Paladin Possessed

>>44988159
>Should I even have this demon be redeemable?
No, demons are evil. Unless you decide they're not, then yes

File: Booklet_of_Infinite_Horrors_(8220293).pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

Here are the additional rules for demons I'm using

>>44988200
So then drag it out into a tragic lesson for the paladin? And if not, I still run into

>How the hell to I portray redemption in a demon, and how do I show it to the players?

File: 1319165459140.jpg (125KB, 507x799px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 507x799px

>>44988290

Have the demon ACT like it's working toward some sort of redemption, and then betray the entire party at the most opportune and devastating moment.

>>44988336
Evil, I like it. Now, how do I maintain player agency in the meantime?

>>44988449
I mean, just have the demon do things at dramatic points, or when it's funny. The paladin goes to drink a cup of water and the demon makes him splash it all over his face

>>44988449
Could have the demon do an imperfect possession. Will saves done on things she wants to do that the demon doesn't. She talks to someone and the demon tries to hijack her voice or something.

File: 1451630142242.gif (471KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

471KB, 300x300px

>Female paladin who saves or purifies demons by letting them into her body

Oh gosh...

>>44988449
You could also have the possession be stronger at certain times. Weaker near a church, stronger in a Whitehouse type of thing. Or do it by the daylight cycle or phases of the moon.

File: 1329000012421.jpg (1MB, 1920x1440px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1920x1440px

>>44988449

Have the player retain their own agency for the most part, but the demon (you, as GM) takes over from time to time, directing the player's character toward whatever actions you desire. All of this, of course, leads up to the point where the betrayal happens and you reveal that the demon has been in control the whole time—those points where the player was in control were really just the demon speaking and acting like the paladin character.

Start small—like have the paladin sink into berserk rages during combat or something—just enough to let the party know that something's up, and to give the paladin's player cause to start "talking" to the demon, trying to reason with it. You might even go full split-personality with this, treating the demon as a full NPC who just so happens to inhabit the same space as the paladin's character. Feed him and the party breadcrumbs of success as you go along; the demon starts becoming friendlier and more reasonable as time goes on, maybe even starts becoming beneficial to the party through demonic powers or something. The end state is set, though: for all intents and purposes, the paladin character died when he let the demon in; everything thereafter is just the demon twisting him and those around him toward the goal of survival (don't want them just exorcising him) and the party's corruption and destruction (as demons are wont to do).

>>44988159
>Should I even have this demon be redeemable?
If the player wants it?
YES

>How the hell to I portray redemption in a demon, and how do I show it to the players?
Same you would any other character, just starting with more evil for evil's sake, given the paladin can easily kick it out you could have her hold it over its head, making it at least act nice by threatening to kick it out if it misbehaves
On the show side, well you have behavior like you would with any other NPC but given they're sharing the same head you might be able fluff things so the paladin can feel the demon's emotions

>How the HELL do I maintain player agency while they are riding backseat in their own character?!
This is hard, my #1 advice is to let the PC have someway of influencing things, either something like an ego check to temporarily take control/influence things and/or let the paladin have enough control to talk/maybe fire off her holy abilities/spells while the demon is controlling a fighter body

>>44988159
Not sure how to handle the redemption or sharing a body but on the subject of "can it be redeemed" I'd say yes, but make the paladin work for it

>>44988159
Control the demon by giving the paladin player little notes.

Mostly harmless stuff, sometimes empty notes that just say (act as normal) but some times nefarious shit.

This way the rest of the group gets paranoid about who's behind the wheel, like they should be when there's freaking possession involved.

If the player is the kind who gets butthurt over player agency, they probably shouldn't have let themselves be willingly possessed, so don't worry too much about it.

Should the demon be redeemable? If they are in the setting according to you, you're the DM. Your job is to make the world interact with the players according to the lore of the setting and in believable ways, it's not your job to bend the setting until it screams to accomodate every whim of the players, that just ruins the experience for everyone.

>>44988159

First, have the demon start off as antagonistic. If the Paladin is serious about the redemption, start showing how the demon slowly begins to show signs of being able to change. It no longer tries to control the player character or stuff like that.

Really drive it home that they're succeeding in something extraordinary, and that the demon now genuinely wants to make amends for his past evils.

When the party is really in trouble, the demon asks to ASSUME DIRECT CONTROL because he can save or help them in some way they couldn't normally.

If they decline and don't trust him, no biggie. The demon will continue to act nice and "redeemed" and wait for another opportunity.

If allowed to ASSUME DIRECT CONTROL, the demon will do something irrecoverably horrible and evil that the party has to deal with, then exiting the premises.

The Paladin in question then gets a stern talking to from a higher-up in his order, a divine representative or a mentor for being so fucking stupid as to think the primordial manifestation of Chaos and Evil could ever be anything else than Chaotic Evil.

>>44988936
>If allowed to ASSUME DIRECT CONTROL, the demon will do something irrecoverably horrible and evil that the party has to deal with, then exiting the premises.
That's just being a dick of a DM though

>>44989019
Sometimes you have to be a dick to a player that acts like a dick. This is no Undertale, demons are inherently evil and this kind of existance doesn't change in D&D. As a paladin, the player should know the boundaries of his belief and how far is too far. Trying to turn a being made of pure evil into something not evil is going too far and being too dumb even for your usual reverse-smitebot mentality.

Suggesting that it backfire in the player's face after they've worked hard at it just seems mean. It's a pretty dumb idea, but there's no reason to just decide from the start that it's not going to work, without seeing where the player takes the subplot. I wouldn't make it inevitable, but you have to at least be open to it, depending on what they do. Otherwise you're just being mean.

If you do plan for the demon to be irredeemable, get all this out of the way sooner so less time is wasted on it. The first night the party sleeps, they run away with the body, and the quest has to be put on hold to find them, exorcise them, and resolve this situation. Maybe they eject the player's spirit as a ghost or something, I don't know, so the player can remain active with the party and you can have the paladin's body off in an unknown place. It's most worrying when you don't know what they're up to.

