Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

"Confessions of a Pre-Meditated Griefer"


Pathfinder Society® General Discussion

51 to 100 of 175 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge ***

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
Selgard wrote:

The wizard can't work with anyone, when he has an evil familiar. He can't work with the Paladin. He's set himself up to become a conflict for another character by his very design. And he knows it, and has done so strictly to gain more power. Its already been stated that the imp is the best familiar on the block. (which I disagree with, but thats irrelevant to the current discussion)

Guy a: plays a paladin.
Guy b: selects a feat to gain an evil companion.

Guy A needs to be banned? Not in my opinion. The guy who selected the option to turn his character into the problem is in fact the problem.

Neither one needs to be banned.

But Guy A has to make a choice, from the following.

1. Run with the party and leave the fiend be... facing an atonement later.

2. Decide that he's taken his oath as far as it should be taken and either drop it or change it., something the archetype DOES allow.

3. Decide that he can not tolerate the familiar and within the PFS rules refuse to associate with said party. (The bring another character option)

The Wizard is not the problem here. The Paladin is his own issue, he chose to play a class which mandates hard choices. He's simply getting what he signed up for. This is not the only case here. People who sign up Paladins (or good aligned characters in general) for the Scarzoni faction need to take a long look at what they are setting themselves up for.

Shadow Lodge ***** Venture-Captain, Washington—Eastern Washington aka WalterGM

LazarX wrote:
Selgard wrote:

The wizard can't work with anyone, when he has an evil familiar. He can't work with the Paladin. He's set himself up to become a conflict for another character by his very design. And he knows it, and has done so strictly to gain more power. Its already been stated that the imp is the best familiar on the block. (which I disagree with, but thats irrelevant to the current discussion)

Guy a: plays a paladin.
Guy b: selects a feat to gain an evil companion.

Guy A needs to be banned? Not in my opinion. The guy who selected the option to turn his character into the problem is in fact the problem.

Neither one needs to be banned.

This.

Alignment provides a framework for character design. You can have a Paladin that works alongside disreputable folk. The imp is evil, but is under the control of a neutral party. That neutral party can be influenced by both evil and good. Couldn't a paladin keep a close watch on the familiar, but ensure that his words got through to the neutral party, and encourage him to do good? And that he didn't need the imp? Try and convince him that Silvanshees are way cooler?

I dislike how often people jump on the bandwagon of "my alignment dictates this" or "my class forces this;" you created the character, roleplay him or her how you would and the alignment and class will follow. If you find yourself being OK with imps as a paladin, you may want to consider becoming an inquisitor. Playing your character leads to development, there's no "right" choice to make, make the ones your character would and watch them evolve into something more than what you started with.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

If I groked it correctly, the wizard with the imp is LN. No mention of his role-playing motivations are provided, so perhaps he's playing to show the imp the path to redemption, or at least Neutrality instead of Evil? Devils are notoriously difficult to redeem, and the imp will likely be fighting to drag the wizard the other way to Evil, but it can happen.

Even with the paladin's chosen archetype, should he outright slay the imp when it might still be able to throw off the shackles of its born alignment? Wouldn't redeeming its soul be a more worthy goal than simply slaying/banishing it back to damnation in Hell?

If the imp isn't simply for pure power/optimization purposes, it could be a source of some rich roleplaying for both the wizard and paladin.

Shadow Lodge ***** Venture-Captain, Washington—Eastern Washington aka WalterGM

Ambrosia Slaad wrote:

If I groked it correctly, the wizard with the imp is LN. No mention of his role-playing motivations are provided, so perhaps he's playing to show the imp the path to redemption, or at least Neutrality instead of Evil? Devils are notoriously difficult to redeem, and the imp will likely be fighting to drag the wizard the other way to Evil, but it can happen.

Even with the paladin's chosen archetype, should he outright slay the imp when it might still be able to throw off the shackles of its born alignment? Wouldn't redeeming its soul be a more worthy goal than simply slaying/banishing it back to damnation in Hell?

If the imp isn't simply for pure power/optimization purposes, it could be a source of some rich roleplaying for both the wizard and paladin.

Well said, well said.

**** RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm on the Paladin's side here.

To say "You can play this legal archtype. But expect to get hosed after 7th level because people think Imps and Quasits are cool." and not say "You can take this legal feat because Imps and Quasits are cool. But expect to cause problems at the table whenever you encounter a Paladin in the party." That's the issue.

As others have pointed out, the Paladin can change his oath. Yeah? The Wizard/Sorcerer can leave his critter at home. So which is more disruptive? Making the Paladin change his entire concept, or making the wizard leave one of his class features 'at home' for one adventure?

