I have to disagree that breaking my oath would cause me to fall. It specifically says you lose your oath powers. Doubling up punishment because of an impossible circumstance is unfair and uncalled for.
I suppose we shall see in a year or so. That is the class I wish to play. I simply refuse to believe that there is no possible way imagination can not make this cool instead of awful.
There are ways the GM could work around this, both by the rules and by stretching them a little. In the end, however, make sure your GM knows exactly what he's getting into with this (maybe show him this thread?) and abide by his decision if he thinks it would create too much hassle for the other players.
- Maybe your paladin made an oath to kill a specific demon, in which case the GM could insert that demon somewhere in books 2-3 (or re-fluff a demon that already exists).
- Maybe your paladin's oath is to perform some other demon-related objective which you could perform in books 2-3 (I can think of a couple of things, which your GM might be able to suggest to you).
- Maybe your GM is willing to bend the rules and let you abandon even an indefinite oath at a relevant event in books 2-3 that might change your character's mind about being so gung-ho for killing all fiends (again, I can think of an excellent place for this).
- Maybe your GM is willing to rule that foregoing your oath for an extended period of time will only remove your Oath Against Fiends benefits, not your entire paladin-hood (may your GM might be willing to say that Sarenrae will allow for extenuating circumstances)
I like what you're thinking here. Though I would prefer any extra effort be put forth on my part. Also I wont hide anything from my DM, as I've said I am not looking to cause problems.
From a GM perspective, it becomes part of your Paladin code oaths, break it once, no oath powers. Break it again, fall.
But as we're not going to be able to talk you out of this, I'm going to give up. Ask your GM to look through Books 3 and 4, then rule on the Oath. Likely, he'll say no.
Pretty much this. That's how I would play it at my table.
I do like some of Jerdane's suggestions though, especially the oath against a specific fiend.
@ Lincoln
Don't misinterpret anything here. We're not saying playing a paladin is a bad idea. Quite the opposite. Paladins rock in this AP. There are many things to smite.
I just read the section on oathbound Paladins. Based on what I read an OaF paladin may be incompatible with worship of Sarenrae.
In some cases, a deity's or paladin order's code may conflict with the oath's tenets; in most cases, these conflicts mean the oath is unsuitable for a paladin of that deity or order (such as the Oath against the Wyrm with respect to a good dragon deity or a dragon-riding order of paladins) and cannot be selected by the paladin.
@Aldarionn, I see no connection between oaths and falling I'm sorry.
@Mogloth, thank you and I don't think you're saying that at all. As for Oath against Fiends, it is specifically listed as an Oath favored by Sarenrae.
|
One of my PC's has Oath Against Fiends. If I knew last August what I know now, he wouldn't. I would have flat said "no, not allowed." While he has got some great gaming moments out of it, he regrets taking it as well. And he's LOOKING FOR A CHANCE TO FALL, but this is just such a flat and boring way for it to happen. I'm a few weeks from book 4, and I still debating what I'm going to do with him.
He's either not going to be able to go along to the abyss. Will have to do something to forsake his oath, which he's been playing very well as a part of his character. Or just suffer becoming a high level warrior, for book 4 and probably 5.
My solution is going to be talking to him about where he wants his character to go next, and how he wants to handle it outside of game. As written he will not survive book 4. It's going to be messy. It's going to be a little jarring. And it is far from ideal.
I would absolutely advise against playing Oath against Fiends in Wrath of the Righteous. For the little bit of power gaming goodness it gives you, you'll be saving your DM and fellow players headaches.
My 2 cp.
Why would anyone want to be a Paladin in this AP, the unlikely Heroes and Scoundrels are the best!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is THE adventure path to play a paladin. Just take into account that the "Lawful Stupid zero tolerance" sort is the wrong way to go. Actually, take note on that for every campaign. But especially this one.
I am playing a neutral good fighter in wrath and my character went threw a bunch of changes. For awhile I struggled with why is my character there. The cleric and paladin of Iomedia are there cause of who they are. But what makes my character want to risk death to do what I need him to do.
Due to the history provided by the trait we got I picked demon slayer trait. So.... Basically I felt my character was there simply cause he loathed, hated, and wanted to destroy every demon he saw.... All good and well until we start having to deal with them... Now he's seriously conflicted and imo just sick to his stomach of what he's gonna have to do.... Not to mention... I married and impregnated Jestak and he has to leave to go to the abyss.