If you do decide to toss your player a bone and let them do something that they want to do, make it a longer process. Some of the other suggestions are pretty good about how the actual possession would work. The demon should make a general nuisance of themselves. and even try to do some evil things. What could decide how well the redemption works, I think, is how the paladin reacts to that. If they go "well, this was a waste of time" at the first difficulty, the demon would be unimpressed. If they seem to express actual concern over their behavior and keep working at it, maybe it will take their efforts more seriously? Who knows, go for a cliche, maybe demons just want to be loved?

Basically, don't be an asshole about it. If your player wants to try redeeming a demon, make it hard but attainable.

>>44989204
>If you don't enable whatever stupid thing the players do that completely contradicts the setting you're a big meanie face.

Grow up, it was a stupid idea to try for Demon redemption in D&D. If the DM had given them any kind of indication beforehand that it was a thing, sure, why not, but just letting a demon in because you heard hell wasn't a very nice place is just terrible.

It's like saying it's mean to punish the players because their characters got robbed when leaving their shit unguarded, what did they think was going to happen?

The DM's job is not to pat the players on the back and play along with any inane shit they come up with, it's just as much about making the world feel alive and dangerous. Raping the lore because someone wanted a demon buddy is not being a good DM.

>>44989189
>Sometimes you have to be a dick to a player that acts like a dick
What are they doing that's dickish?
This just seems misguided in which case you're the only one being the dick here

>As a paladin, the player should know the boundaries of his belief and how far is too far.
Then let them know that at least, they might have a different OOC idea of how it works in which case you'll need to let them know in character how the setting works

>Trying to turn a being made of pure evil into something not evil is going too far and being too dumb even for your usual reverse-smitebot mentality.
Not sure if they changed it in 5e, but the monster manual has had rules for handling nonevil demons for several edditions now

As >>44989204 put, spitting in a player's face after they worked hard on something is a huge dick move and screams of you punishing them for badwrongfun, just cause they like something you don't is no reason to be an ass

>>44989204
You're not being "mean" by saying no to a player when he wants to do something retarded. Would you allow a lv1 fighter to travel 100km over the ocean by jumping because his fluff said he was a good jumper? Would you give a player authority to change your NPC's alignments at will? I doubt so.

When someone wants to do something stupid, SPECIALLY when this something stupid goes against the laws of the world, that guy gets the shaft. Demons in D&D are evil and no one can change it, it's not a debatable question. They're made like that and the players are playing in this world. This shouldn't even be a discussion, really.

>>44989322
>It's like saying it's mean to punish the players because their characters got robbed when leaving their shit unguarded, what did they think was going to happen?
No, it's like saying its mean to have their shit stolen despite them carefully guarding it just because you decided they'll have their shit stolen regardless how well they're protecting it

>>44989475
Stealing their shit by pure DM fiat is hardly the same as having an evil thing do evil stuff after someone let it through the door on purpose though, is it?

>>44989468
False equivalency, they're asking for the chance to work for something, it'd be like your level 1 character saying "I'm gonna jump that ocean" going the whole campaign then coming back at level 20, loaded down with magic items to boost their jump and having the numbers to back it up

And on that note, you do realize there are both canon examples of redeemed demons AND the core rules contains instructions on how a good demon is treated mechanically?

>>44989475
Let's put it in another scope:

The players recieve the information that anyone that ever camped in this particular spot was robbed. Then they camp in there. Will they be robbed?

>>44989418
OP said that the player had read a bit of the book and knew how the Abyss was. With that knowledge, we can assume that the player SHOULD know that demons are unredeemable. If he read the book and still tried something as stupid as redeeming a demon by allowing him to possess his body, he deserves to get his shit smashed in.

>>44989574
No it's not, railroading them to have their shit stolen despite them working hard to protect it is the same as railroading them to fail if they work hard to redeem a demon, I'm not saying make it easy but if they want this subplot let them have it but make it clear it's hard and failure is likely, a redeemed demon is a really rare thing for a reason

>>44989607
If they hunker down and fortify, lock their stuff up, keep a thorough watch all night, use magic, etc, then someone will likely attempt to rob them, and it will probably lead to an interesting battle that may or may not end in them being robbed.

Absolutes are boring. Are you telling a story with your players, or are they trying to get through a puzzle of your creation? Nobody is saying to make redeeming a demon easy. But don't decide what's going to happen before your player has a chance to influence the outcome. If you're not going to consider multiple possible outcomes, make it clear and don't string them along.

>>44989607
>Will they be robbed?
No, they will be the target of a robbery, if it succeeds or fails depends on what they do to protect themselves

>With that knowledge, we can assume that the player SHOULD know that demons are unredeemable. If he read the book and still tried something as stupid as redeeming a demon by allowing him to possess his body, he deserves to get his shit smashed in.
1) Does it explicitly say that in the book?
Demons are pure evil but it is noted elsewhere and other rulebooks but there are always exceptions when it comes to populations and alignments

2)As I've said before there are rules for handling redeemed demons so they may think that is a possibility because of that

3) It could simply be a case of personal beliefs/tastes influencing the character, in which case the proper response isn't maximum overdick, letting it get drawn out, then spitting in their face despite all their efforts, it's to remind them incharacter, probably through knowledge checks, and then get it over with quickly before they become too invested and get pissed at you for stringing them along

>>44989019

No, it's having players deal with the consequences of their actions, good or bad, in a realistic manner.

>>44989204

I don't know what kind of players you have, but mine would love the kind of drama that would result in such a betrayal and failure. Succeeding all the time ever in everything is boring.

>>44989760

Orcs, Drow, Gnolls and what have you are listed as Evil, but they're not necessarily always so. Having exceptions would maybe be uncommon, but no unheard of.

Demons, Fiends, Devils? ALWAYS Evil. They're not mortals with souls, hearts and minds that can change during their lifespan or who can better themselves. They are pure Evil made flesh and blood. They're not so much creatures as aspects of Evil, the same way Angels or other Celestials are pure Good. It simply isn't possible for them to be anything BUT Evil or Good.

>>44989985
>the kind of drama that would result in such a betrayal and failure

Since this specific instance involves character death, and specifically pre-ordained character death, though, it does need to be handled with care.