And yeah, my good characters are definately going to "Dark Knight" an imp toting wizard "I'm not going to kill you. But I don't have to save you either." Being a jerk? No more than bringing an imp.

Grand Lodge *****

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Simply put. The player of the wizard, if there is a paladin in the group can make a simple and easy choice here, leave the familiar at home.

As many said the imp is evil, it has evil designs. Yes Cheliax is a nation of devil summoners for the most part but that does not mean you HAVE to summon one yourself and expect good to get along with evil or even neutral to get along with evil. Nor should you expect the party to get along with someone that does summon evil regardless if they are Chelaxian. Can it cause some good role playing sure but more likely it will cause more grief then good.

(Notice I am NOT saying anything about the oath?) The tenants of "most" missions is that we "fight" evil and usually do and yet with in the party is evil but yet lets keep it alive and let the rest live.

But some people in this thread think that evil should be allowed in the form of a familiar because it "might" be redeemable in some peoples eyes. So a paladin should think that yes it could be on the path to goodness? If this was the case then the Paladin is delusional.

This is all my opinion though.

*

Selgard wrote:
It just seems that in an RPG that stresses folks are the good guys and heroes going out to thrwart evil and do good, right wrongs, save kingdoms, and be heroes, that the single most Goody Good Guy is being expected by nigh on everyone to take a bench so some twit in a pointy hat with an imp can go and further his vile and evil ways. That just strikes a bad chord with me.

Being part of the Pathfinder society OP means none of the things you described. Pathfinders aren't necessarily "heroes".

Selgard wrote:
The wizard can't work with anyone, when he has an evil familiar. He can't work with the Paladin.

That statement isn't even logical. The wizard can work with anyone, he has no problem at all with the Paladin, he's not telling the Paladin what he can and cannot do. It's the Paladin that is telling the Wizard what he can and cannot do. The Paladin is the aggressor. If you can't see that, there's no point in arguing any further, and I'm not sure I should even waste my time anyway since you have "no dogs in the hunt" and you're just arguing for the mere pleasure of it.

W. Kristoph Nolen wrote:
"The Society" doesn't pass on moral obligations to it's members ... but, PFS-OP does. (But, thanks for trying to make fluff into rules. Nice try.) PFS-OP makes it painfully clear that there's to be no [evil] PCs.

Ah no, it's not just fluff. If it's fluff, the entire guide is fluff. If you read the rest of the quote it says:

Pathfinder Organized Play Guide wrote:
Pathfinder agents, no matter which of the 10 factions they belong to, are expected to respect one another’s claims and stay out of each other’s affairs unless offering a helping hand.

The Paladin is neither respecting the claims of the Wizard nor staying out of his affairs. You can't really argue that.

Say whatever you want to say, it clearly says you might have to work with a Chelaxian who summons fiends... if you can't do that, you're not a Pathfinder, and as a player you're just being purposefully difficult.

W. Kristoph Nolen wrote:
The only person that would get a boot (if we were being realistic) would be the jerk touting his imp and flaunting it around town.

Ah no. The Pathfinder society itself accepts members who summon devils. The player (and the PC) is free to flaunt his imp around town all he likes, as long as he's not being a jerk to another PC. At most tables, he's free to do whatever he likes.

W. Kristoph Nolen wrote:
If a player commits an [evil] act, there are rules for warning him and making clear what he's doing. If he becomes "wantonly evil" there are rules for removing him from the game. How on earth can it be asserted that summoning an evil fiend and associating with it every single day is not an evil act. Don't give me that crap about how they might become evil later in life, after the character is retired. BS. They're commiting evil acts right here, right now, every day.

Summoning devils or creating undead doesn't make you evil and I highly doubt you're going to change a Pathfinder game rule. You can argue this all you like, it's not going to change.

W. Kristoph Nolen wrote:
And certainly, not being good-aligned.

What does good alignment have to do with it? PFS is a neutral campaign, not a good campaign. Get over it.

Seriously, as a PC, I would rather boot or kill a Paladin in my party rather than deal with all the crap they give everyone. This thread and the players in this thread are exactly why this happens in home campaigns. (I had no idea before, because I've been playing with reasonable players!) As a player, I'm not looking forward to my next encounter with a Paladin, not because of the class but because of the average player who plays them.

Anyway, I'm done, Brock can rule any way he thinks is fair.

Shadow Lodge ***** Venture-Captain, Washington—Eastern Washington aka WalterGM

Matthew Morris wrote:

I'm on the Paladin's side here.

To say "You can play this legal archtype. But expect to get hosed after 7th level because people think Imps and Quasits are cool." and not say "You can take this legal feat because Imps and Quasits are cool. But expect to cause problems at the table whenever you encounter a Paladin in the party." That's the issue.

