract, whereas demons won't honor even that. Devils don't necessariliy *have* to follow the letter of a contract, per se. But they'd prefer to. Why? Because Devils are about integrating everything into a single, unified sphere of Evil. Opposing your will and coercing you doesn't integrate you into their Evil. It allows you, in a weird way, a measure of freedom. They don't want anyone to have that freedom -- whereas Demons revel in that kind of feeling, of someone freely opposing them and they, themselves, in their freedom, beating you by right of power. Devils would prefer to have your acquiescence -- to make your will *become* theirs, to make you complicit in your own destruction. They want you to agree to the terms of your own corruption -- they prefer to make you a part of them rather than simply destroying you. That's the difference between Law and Chaos. Edit: I migh add that lawful can have at least two more meanings as well. Lawful can refer to one's willingness to carry out orders in your organization, even when you don't like them, and to your willingness to follow laws even when you don't like them. One can fit under one of the other three defintions of lawful without fitting under either of these two. Being willing to do what you're told even when you don't like it can be true for all sorts of reasons. Chaotic people do so for their own reasons -- but choosing to suborn one of your impulses to another one (selfishness vs. devotion to others) isn't Lawful in and of itself (or Chaotic Good wouldn't exist). Being willing to do what you're told because it fits into some higher abstract imperative is Law. So is being able to defy your superiors' orders because they violate some higher, more important Law -- even if that Law is unwritten or impossible to clearly state. (Hence why Paladins can and would and should disobey clearly Evil orders given by a military superior.)
ArcTan 02-21-07, 10:51 PM	I think if you ran into a Balor or a Pit Fiend just walking around, both would have an equal inclination to murder you on the spot. But if you tried to analyze the Balor's thought process, it'd be something like "Weak little fleshy meat running around. The little jerk is making noises I don't like. I hate him. I hate all life. I'll rip him into ****ing pieces!" The Pit Fiend's would be more like "An enemy of the Cause has been identified. All beings who do not serve the higher unity of the Tyranny of the Nine Hells must be integrated or destroyed. It is my duty to impose this stricture upon all renegade life forms." You get the idea.