I was seriously about to call it quits for him and go back to her. The other players had to convince me that if we didn't go everything would be destroyed and so on.
Playing a character that has trouble dealing with demons can really be difficult in this campaign.
Never suffer an evil outsider to live if it is in your power to destroy it. Banish fiends you cannot kill. Purge the evil from those possessed by fiendsI don't see an issue. The ally you're referring to...
** spoiler omitted **I'd definitely play the paladin as incredibly suspicious of any demon that doesn't ping on the evil-dar, mind.
As far as book 4 and the code, well...
** spoiler omitted **
Didn't read the spoilers but this post seems to think the oath is fine.
@Lincoln where did you find it that OaF is good for Sarenrae? I believe you, I would like to read it for myself.
In my opinion an oath is an oath. If you start looking for technicalities ihe oath, then you have killed the spirit of the oath.
Didn't read the spoilers but this post seems to think the oath is fine.Never suffer an evil outsider to live if it is in your power to destroy it. Banish fiends you cannot kill. Purge the evil from those possessed by fiendsI don't see an issue. The ally you're referring to...
** spoiler omitted **I'd definitely play the paladin as incredibly suspicious of any demon that doesn't ping on the evil-dar, mind.
As far as book 4 and the code, well...
** spoiler omitted **
Why is it so important to have the oath vs fiends?
a Paladin is a Paladin is a Paladin,
the code is restrictive enough without throwing oaths that, according to 99% of the GMs on this thread would totally bone the rest of your party (myself included)
unless your point is to have a Paladin fall to Anti-Paladin, in which case go nuts! (i myself like the idea of a paladin losing his way, turning towards evil)
This is THE adventure path to play a paladin. Just take into account that the "Lawful Stupid zero tolerance" sort is the wrong way to go. Actually, take note on that for every campaign. But especially this one.
okay, let me re-word it then, why would you want to be a Paladin in ANY campaign, big fat heavily armored sticks in the mud they are!
@Mogloth, Page 60 and 61 of Ultimate Magic. It says some oaths are especially compatible with faiths of certain deities. Under Oath Against Fiends Sarenrae is listed alongside Iomedae and Torag.
@captain yesterday, The main reason is vision I have for my character. Seeing all that he has grown up around in Kenebras at the Worldwound when he finally takes to battle he will swear his oaths. Also, it is something Sarenrae encourages.
Mechanically I love anchoring aura (and the feat Painful anchor). I also like the option of using some of my bonded weapon bonus on my armor or shield. That all makes my character concept truly what it is. It actually hurts evil outsiders to be in his presence!
I dont want something to change my image of the character I have wanted to play for literally years. I dont see the reason to eliminate that from the character because he will be forced into an unimaginable and impossible situation. If he has to lose his oath powers for a short time while he does what he has to then so be it. He will atone after and swear his oath anew.
This is THE adventure path to play a paladin. Just take into account that the "Lawful Stupid zero tolerance" sort is the wrong way to go. Actually, take note on that for every campaign. But especially this one.okay, let me re-word it then, why would you want to be a Paladin in ANY campaign, big fat heavily armored sticks in the mud they are!
Honor, justice, humility, going forth with righteousness, helping the weak and needy. Being the sword which protects the realms of man (or elf, dwarf, etc). It's a thing some people like.
Well since its been an itch you've had for years go for it, deal with the repercussions later i say:)
i waited 20+ years for a Pirate-centric campaign myself so i know whats like to have that campaign you've waited years for.
i dont understand the hurts to be around him aspect of it all, but you've kept it pretty vague and more about the mechanics and not much about his story.
also Sarenrae is an awesome goddess but I'm a bit confused on why she would encourage her paladins to take restrictive oaths, it seems with redemption as one of her areas of concern her holy warriors would not have such restrictions (now ragathiel and iomodae yes!)
i'm not trying to be critical I'm just curious:)
I dont want something to change my image of the character I have wanted to play for literally years. I dont see the reason to eliminate that from the character because he will be forced into an unimaginable and impossible situation. If he has to lose his oath powers for a short time while he does what he has to then so be it. He will atone after and swear his oath anew.
If you view the oath like a used tissue which you can throw away when it's irksome and just get a new one, why take it in the first place? Mechanical benefits?