>>44990086

There's no such thing involved. The possessing demon can just do his evil nasties and then vacate the Paladin's body to escape the party's wrath and keep doing evil somewhere else. Let them have a chance to eventually find and face the fiend again.

>>44989985
>I don't know what kind of players you have, but mine would love the kind of drama that would result in such a betrayal and failure. Succeeding all the time ever in everything is boring.
Not what we're arguing, you've said they will fail, not that they will PROBABLY fail, it's that you've already decided the outcome and won't even consider the possibility they'll succeed that makes what you're doing dickish. Don't make it easy, but allow for the possibility

>It simply isn't possible for them to be anything BUT Evil or Good.
This is explicitly called out as not the case by RAW, angels can fall and demons can rise, both are exceedingly, exceedingly rare

File: damned in hell.jpg (130KB, 720x467px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 720x467px

>>44988936
I'd have the demon just be fundamentally unable to grasp virtue. it could even think itself redeemed, but its MO would still be sadistic manipulation and murderfucking, because thats all it can deal with.

>>44988159
Demons are pure evil, the alingment given form. You can't redeem that, because there's nothing to redeem it from: it cannot stop being evil.
Tell him that he must evict the monster or suffer from his own soul: even in the 5ed with the shittiest of the oaths a paladin cannot simple go and consort with a demon or devil.
If he can't evict make the demon dormant. Manifesting when it suits it, and not the paladin.
The first move of the party and the paladin should be to seek an exorcism. And fast. And since the goddamn player went and "I let the demon in" you should let the demon ride amok, at least for a while. He decided to do that after all. Or maybe let the demon lingers on the back of his mind. He was possessing a child, maybe he can't dominate a 19 CHA paladin completely, and you just make it in the back given the paladin evil thoughts, telling him what he should do, attacking his will and mind to his own nefarious ends.

>>44989657
It's... really not the same at all. If they were like 'I'll let them take my shit and hope they learn a valuable lesson from it' and the bandits didn't learn a lesson and just ran off with the player's money, that'd be the same as OP's scenario. The paladin made a decision to allow the demon to possess them. These hypothetical players wouldn't make a decision to allow the bandits to steal their shit, and if they do the GM has every reason to steal things.

File: a mage in damnation.jpg (588KB, 1044x1631px) Image search: [Google]

588KB, 1044x1631px

>>44989985
I'm pretty sure demons and devils can traverse along the evil spectrum, as that one demon lord that was originally an archfiend in hell. the redeemed demon could at best become lawful evil, which would be a compromise.

File: Fall_from_Grace_full.jpg (92KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 500x375px

I'll just leave this here.

(I tend to agree with those who say demons, devils and all that are not redeamable, but this character was pretty cool)

>>44990399
And you example with the bandits isn't the same either, it's not "do one thing" and think they'll change their ways, it's constant long term interaction, much like if the PCs captured the bandits, took them under their wing, and tried to get them to change their ways over the course of the adventure

>>44988159
If I may, you should allow the Demon to be redeemed but make it a challenge.

For example, establish a ''malignancy'' stat and track it for the demon. The Paladin can work to convince the demon, making arguments and checks as appropriate, but they never find out if thats working really. Its a demon, its smart and cunning. Have its malignancy go up or down based on the results of the checks.

If Malignancy is high, any time the demon gets control its going to act like a demon would be expected to act. However, get it low enough and the demon starts working with the party, for whatever reasons you come up with. Then, if the demon ever gets full control (Id say per normal play it should have partial control at best) it will have to decide whether to help or hinder.

Base this off the malignancy stat. If its low enough that you consider the demon almost fully redeemed, it works with the party, using the pallys full powers and some of its own. If the malignancy stat is high as fuck, it turns on the party. If its middling, the Demon does just enough to make sure it doesnt get exorcised. It wants to avoid the Abyss but it also doesnt feel compelled to help.

>>44990453
>redeemed demon could at best become lawful evil,
Nope, RAW explicitly gives an example of how becoming good would mechanically effect a demon in its example of outsiders that are made of pure [alignment] becoming [opposite alignment]

>>44990512
>>44990190
>>44990609

Yeah, sure angels can fall and demons can rise. But your Paladin isn't gonna be the cause of that. Falling and ascending requires extraordinary circumstances and individuals with the will, purpose or need to subvert cosmic forces. You don't get fallen angels every day or even every millenia, and it's much easier to fall than to ascend.

>>44990753
>Falling and ascending requires extraordinary circumstances and individuals with the will, purpose or need to subvert cosmic forces.
And how does any of that exclude the paladin from succeeding? It just means she will have to try really, really hard and it's going to be a long subplot that lasts most of the campaign

>>44990512
That's Planescape. That shit never functioned liek the rest of the DnD canon.
And Op stated he's playing 5ed. Demons are always evil, just like devils. They can't be redeemed.
Unless he ignore the system and homebrew this shit. Which might be a good idea, if he know what to do. Protip: He don't.

>>44988159
The paladin should fall, right away.

>>44990825

Because it would require the demon wanting to be redeemed. I would never let it happen, because it would cheapen the struggle of Good and Evil and humanize demons and celestials.

>>44991234
The way 5e Paladins are set up, a Devotion Paladin could be argued to have a duty to try to reform the demon and help it. Compassion is a central tenet and it can be considered a great show of compassion.

Of course, it also says to remember who you have a duty to, which would be the people in many cases. Giving a demon a free vessel is definitely against the interests of the people if it takes to murdering and shit.

So an argument can be made both ways. I say the Paladin should get 1 chance to evict the demon after it commits an atrocity and if the paladin doesnt take it they fall.

>>44991296
Are your demons and celestials Sapient? If so, shouldn't they be able to choose?

Also, few better ways to hammer home their evilness than make them still evil despite all the Paladins best efforts.