As others have pointed out, the Paladin can change his oath. Yeah? The Wizard/Sorcerer can leave his critter at home. So which is more disruptive? Making the Paladin change his entire concept, or making the wizard leave one of his class features 'at home' for one adventure?

And yeah, my good characters are definately going to "Dark Knight" an imp toting wizard "I'm not going to kill you. But I don't have to save you either." Being a jerk? No more than bringing an imp.

I'm stuck wondering what is forcing either player to the point of needing to give something up in order to understand each other. The paladin is good. The wizard is neutral. The imp, under the wizards control, is a creature of evil. The paladin hates evil creatures. What other facts are there? He must destroy them if able? He can't in PFS, there is no PVP.

So, instead, he plays the good aligned angel on the wizards other shoulder, opposite the imp. Anything the imp suggests, he refutes. Anything the imp thinks is cool, he thinks is weak, etc. I feel like we're jumping to the conclusion of "one person packs up and leaves" for no reason. Where is the highlander-esque "there can only be one" issue coming from?

Grand Lodge *****

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Jason S wrote:


What does good alignment have to do with it? PFS is a neutral campaign, not a good campaign. Get over it.

Seriously, as a PC, I would rather boot or kill a Paladin in my party rather than deal with all the crap they give everyone. This thread and the players in this thread are exactly why this happens in home campaigns. (I had no idea before, because I've been playing with reasonable players!) As a player, I'm not looking forward to my next encounter with a Paladin, not because of the class but because of the average player who plays them.

Gee the overall tone in this post is not antagonistic at all ::smirk::

I am glad I am not playing with you based on the above and your overall feelings to players of paladins. Remember this IS a game if you don't like it then why are you playing it?

Grand Lodge ****

samerandomhero wrote:

To my fellow players of the magnificent Pathfinder Society,

A new thread has come about, in which a poster has inquired as to the proper protocol for a paladin of the oathbound archetype- who encounters a party member whose companion or familiar is an evil outsider.
I wish to make a solid point before I go further and stress that the OP had a legitimate question and I hope his ideas regarding it are given solid consideration.
Now, following this progressive idea forming about what to do was a storm of posts that nothing short of outright questioned the integrity and intentions of someone who came to the game table with an imp familiar.
I wish to without creating a firestorm in the threads, get a genuine consensus of PFS players and how they feel regarding my characters exotic friend showing up at their table.

Here has been my experience:

Most people playing are completely cool with an imp familiar at their table. If their character is strongly aligned with good, they certainly appreciate the imps presence being reduced.
While they have fun admonishing my infernal binders bad life choices, out of game they have no problem and may even be amused.
Others of less alignment bound characters are warm to the idea of the familiar healing the characters, boosting their ac, scouting, etc.

Your input is appreciated regardless of the stance you take,
May the Open Path be before you always,
Samerandomhero, an "imp-lover" :P

Upon reading my post again, i have decided to make it clear that the intent is to find out if a significant amount of PFS players have a genuine problem with it, and that maybe I should chill on the Chelaxian flavor a bit.

I have no major problems with your choice of an Imp. Especially since the Imp has at least two spell like abilities to hide it self from view (Invisibility at will and Beast Shape). Between these two powers a Wizard with an Imp familiar should be able to keep their Imp out of the sight of a Paladin and still play with that character. It would also most likely lead to some interesting role-play.

Nathan
NYC

*

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The problem is the archetype which most people here are reading as "the paladin falls if he cannot immediately murder every evil outsider in sight". The actual oath both allows for the paladin to drop the oath, and includes a clause "if able". Therefore, the paladin does not fall just for standing next to an imp, despite what the people who just seem to want to murder a familiar think.

Also, if the paladin feels that strongly about evil outsiders, why don't they stay home in the Mendevian Crusade? Seriously, what are they doing in the Pathfinders to start with? Upon joining it would become clear that they would have to interact with various Chelaxians and their feindish servants at some point.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I know this has been said a few times but I think it bears repeating - both players can decide not to be jerks and just get along with each other. That really is the crux of the issue - and like that metallica song, nothing else matters.

Cooperation with others, meeting new friends, sharing adventures... these are the reasons Organized Play exists. Who cares about the rest?

People love to take up the paladin discussion battle-flag and rage about, throwing heavy-handed opinions and interpretations. Why? At the end of the day, if you can't sit at a table and PLAY THE GAME with someone, the game's not the problem - you are.

I know that comes off pretty harsh, and I'm sorry for that, but it's definitely how I feel about the issue - not that anyone should really care about little old me.


If you don't like the paladin anyway then stating that you also think he should lose this debate is, well, pointless. If you think the Paladin is worthy of death just for existing then thats pretty much the point, rather than the discussion at hand.