Honor, justice, humility, going forth with righteousness, helping the weak and needy. Being the sword which protects the realms of man (or elf, dwarf, etc). It's a thing some people like.This is THE adventure path to play a paladin. Just take into account that the "Lawful Stupid zero tolerance" sort is the wrong way to go. Actually, take note on that for every campaign. But especially this one.okay, let me re-word it then, why would you want to be a Paladin in ANY campaign, big fat heavily armored sticks in the mud they are!
Ah! but you don't have to be a Paladin for that!
i get your argument just never been a fan is all (and part of that is perception on my part, as my brother always had his Paladins be Lawful beyond stupid)
i love that Paizo put out the Paladin codes as that cut down on the Lawful idiocy for my group that had a Paladin (he died)
I dont want something to change my image of the character I have wanted to play for literally years. I dont see the reason to eliminate that from the character because he will be forced into an unimaginable and impossible situation. If he has to lose his oath powers for a short time while he does what he has to then so be it. He will atone after and swear his oath anew.If you view the oath like a used tissue which you can throw away when it's irksome and just get a new one, why take it in the first place? Mechanical benefits?
the only reason anyone makes an oath bound paladin is for mechanical reasons, i have yet to see someone pick it for story reasons:)
I dont want something to change my image of the character I have wanted to play for literally years. I dont see the reason to eliminate that from the character because he will be forced into an unimaginable and impossible situation. If he has to lose his oath powers for a short time while he does what he has to then so be it. He will atone after and swear his oath anew.If you view the oath like a used tissue which you can throw away when it's irksome and just get a new one, why take it in the first place? Mechanical benefits?
This is far from the truth. Going into the game had I never read the boards would I have ever known that book 4 might be very tough (maybe impossible) to play and keep my oath? No I would not have. I am making this character without taking that information into account. I take my oaths seriously and would not discard it lightly and would even RP that in game if necessary.
My reasons for picking those Oaths and WotHL are both story and mechanical reasons. I truly love the fluff behind all of that and mechanically they let me do what I see my paladin doing.
@captain yesterday, I have always loved paladins. I have also always wanted to play this particular paladin in a setting like this! So yea, I've been waiting a long time.
I can honestly say I do not believe that the few I have played in the past have been lawful stupid. I played a paladin through Carrion Crown and that was a lot of fun, but it was not this setting.
When I mention it being painful for evil outsiders to be around the paladin I am talking about the anchoring aura and painful anchor feat. Its not a constant thing but the visual is bad ass.
Without getting extremely drawn out I play a paladin much like Connor and Murphy MacManus from The Boondock Saints (best movie of all time btw.).
@Aldarionn, I see no connection between oaths and falling I'm sorry.
I'm sorry, but any Paladin who takes a sacred oath that literally gives him extra class features then reneges on that oath because it's inconvenient for him to keep it and still remain with his party is breaking the tenets of his actual Paladin code. If there is one thing everyone can count on it's that a Paladin will not lie, will not cheat, and will never break his word.
One slip is not going to make a Paladin fall. He would lose his oath powers until he atones and re-swears the oath. After the first slip, I'd give my player a choice and make sure he knows the consequences. He can A) Walk away from the oath and continue as a regular Paladin. No harm, no foul. He had a change of heart, and can no longer in good conscience abide by that oath. Or he can B) Atone, re-swear the oath, and if he ever knowingly breaks it again, fall and lose his Paladin powers. If he redeems after the fall, he can never swear as an Oathbound Paladin again and loses any other oaths he may have taken.
Paladins don't break their oaths. That's not Lawful Stupid, that's Paladin 101. You are as good as your word, and if you give your sacred oath to someone, you damn well keep it or die trying. Doing otherwise is unacceptable to your code of conduct.
@Aldarionn, I see no connection between oaths and falling I'm sorry.I'm sorry, but any Paladin who takes a sacred oath that literally gives him extra class features then reneges on that oath because it's inconvenient for him to keep it and still remain with his party is breaking the tenets of his actual Paladin code. If there is one thing everyone can count on it's that a Paladin will not lie, will not cheat, and will never break his word.
One slip is not going to make a Paladin fall. He would lose his oath powers until he atones and re-swears the oath. After the first slip, I'd give my player a choice and make sure he knows the consequences. He can A) Walk away from the oath and continue as a regular Paladin. No harm, no foul. He had a change of heart, and can no longer in good conscience abide by that oath. Or he can B) Atone, re-swear the oath, and if he ever knowingly breaks it again, fall and lose his Paladin powers. If he redeems after the fall, he can never swear as an Oathbound Paladin again and loses any other oaths he may have taken.