>>44991305
Given the paladin can easily evict it and the demon is terrified of the abyss, it could be as simple as reminding it of the fact to keep it in line

>>44991347
>Also, few better ways to hammer home their evilness than make them still evil despite all the Paladins best efforts.
Eh, if it's a small subplot sure, but if it goes on for too long I'd start having the paladin have SOME effect on the demon, even if she only manages to teach it enlightened self interest and drag it up to neutral

>>44991569
I mean, personally? Id have the demon get tougher to evict the longer the paladin lets them stay. And the demon knows it too so they'll play nice until they're nigh impossible to evict and then do as they please.

On the whole though, I'd still advocate my own suggestion >>44990587. Especially good if you track its malignancy and changes to it because then if the players cry foul you can prove that you gave them the chance to reform it but they simply failed.

>>44991670
>I mean, personally? Id have the demon get tougher to evict the longer the paladin lets them stay. And the demon knows it too so they'll play nice until they're nigh impossible to evict and then do as they please.
That could work, though I'd give the players some warning signs, or hell simply have them roll a knowledge religion check to try and find out how possession like this works

>On the whole though, I'd still advocate my own suggestion >>44990587. Especially good if you track its malignancy and changes to it because then if the players cry foul you can prove that you gave them the chance to reform it but they simply failed.
I actually like this idea as well

>>44990753
>Purpose or need to subvert cosmic events.

You literally described any party 5th level or up.

>>44988159

Here is what you do.

First off, the Demon is in the Paladin, but not in the Driver's seat. This is not normally how possessions go, and the Demon is sort of miffed about it, but this isn't how possessions usually happen anyway. The paladin, by right of being able to push the demon out at any time, can keep the demon in the passenger seat pretty easily.

Which the demon should actually be cowed enough to accept, at least in the short term. Chaotic Evil tends to follow a 'might makes right' mentality. Bigger demons are in charge because they will kill you if you don't do what they say. The Paladin is, in this case, the stronger party so the demon will take on a submissive role until it sees a chance for a doublecross.

The fun part comes from having a being of evil inhabiting a conduit of good. I would say that, every so often, when the paladin goes to use their powers make them roll for it and if they fail its because the demon's presence is fucking up their holy powers. The flip side of this is that the demon might, over time, slowly start to shift away from evil.

If the Paladin even gets knocked out or killed, the demon automatically kicks in and controls the body. After all, it is already there. What it does with the body at that point depends a lot on how well it gets along with the rest of the party, but defending its prize from whatever knocked out/killed the paladin in the first place is a reasonable bet.

In addition, have the demon let the Paladin no-sell attempts at mind control. Because "Fuck off, we're full".

>>44994184

Every so often, in an attempt to ingratiate itself to the paladin, the demon might offer to help. This make involve being in the driver's seat on the body for a little while to do the thing. The problem is, at least in the begining, the demon is STILL EVIL.

So what the demon considers to be an acceptable course of action is only rarely going to be something that a paladin would approve of, even if the demon genuinely did think it was helping.

For example, if you have an enemy mook captured who refuses to give up important information, the demon could offer to peek into his head and find out. But if you let him, what unfolds is a horrifying mindrape brain torture as the mook screams and claws at his own face, killing himself if not physically restrained. The demon that cheerfully informs the paladin of everything that the mook knew, and will be shocked and hurt if reprimanded for doing what he did.

If you actually do what the demon to be redeemed, or at lest domesticated, over time these offers to help will show little signs of restrained and avoiding pain that can be avoided.

Also, I would highly recommend keeping the demon around as a pet instead of going full doublecross, unless the party really treats it like shit and gives it an explicit reason to betray them besides being a demon. Not only is it an interesting RP scenario that can make for a fun mascot NPC, but if you plan on more demons showing up in the future this lesser demon could end up being a very useful source of information on them for the party.

"Aw jeeze, I know that smell anywhere. Boss lady, we should sneak off while we still can. Gachenax was here, and that guy is halfway to being a demon prince! He eats guys like me for breakfast."

>>44994400
Jesus Christ, actually quality post without insult and calling OP faggot on 4chan. Man, thanks you for helping OP. Fuck, I would buy you a beer.

File: harvey.jpg (13KB, 300x225px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 300x225px

>>44994184
>have the demon let the Paladin no-sell attempts at mind control. Because "Fuck off, we're full".

>>44991347
Why do people insist on humanizing everything? Demons and angels don't want to be your friends and don't think or feel like mortals. They're sentient, cosmic forces beyond mortal ken. Same goes for a lot of Outsiders.

>>44994692
People often get the wrong idea that, if something is sapient, it necessarily thinks and has the same moral values as today's humans. It's as dumb as trying to "convert" a natural force of pure X into something not even directly related to X.

>>44994827
I think it's more it comes down to the "do they have free will?" question

>>44994184
>>44994400
A+ post

>>44988159
Just have the demon do demon-tier evil shit until someone kicks it out of the pally's head, or until someone kills the paladin. After that, someone from the paladin's order can applaud his intent (or disapprove of his naivete), but let him know how stupid that was.


Sure he can try to redeem it, but that will take at least years of progress, including numerous false starts and betrayals. This is a being of pure evil and chaos made manifest. It's not some grouchy teenager who'll calm down in a week. Meanwhile, the demon would do it's damnedest to tempt the paladin, and also force his body to do all kinds of unspeakable crimes to people.

>>44997728
>Sure he can try to redeem it, but that will take at least years of progress
What if the paladin is willing to put forth that much time and effort?

>>44994555
If this demon isn't Harvey now I'll be disappointed.

>>44990587
>>44991670
You, I like you. This is exactly the type of stuff I was looking for.

>>44994184
>>44994400
Excellent as well

OP again, thanks guys, a lot. Honestly making the demon redeemable, even partially, is looking more appealing now. Plus, the paladin totally needs someone to balance out her being a total softie (if that wasn't obvious already). She isn't bad, but she could do with a bit more smite n cleave. This demon might be perfect for that, as well as sinking in what types of beings demons are to the party.

>>44989019
>That's just being a dick
Demons are made of elemental dick

Paladin fag here, jesus Christ your player is dumb. That is not how you paladin

You wanna try to redeem the Eldritch horror? Fine you keep it in a prison. You don't invite it into your body. The Paladins pride and vanity has it writing checks she can't cash. No. If the Paladin suceeda they'll be an absolute insufferable Mary Sue,.no, absolutely not. the only way I can see this working is the Paladin immediately seeks out the aid of a powerful planar entity, effectively hijacking your plot

>>45002045
>BADWRONGFUNBADWRONGFUNNNNN

Piss off.

>>44988159
I would say, allow for the possibility that the Paladin can redeem the demon, but make her work and struggle and strive for it. If she succeeds, it will be a great thing and a memorable moment for the player. If she fails, then it opens up whole new avenues for roleplay and gameplay as the party is forced to deal with the fallout of the demon's betrayal.

As for player-agency, I agree with what other anons have said in that you should crunch the possession such that the demon is often happy to let the paladin "steer" as she knows the world and how things work, but when the demon wants to do something he takes control and the player would need to make a will save to keep him from doing something potentially terrible.

>>44988159
You could have the deamon and the PC have a pseudo symbiotic existence. The deamon realizes that it's best chance to live is for the paladin to live. Give the character some interal conversation with the deamon, like a very literal deamon on the paladin's shoulder but also have the deamon be helpful-out of self interest IE giving the paladin warnings during combat and the such.

>>45002045
"only my brand of fun is allowed"

Get off your fucking high horse. People play shit in all sorts of different ways. The only problem is the asshole telling people how they should do things.

>>44989760
honestly, personally, I wouldn't feel too dicked over if it didn't work. because I'd see it as an opportunity to develop the character.

Do they accept defeat and go back to the original quest with a bit more wisdom than they had before?

Are they angry and spiteful at the demon for having fooled them? do they set out for vengeance?

Do they hold true to their values, track down the demon, and give it another go? maybe not all that progress was fake, maybe somewhere deep down in there we were making a difference.

There are so many interesting character relationship dynamics that could emerge from this.

>>44988159
The demon is evil, but not stupid. The demon should either bail or try to kill the other npc's. Probably while they sleep. This prompts the player to say "okay, this was stupid, fuck this shit" and get rid of the demon. Otherwise, while possessed, the host is unconscious and the demon does what it wants. Give him a few lucid moments every once in a while. The point of a demon is that evil is so much a part of them, forcing one to be redeemed requires imprisoning it because none of them would ever want that. (Unless the demon is emo as fuck, which it shouldn't be ever.)

>>45002045
>No. If the Paladin suceeda they'll be an absolute insufferable Mary Sue,.no, absolutely not.
You just have no sense of fun

>>45002045

Kinda agree with this. "I let the demon in and try to redeem it" is on the level with "I roll to seduce the dragon" and "I hug Cthulhu."

Or the demon could genuinely become Good (or less evil) and in doing so disappear or die.
Some sort of lesson about the power of will

I'm not very familliar with DnD, but from what i've read here i think that trying to redeem a demon in DnD is something like trying to reason with gravity in our world. And by letting the demon in, your pally jumped from the roof beforehand.

>>44988159
Personally, I think demons shouldn't be redeemable. In my settings, they never are: I tell my players straight up. Occasionally I get the stupid idiot who doesn't listen and wants to redeem a succubus or some other demon and gets murderfucked for his troubles.

I agree with >>44988336, have the demon act nice and then betray them at the most crucial point: stupidity begets stupidity. Punish them for taking moronic decisions.

>>44988159
have them play a blackguard now because the paladin was fucking stupid enough to give their body to a demon

>>45003636
>"I roll to seduce the dragon
but that's always hot

>"I let the demon in"

Son, I'm tempted to tell you to go fucking ham to teach that idiot a lesson. Even if the demon WAS redeemable, why the fuck would it want to? What's going to make it redeem, especially when it has a shiny paladin body to fuck shit up in?

Oh it doesn't have paladin powers? Oh well, it still has a sword and people who trust the body, as well as presumably a bit of authority. Unless that player can pull some AMAZING inner monologue convincing I'd have the demon do what a demon would do in a possessed body; gain as much more power as it can while causing as much destruction and misery as it can.

And all because the paladin thought it was righteous enough to redeem pure evil. What hubris. Maybe he CAN redeem it, but I shutter to think of the body that's going to be on his literal hands before he does.

>>45001826
Alternately you can have the demon get weaker and weaker the less evil is done around it, and never really change or be redeemed.

Hell, you can give the paladin a bonus to physical stats the more she's fighting evil, and this is a voice inside of her telling her to do evil things to become powerful. Some corresponding will saves for the demon to take over... that's about it. Why does the demon need to be redeemed when it has all the evil it needs around it when the paladin goes out a-slaying?

It doesn't care about OTHER evil, after all.

>>44988159
>They to negotiate with demon, but demon ain't bailing, playing it terrified of being murderfucked in the Abyss (D&D 5e)
First, this is a very much "instant player loss scenario", and you should impress on the player that any slight mistake, and their paladin will become an NPC.

The player needs to give a reason why the demon can't simply just run off with their body. If they take adequate precautions (magic to tag them, promise that they'll be exorcised and sent to the abyss if they disobey) then the demon plays along.

At that point, what you do is, you get the player to control the demon while it's under party supervision. If you the GM see an opportunity for it to get away, it runs off and starts murderfucking.

Then the party has to either exorcise it or kill the paladin to get it back, or get it to promise not to do that again.

Rinse and repeat until they realise that it's just fucking with them as best as it can while staying out of the Abyss.

>>45001826
>>44988159
Does the demon even wants to be redeemed? Because redeeming one is something so rare that even with full support from its part and help from an epic cleric/paladin it still takes years and years of teaching and doctrinating. Changing a force of nature's nature is that hard. If the demon didn't want it in the first place, your players are being as intrusive and presumptuous as colonialist europeans with their "we'll make them understand civilization and show them the light!" on native people. It's as dumb as it sounds from the devil's perspective, and you shouldn't bend the world's will because of a player whim like that. Make your characters have actual character instead of letting your players force their beliefs in them.

Now, if the demon is one of those that want to be redeemed (which happens once every, what, 3000 years?), you better make it hard as balls and full of betrayals, because that's how demons are. If you're using demons, then actually use demons. You could've called them dark goblins/homunculi race if you just wanted a twisted dark-y race.