Paladins don't break their oaths. That's not Lawful Stupid, that's Paladin 101. You are as good as your word, and if you give your sacred oath to someone, you damn well keep it or die trying. Doing otherwise is unacceptable to your code of conduct.
I dont disagree with you at all. If that is what has to happen in book 4, if I have to lose my oath and atone then so be it. There is no way that a simple paladin in Kenebras would have any idea that his path would take him into the Abyss itself. And he would be forced not to keep his oath for the sake of living to return to his home and continue his mission and to not endanger his companions further. That is sacrifice as well and paladins are no strangers to sacrifice.
Just be sure that your GM is aware of the oath you plan to take, and aware of the repercussions of you taking that oath and what the potential impact may be on book 4. If he wants to roll with it, and you don't mind losing your oath powers and possibly falling depending on how many times the oath is broken, then that's fine.
You are correct, that a Paladin starting out in Kenebres would have no idea what is coming and where his path would take him. At a certain point though he may see it coming at him like a speeding train and may not be able to get out of the way to avoid being crushed by it.
I just wouldn't be surprised if your GM said no to that oath. I probably would, but it partially depends on the player.
I am willing to deal with an impossible scenario where my oath may be momentarily broken, but I would definitely argue a fall. I won't hide anything from my DM, as I said I'm not tryong to cause problems or be disruptive or sneaky.
I am willing to deal with an impossible scenario where my oath may be momentarily broken, but I would definitely argue a fall. I won't hide anything from my DM, as I said I'm not tryong to cause problems or be disruptive or sneaky.
Please note that I only mention falling if the oath is repeatedly broken after atonement. Break the oath once and that's your one freebie - you lose your oath powers but nothing mroe. Choose to abandon it entirely with no further consequences, or choose to take it up again with the notion that if you break it again you will fall. The more this happens, the more likely the fall to be permanent. I would be a bit more harsh with it at my table, and disallow re-swearing of that oath after the second time it's broken, but your GM may vary, and that is between you and him.
@Lincoln I would like to ask YOU a question. And I hope I don't come across as rude or anything.
If you take an oath and then drop the oath when it is no longer cconvenient for you, and then retake the oath, what is the point of the oath if you keep dropping it just to pick it up later? (My god that's an awful run on sentence.)
I am genuinely curious as to your thoughts on this matter.
My thought is to just not take the oath if I know at some point I will have to drop it as it will be an impediment to the group's progress. Or I would take it and then suffer the penalties of dropping it. And not retake it later. Because to me to keep retaking the oath sounds too much like trying to game the system.
As I said I look forward to your thoughts on this.
It has always been that way. Your type does not change based on what plane you are on. When you are not on your home plane you gain the Extraplanar subtype, and outsiders lose that subtype when they are on their home plane, but otherwise yeah, nothing changes.
If you want proof, look at the type (outsider) description:
"An outsider is at least partially composed of the essence (but not necessarily the material) of some plane other than the Material Plane."
A creature can be composed of the essence of the Abyss and still exist on the Abyss. Just because it moves from the Abyss to the Material Plane or some other plane does not mean it loses the fact that it is partially composed of the essence of the Abyss.
Does a Plant become an Outsider when it goes to the Abyss? Does that mean the Plant loses its Plant traits and gains Outsider traits?
Types do not change unless some specific template changes them. Subtypes can be gained or lost based on location, like Extraplanar, but Types are set in stone.
My thought is to just not take the oath if I know at some point I will have to drop it as it will be an impediment to the group's progress. Or I would take it and then suffer the penalties of dropping it. And not retake it later. Because to me to keep retaking the oath sounds too much like trying to game the system.
I think the point of his argument is that his character does not have knowledge that he will have to forsake the oath at some point and potentially suffer penalties. That is player knowledge, not character knowledge.
With that in mind I understand his point of view, but I still think a certain amount of metagaming is acceptable (and encouraged) when it comes to selecting a character concept for a given AP. If you know it will cause major problems down the road, it might be wiser to just skip it and do something else to avoid potentially game wrecking consequences.
But that's just my opinion, and the OP and his group are free to form their own of course. If that works for them, I'm not going to tell them they must do it another way.
@Lincoln I would like to ask YOU a question. And I hope I don't come across as rude or anything.