>>44994692
Demons and angels are concepts of humanity it's pretty hard not to.

>>45005076
Shrek did it...

>>44990337
Would almost be like venom with his first stand alone. Running around brutalizing people, ripping people in half, just to give a purse back to some old lady.

>>44994692
I've got a similar problem with my game, where demons are a huge, inescapable piece of the world, and for the most part they all want to corrupt, kill, or eat humans. They can certainly be reasoned with, because most of them want other things, but a couple of my players don't really understand that they are monsters, not friends.

File: 488172974_ycai7-1050x10000.jpg (224KB, 1050x526px) Image search: [Google]

224KB, 1050x526px

>>45006679
Sometimes people need to get burned to get that fire's hot. Hurt them.

>>44988159
I'm extremely lenient when it comes to alignment, paladins, and falling, but holy shit. The paladin literally allowed a demon to possess them, which would directly allow evil to flourish in the world. This is hella oathbreaking. Your paladin is an idiot. He falls. If not for allowing the demon to continue its fuckery then for the sin of hubris and pride. One would have to be extremely prideful to think they could control the literal personification of chaos and evil.

Have the player reroll a character. The paladin falls and becomes a new villain.

>>44994400
This. I'm no really fond of being able to redeem what us essentially a physical manifestation of Evil, but "taming" the demon and having it over time become less hostile to the party (no less evil, but since demons are pretty smart it might realise that sticking with the PCs is beneficial for it) does work.
The situation will likely also create conflict between the PCs and the paladin's order, as they probably won't like having one of their members running around with a demon in their head.

Also, if the demon does at some point take control of the paladin, I think far more effective than forcing the character to commit so evil act would be to prevent them committing a good act. It feels slightly less like taking away player agency, and would not fuck the PCs over quite as much as having the character kill another PC or ruin their reputation, while still causing trouble for the paladin and forcing them to explain to authorities why they just stood by and let something bad happen, hopefully without letting everyone know that they're possessed by a demon (which most people probably wouldn't react well to).

>>45007259

You know, if you want to make the demon just sliiightly sympathetic, then you could have the demon try to 'help' the paladin as a reward for having spared its life. Basically, at the same time that the Paladin is trying to redeem the paladin from bad to good, the demon is trying to 'free' the paladin from the restrictions of law and good.

"Look at you, paladin. So much power. Such talent. You could be a king, but you instead choose to be a slave, binding yourself in chains of your own making in the form of oaths and promises. These are just WORDS. The oath has no power, you have the power."
"Every mortal has things that they desire. Even you are no exception to this. But you... you LIMIT yourself. Beyond even what your companions do. I don't understand. All of the best things in life you shy away from, calling them vices or sins. But that's just more words to bind you."
"You put yourself in a tiny box, and call the box Good. And everything outside the box, you call that Evil. Its such a small view of the world. I don't understand. You have the power to do anything you want, and somehow I have more freedom than you."

>>45005076
What about white or silver dragons?

Having read this thread, I'm pretty confused. I get the impression a lot of the DMs in here don't want the players to have fun. Why do it if you're doing it to make people miserable?

>>45007572
/tg/ has a lot of terrible DMs that seem motivated by making sure people ONLY have fun the "right way" and punishing all others and HATE the idea anyone could like something they don't

Paladin wants to redeem a demon?
I say let her try, give her a chance of making it work if she's willing to put a lot of time and effort into it

>>45007572
We want people to have fun, and for most people, having a consistent world is necessary to have fun. Sure, it's fine to sit and spout random shit about some lawless universe where you do anything you want and be done with it, but you don't get any sense of accomplishment by going "I jump to the moon" "Now I want a race of moon aliens that love me" "Now make me the king of all the universe".

The point is not some player wanting to do something stupid, it's that said player wants to bend the world's laws and logic just because "I feel kinda sorry for that poor manifestation of evil". You don't allow a wizard to find spell scrolls and books full of epic-level wizardry just because he "thinks that castle must have belonged to a legendary hero", so you shouldn't allow oathbreaking and naturebending like that.

>>45007713

Unless it makes for a more interesting scenario, like having a demon embedded with the party does.

>>45007753
Yes, it's a good and interesting scenario, and opens up many possibilities. I'm not against the paladin being possessed. What I'm against is the "redeeming" actually working for shit. He could betray the party, he could become an evil kind-of-harmless mascot and he could even become a boss if he somehow gathers enough power either through corruption or absorption of the paladin's victims. The problem here is that the demon isn't really redeemable, so he being evil is a constant.

>>45007713
>The point is not some player wanting to do something stupid, it's that said player wants to bend the world's laws and logic just because "I feel kinda sorry for that poor manifestation of evil". You don't allow a wizard to find spell scrolls and books full of epic-level wizardry just because he "thinks that castle must have belonged to a legendary hero", so you shouldn't allow oathbreaking and naturebending like that.
What the fuck is with people against the idea of a redeemed demon thinking we're arguing for it to be a small thing? Everyone who's for the redemption seems to understand its something that'll take a long time

The fuck it's like a low level wizard finding a bunch of epic level spells, it's like a low level wizard going "I have an idea for a spell, I'll need to be a LOT higher level to make it though" and then adventuring, gaining levels, and studying magic until he can MAKE that epic level spell

>>45007713
And your response is "let's fuck the PC over completely for wanting to do something. Let's basically kill their character off"? (Not you specifically, but that seems to be the majority of responses.)
Seems like a bunch of fucking killjoys. Nobody is saying it should be easy for them do it and just be handed to them, but people play tabletops to have fun, not to be 100% LEGIT TO THE RULES NO FUN. It's meant to be at least a little flexible.

>>45007807
>The problem here is that the demon isn't really redeemable
Depends on setting
Bog standard D&D has allowances for the possibility of good fiends so unless it's setting specific I don't think it's impossible

>>45007713
>The point is not some player wanting to do something stupid, it's that said player wants to bend the world's laws and logic just because "I feel kinda sorry for that poor manifestation of evil". You don't allow a wizard to find spell scrolls and books full of epic-level wizardry just because he "thinks that castle must have belonged to a legendary hero", so you shouldn't allow oathbreaking and naturebending like that.
No, one is a long, drawn out quest, the other is a wizard just being handed magic

And hell, your wizard example wouldn't even work because he's too low level to even cast anything

Actually that's a good plot idea, low level wizard finds an old castle owned by legendary hero, finds a shit load of powerful spells WAY too high level for him to cast and now he has to protect (or dispose of them) until he's gained enough levels to actually use them

>>45007811
and
>>45007836
Already discussed, there are demons who are born not-evil and a demon might be converted from evil to good every two millenia or so, but we know the party isn't gonna be that one occurance, either because players can't focus enough, or because they need to be epic-level to just start, or because the paladin order would just murder that paladin as soon as the demon's detected on his body. There are too many simple flaws to this plan to even take off. Looks like a special case is being made just to keep the paladin alive and not fallen, so imagine how well that plan would go.

>>45007827
I'm all in for this having consequences, but the people saying to kill the paladin or make it fall are just stupid nofun GMs that play a war game against their players. We agree on that. I'm only saying actual conversion isn't possible.

>>45007827
>Seems like a bunch of fucking killjoys. Nobody is saying it should be easy for them do it and just be handed to them, but people play tabletops to have fun, not to be 100% LEGIT TO THE RULES NO FUN.
The thing is, this is a "I shoot the king in the face" scenario.

If you take precautions, build an army, and storm the king's palace with a revolutionary fervor and his guards are down and you shoot the king in the face in a crowning moment to defy the dark oppressors of the kingdom, then that's great.

If you are there to claim a quest reward and your rogue goes "I shoot the king in the face" there's a very low probability of success and a high probability of instant death.

This is the latter of the two scenarios. You can try to make it less colossally stupid since it was done with good intentions but it's very much that the paladin has a real risk of fucking up and losing their character due to their decisions.

It's hard BECAUSE there is a high risk of instant character loss, and potentially a 0 chance of success.

>>45007915
>but we know the party isn't gonna be that one occurance,
Why not?

>either because players can't focus enough,
That's not a problem with the idea but with the group

>or because they need to be epic-level to just start,
Not really, not unless you're using mind altering magic

>or because the paladin order would just murder that paladin as soon as the demon's detected on his body.
Depends on order, they might try to capture her and exorcise the demon first
Possible even applauding her goal but pointing out that's a bad idea
Possibly even trying the help her if she can make a good case for it

>>45007915
But you're still sticking with "this WILL happen" and "this is how this 100% works." It's a game. For fun. Telling people there is a 0% chance of them being able to do what they want to do, regardless of every factor is a pretty raw deal. If they want to turn the demon then it should be an unholy amount of work for them, and it should be made clear that there will be consequences along the way, but saying there is absolutely no way sucks. It's meant to be an imaginary tabletop adventure, and one group having fun with converting demons does not mean you have to include it in all your games. Every story is different and should be at least slightly tailored to suit the individual participants.

>>45008100
Next you'll be telling me that a fire elemental should be free to take up swimming as a hobby because nothing should never ever be impossible in a RPG.

Seriously, get off your high horse and stop telling people how they should have fun.

>>45008183
I literally just said it should be tailored to the participants. I'm not the one telling people how to have fun, it should be up to the people involved. Some people, such as yourself, evidently enjoy strict rules and regulation. Other people prefer more flexibility in their game. Both are fine. Nobody is on a high horse, and you can't get angry at people for having fun in a different way to you. Or I guess you can, but you shouldn't.

>>45008183
That's fucking rich coming from YOU, bitchnigga.

>>45008183
>fire elemental should be free to take up swimming as a hobby
Lava

Though seriously, if one really wanted to swim in water I could see making a magic item to allow it
Hell you can get adventurers swimming in acid or lava with the right items and you're going to tell me no one's tried that shit?

>>45008100
The problem is scale. Say they convert a demon in a space of 5 years. They did a lot of trial and error, which means you can develop a more precise way of converting demons guided by their accomplishments and the demon's help. This means the same party can go and convert another demon, in less time, with that gained experience(try to stop them with "uh, that was the only demon in existance that could be converted yadda yadda"). If said party can do it, even if they're a pioneer in the field, it means other people also can. In no time you shift demons from unchangable manifestations of evil to another band of orcs, that can be civilized with enough work. It also leaves the idea that, if that was a possible thing, how the hell did no one else in the whole story of the world did it? Surely there have been people with the same mentality of that paladin. Suddenly evil is not something so crude, as even manifestations of evil can become good, and you have to throw the whole alignment system out of the window.

The consequences hit the table in this group's world directly. The idea of a consistent world in D&D is having a set of absolutes you can't subvert, so other things can work between said absolutes. The alignment system is stupid, yes, but if you throw that out the whole system slowly starts to crumble, as it's made with said system as a basis.

>>45008241
>how the hell did no one else in the whole story of the world did it?
They probably did
It's just there's a SHITLOAD of demons, and more being made all the time
Not to mention a mass "reprograming" program for demons would get Hell to send a hit squad on your ass

>>44989204
>If you do plan for the demon to be irredeemable, get all this out of the way sooner so less time is wasted on it
>less time is wasted on it
>wasted

Or, you know, you can actually have a fucking story and some drama.
I don't know what players you have (who am I kidding, as if you DM), but not everyone plays with some twats who can only be happy if they get everything they want, even if said thing is completely unreasonable.

Some people can actually find fun in roleplaying and collaborative storytelling. Strange, right?

>>45008276
Yeah, the infinite hordes of the abyss isn't just some poetic shorthand.

That shit's literal.

>>45008221
We do agree, I see, albeit I wouldn't play in such a "flexible" game.

>>45008276
Convert the hit squad. If hell didn't conquer earth until now, we can keep capturing and converting their demons. Then conquer hell with your good demons when you can overwhelm them, and install converting facilities on their spawn points.

And that's how tumblr saved the world.

>>45008283
>Having to work damn hard, with a large chance of failure
>twat that is only happy if they get everything they want

Strawman a little harder, faggot.