If you take an oath and then drop the oath when it is no longer cconvenient for you, and then retake the oath, what is the point of the oath if you keep dropping it just to pick it up later? (My god that's an awful run on sentence.)
I am genuinely curious as to your thoughts on this matter.
My thought is to just not take the oath if I know at some point I will have to drop it as it will be an impediment to the group's progress. Or I would take it and then suffer the penalties of dropping it. And not retake it later. Because to me to keep retaking the oath sounds too much like trying to game the system.
As I said I look forward to your thoughts on this.
This is part of what, in my eyes, increases the depth of the character.
You can not decide what your character is based on knowledge that you could not or should not have. I agree, you do not take an oath lightly. Otherwise what is the point.
I can see the scene in my head now. Lincoln is kneeling at sunrise, holding his holy symbol in his hand. He is praying to Sarenrae because he knows he is going to the abyss and could never have imagined his life would lead him there. He is apologizing to her knowing that his Oath means more to him than his own life, but he is her tool in the fight against the denizens of the abyss so he is asking for her advice or forgiveness if he is forced to forsake his oath.
This only increases his hatred against fiends as he had to be shamed, a black mark on his honor.
The only real controversy I see withing the character's mind is that Sarenrae pushes redemption and the oath pushes slaying evil outsiders without question. The case of an evil outsider truly wanting to redeem itself should be infinitely rare. If a paladin such as this comes upon that scenario then I feel he would be going against his god's wishes by instantly slaying the thing. He would try to push his god's virtues above his own, always there with a ready sword should this be a ruse.
In a fantasy setting there can be no absolutes. Every possible scenario has infinite outcomes. The only limitation is your imagination and if you attempt to say something is impossible beyond physics (magic being accepted as reality included) then you are limiting yourself.
It is entirely feasible to imagine a reality where Sarenrae, who (hopefully) my character will have served loyally and fiercely, says, this is an impossible situation of which no mortal could have for seen. Your deeds thus far and the sacrifice you are willing to make by traveling into the abyss itself do you credit and I will continue to grant you your powers even though you will be forced to for a short time, forsake your oath. But know this, you do not do this lightly and you will be required to atone for that action upon returning from the abyss. Or something to that line.
Oh, you expect logic from the Golarion Gods?
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
I'm sorry. That was rude on my part.
Man, I wish I could look over you pally's shoulder during this AP.
*steps away to re-read WotR*
I am just surprised that this is a listed oath for her, as I don't believe it matches her views very well. Its like someone just noticed that demons and Rovagug share the same alignment and checked a box somewhere to say yes, they match.
Oh, you expect logic from the Golarion Gods?
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
I'm sorry. That was rude on my part.
Man, I wish I could look over you pally's shoulder during this AP.
*steps away to re-read WotR*
Haha I know I know ;)
I plan on keeping a journal of the entire game posted here on the boards. We are just starting book 4 of Runelords now though so it will be this fall or early next year before we start Wrath. I do hope you follow it and comment when I run the thread though!
I am just surprised that this is a listed oath for her, as I don't believe it matches her views very well. Its like someone just noticed that demons and Rovagug share the same alignment and checked a box somewhere to say yes, they match.
Honestly I think it does fit her well. Different perceptions is all. People forget there can be variety in even paladins!
I totally agree about varieties of paladins, a paladin that serves her should be different than Iomedae's...much different.
There's just nothing in her code that says to me kill all demons.
I play a paladin in this AP, the demons would get beat up, realize the didn't have a chance and port away, this was really frickin annoying.
I saw oath against fiends and thought it would be perfect.
the GM said that would be shooting myself in the foot later on and advised against it, but didn't say hell no or anything like that.
I realized that as cool as it seemed that if he thought it was a bad idea I shouldn't get so i didn't.
end of the day it should be that easy
I totally agree about varieties of paladins, a paladin that serves her should be different than Iomedae's...much different.
There's just nothing in her code that says to me kill all demons.
Exactly, the oath is pretty much antithetical to her beliefs. It takes the entire part about redemption and hope out of her credo and only leaves the "swift retribution" part in it. For a Paladin who is supposed to represent the entirety of her dogma, it should be unacceptable.
|
Exactly, the oath is pretty much antithetical to her beliefs. It takes the entire part about redemption and hope out of her credo and only leaves the "swift retribution" part in it. For a Paladin who is supposed to represent the entirety of her dogma, it should be unacceptable.I totally agree about varieties of paladins, a paladin that serves her should be different than Iomedae's...much different.
There's just nothing in her code that says to me kill all demons.
In fairness, something like 99.9% of Fiends are legitimately beyond redemption, and they're really the only beings that can be said of. So I can potentially see it.
Exactly, the oath is pretty much antithetical to her beliefs. It takes the entire part about redemption and hope out of her credo and only leaves the "swift retribution" part in it. For a Paladin who is supposed to represent the entirety of her dogma, it should be unacceptable.I totally agree about varieties of paladins, a paladin that serves her should be different than Iomedae's...much different.
There's just nothing in her code that says to me kill all demons.In fairness, something like 99.9% of Fiends are legitimately beyond redemption, and they're really the only beings that can be said of. So I can potentially see it.
** spoiler omitted **
This. Running into that astonishingly rare case of a non evil demon (devil or daemon) does not all of the sudden prove all is wrong with the world and we should now attempt endless time and effort on redeeming all purely evil beings.
As a Paladin of Saranrae, the attempt to have a demon submit should at least be made once, unless there is absolutely no other way than to kill it. Otherwise, just play a Paladin of Torag or someone else less inclinded to a credo of redemption.
As a Paladin of Saranrae, the attempt to have a demon submit should at least be made once, unless there is absolutely no other way than to kill it. Otherwise, just play a Paladin of Torag or someone else less inclinded to a credo of redemption.
I read this as directly opposing the guidelines for Paladins of Sarenrae.
Sarenrae
The paladins of the Dawnflower are fierce warriors, like
their goddess. They provide hope to the weak and support
to the righteous. Their tenets include:
• I will protect my allies with my life. They are my light
and my strength, as I am their light and their strength.
We rise together.
• I will seek out and destroy the spawn of the Rough
Beast. If I cannot defeat them, I will give my life trying.
If my life would be wasted in the attempt, I will find
allies. If any fall because of my inaction, their deaths
lie upon my soul, and I will atone for each.
• I am fair to others. I expect nothing for myself but that
which I need to survive.
• The best battle is a battle I win. If I die, I can no longer
fight. I will fight fairly when the fight is fair, and I will
strike quickly and without mercy when it is not.
• I will redeem the ignorant with my words and my
actions. If they will not turn toward the light, I will
redeem them by the sword.
• I will not abide evil, and will combat it with steel when
words are not enough. I do not flinch from my faith,
and do not fear embarrassment. My soul cannot be
bought for all the stars in the sky.
• I will show the less fortunate the light of the
Dawnflower. I will live my life as her mortal blade,
shining with the light of truth.
• Each day is another step toward perfection. I
will not turn back into the dark.
Attempting to give a demon a chance at redemption is inherently a flawed action because you are forgetting what a demon is. You are giving them credits you would give an evil mortal being. Demons (and devils and daemons) are made of evil. The odd one that wished to be redeemed is that one in a 1000 or even 10,000 year thing. Looking at every demon and giving it the chance to be the one that truly wants redemption is like looking at every frog and thinking its a prince.
but thats not including said oath you insist on taking, see if it makes sense then:)
Yes it absolutely makes sense. Hence why that oath is favored by Sarenrae as well.
The only issue is one that the character could not possibly know when taking the oath because of an impossible scenario placed on him later in the AP. The oath makes complete and total sense.
I read this as directly opposing the guidelines for Paladins of Sarenrae.
• I will seek out and destroy the spawn of the Rough
Beast. If I cannot defeat them, I will give my life trying.
If my life would be wasted in the attempt, I will find
allies. If any fall because of my inaction, their deaths
lie upon my soul, and I will atone for each.
First off, demons are not spawn of Rovagug, so you bolding that section is meaningless to this debate.
• I will redeem the ignorant with my words and my
actions. If they will not turn toward the light, I will
redeem them by the sword.Attempting to give a demon a chance at redemption is inherently a flawed action because you are forgetting what a demon is. You are giving them credits you would give an evil mortal being. Demons (and devils and daemons) are made of evil. The odd one...
That is an inherently wrong interpretation of the bolded text. Saranrae teaches that everyone has a shot at redemption, but is ruthless in stamping out those who refuse to be redeemed. You saying that demons can't be redeemed and should not be given the chance to redeem themselves is anathema to her faith.