>>45008241
But celestials have fallen to LE/CE before, there's an actual subtype of devils dedicated to them.
And given that the abyss is infinite, and there are an infinite number of demons, it stands to reason that at least one has risen, and more will rise in future. (I vaguely recall reading of a fiend rising to CN, but that's iffy memory at best). They could be the first group of mortals to influence it, and there's nothing that says it has to be a cover-all method that applies to all fiends everywhere.
Even assuming that it DID cause a collapse in the system- this is one localised game that does not set the standard for games of DnD worldwide.

>>45008283
>said thing is completely unreasonable
>It is explicit in several DnD Editions that demons can rise

Even that aside, drama comes from both chance of failure, and chance of success. If it's a "don't even try" kind of level of impossible, then there's not much use dwelling on it. The sooner you get it done, the better it is for everyone else, since you still have a main adventure to do.

Nobody wants to spend a healthy chunk of their game on something that's downright impossible... Or rather, that's not entirely accurate. Nobody wants to spend a healthy chunk of their time on something that nothing is achieved on. That's why in all those movies where someone fails at the thing they've been building up to the whole time, there's always something cheesy about "but we gained friendship" at the end.

Even in a heroic last stand, you've achieved satisfaction. If it's just "The demon betrays you after you spend ten+ sessions slowly bonding and reforming it because it's a demon", you have achieved nothing but a bad taste in your mouth.

>>45008368
I'll do you one better.

Eludecia, the succubus paladin. WoTC creation.

>>44988159
Basically you are asking me if the paladin does something wrong which leads to evil, if he has to take responsiblity for those actions and suffer the consequences? Taking responsibility for their own actions and decisions is what a paladin is all about. Its about what makes them paladins. Of course they lose their powers to suggest otherwise castrates the archetype of it's only meaningful difference from a fighter.

>>45008368
Falling is easier than ascending, as noted before. Legends of demons being converted happen once every thousand years or so, and it's no punk low-level adventurer's work, usually a deity or a major world power that does it. And while it's a localized game thing, you're assuming we're finding a solution to this one table, and that the same case is different in other tables. I could argue that any other table that has such stupid paladin would end up with the same destiny and so on, but I'm not that nitpicky. What I say is, if the system is broken in a particular table, that particular table will have a harder time having fun, and that's not good for any player. D&D is nofun enough with its systems working, god knows how bad it runs with them broken.

>>45008440
That's the one!

>>45008320
And you don't have to. Just have to accept that others do.

>>45008410
Ah, mind if I ask which editions those are? I'd be interested to read up on that.

>>45008321
They haven't conquered earth because it's not a high priority, they're too busy fighting each other to work together

You know something that could get them to work together?
Their mutual hate of redeemed demons


And you think they'll send just one low level hit squad?
Hell no

>>45008488
3.5, and 5e, at least. Possibly 4e, that was never my jam.

Notably, in 5e, a devil/demon that stops being the proper alignment stops being a devil/demon. It becomes it's own unique outsider.

>>44988159
Hope you've got a lot of time on your hands, because you need to watch both seasons of Wakfu now.
Well, I suppose you don't have to get all the way through season 2 to get the idea.
Make sure to pay extra attention whenever Rubilax is involved.

>>45008238
But would you allow it if the fire elemental shoves the wizard out the way of a waterfall to stop him getting wet, then says "I want to tame the water"?

>>45008606
No, because water isn't sapient, unless it's a water elemental then sure why the fuck not?

>>45008606
You are really big on these false equivalencies aren't you?
If it can think and learn it can change

>>45008704
Whoever said it can learn? What if the tragedy of the demons is the self-refuting damnation of them not learning?

>>45009046
Then you'll have to explain a shit load, like how they can plan or even identify individuals

>>45009376
Being naturally unable to grasp the very concept of "good" or "morality" is very distant from not being able to process information.

>>45009451
I said can't learn, if they can still learn they can be conditioned to not do certain behaviors and do other ones even if they can't understand the logic behind them

They don't have to understand why, they just have to understand DON'T

And if a demon can't understand good how can it be evil?

>>44988449
Tell the player the real deal story behind closed doors. Demon's can't be redeemed. But the player retains full control of their character. Slip them notes on occasion, informing them of the demon's desires

>>45009482
So you want demons to be just dogs. I don't think you understand what demons are, or how other races work in games.

>And if a demon can't understand good how can it be evil?
If a man doesn't understand civilization, how can it be uncivilized?

>>45010301
>So you want demons to be just dogs.
That shit works EVERYTHING though, not just dogs

>>45002045
As a Paladinfag myself, you are wrong. Like fucking hell stop playing paladins you're exctly the kind of shit that gives paladins a bad name.

If you don't have the will and purpose to keep a demon locked inside your head by sheer force of personality and you don't have the righteousness to show that demon why being Good is better than being Evil, then you have failed your paladinhood from the start.

>>45010438
>If you don't have the will and purpose to keep a demon locked inside your head by sheer force of personality and you don't have the righteousness to show that demon why being Good is better than being Evil, then you have failed your paladinhood from the start.
This, paladins are supposed to be that pure

>>44988159

Ok, can you make this choice/answer this question?

Do you want metaphysical evil to be a thing? IE you can be made up of Evil Particles and you're just naturally evil no matter what? This is good if you want a simple game with simple ideas and just keep the ball rolling for good ol' fashioned ~FUN~.

Or, do you want to decide that there is no metaphysical evil, and every sentience can decide to do be whatever. However, this involves accepting that there also is no metaphysical good, and so you may as well chuck the alignment system out the window, or have alternate explanations for why alignments are a thing(Cosmic conspiracies!). I don't like alignment systems, I would do this, but that might not be the kind of game you want to run.

>>45010301

Conditioning works on humans, too. It's just humans have more of a chance to say "hey, no, fuck you", but humans that don't have much agency or power to do shit against conditioning usually just accept conditioning.

>>45013877
We ALL accept conditioning, all the time. It's omnipresent and unavoidable.

>>45015093

ur mum is omnipresent and unavoidable