I'm also not trying to be hateful or a jerk. I just side with the Paladin in this.

Two PC's have a choice. One can choose a being of E V I L. The other makes a choice to kill E V I L.

People are siding with the guy who chose E V I L. I don't get why.

You can say that the folks in PFS aren't heroes if you like- but the restriction gainst being an evil character rather flies in the face of that. In fact, if the goals of the Society aren't good then the Paladin can't come *at all*. Regardless of what any wizard and his imp do. he just can't join the party at all. If thats the case, they just need to be removed from the campaign completely. And I'm fine with that, if its the case.

But you shouldn't allow the Paladin in, then claim PFS isn't about folks being heroes, and call him a jerk for wanting to kill Evil and not let him smite Evil he finds. Even if that evil is the guy beside him with the Imp who is claiming to be on his side.

Hi I'm Wizard the wizard and this is my vile, evil, depraved Outsider. but we're ok. No really, we're fine. he's evil but he only ever does what I say despite the fact that he's trying to lure me into greater and greater acts of irredemable evil. We're fine. Ignore us.

It just doesn't jive.

The options as presented are:
1) The paladin changes characters.
2) The paladin sucks an atonement.
3) The wizard changes characters.
4) The wizard leaves his vile, evil beastie at home.

I just don't see making the paladin change or pay cash for something thats the Imp lovers fault. Especially when the imp lover can just leave the imp at home and solve the entire issue.

You would warn the Paladin for taking his oath. I'm not against that.
but I'd also warn that Wizard against taking the Imp. Taking the imp is no less of the problem than the Paladin taking his oath.
Who is in the wrong? The paladin wanting to be better against evil, or the wizard who is selecting an evil familiar just because its the best and most powerful one out there?

The wizard, because the wizard knows its going to be antagonistic towards *every good aligned character out there*, including the Paladin who are mechanically designed to have an issue with it.

I'm curious what actual DM's would do in these actual, in game situations.
Do you make the Paladin suck an atonement? do you make the wizard change? do you make 'em both change? Its the only example I can think of where someone either loses their powers or has to change characters because of something some other character did before even sitting down to the table.
Evil is /banned/. Evil is Evil. Why are we punishing the paladin?

-S

Qadira ****

If we consider the Paladin vs. Wizard in light of each being an NPC what do you get?

Party of adventurers meets an Individual that are told will provide them with assistance on thier mission. They are to meet him is a local drinking establishment. Said individual is a local to the region and is:

A) a Wizard with an Imp Familiar. The meeting takes place in Westcrown and the NPC is part of the local government. Upon meeting the Individual, the Paladin in the party.... what? Kills the Imp?

B) a Paladin with anti-Fiend oath. The meeting takes place in Katheer and the NPC is part of the local government (a Paladin of the Dawnflower). Upon meeting the Individual, the Wizard in the party... what? Insturcts his Imp to hide outside?

Which of these is a problem for the PFS?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

5) Both players decide to be decent about it, as does the GM, and everyone goes home happy.

Shouldn't that be... the... ONLY... option?

Hooray for option 5!


I don't disagree in principle nathan, but in actuality the paladin who decides to "not be a jerk" just got turned into a warrior.

The fiend oath paladin loses his powers for hanging out in the group with the fiend loving wizard, unless the wizard leaves his fiend at home.

Barring some PFS ruling otherwise, that is currently the problem.
A normal paladin or any generic good aligned person, I'd agree with you 100%. They need to RP through it and make it fun. But that apparently isn't an option for a pally with this oath when faced with a wizard with this familiar.

"Don't be a jerk" is an awesome ruling. Which of them is being the jerk?
The paladin? The wizard? As written, both are running 100% Grade A legal characters. Neither is twinking or cheesing rules, both are one hundred percent legal on a bald face reading of the rules.

How do you handle it? One of them has to do /something/ out of the ordinary. Change characters, use a premade, or ditch a decent class feature.

It /is/ a problem. And it needs to be fixed somehow. Either by removing the oath, removing the imp, or by a PFS ruling that alters the oath to allow them the tiny bit of leeway needed to not lose their powers while staying in the group.

-S

Grand Lodge ***

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
Selgard wrote:

The options as presented are:

1) The paladin changes characters.
2) The paladin sucks an atonement.
3) The wizard changes characters.
4) The wizard leaves his vile, evil beastie at home.

That's not a complete assessment and you'd realize that you're missing one major choice if you bothered to read the posts, especially mine:

5)The Paladin can bend a little and not have his fanatic oath about outsiders. The Oathbound Paladin can change or drop the archetype entirely if they choose to, without any penalty whatsoever. Quite frankly the Pathfinder Society is simply not a place for fanatics of any kind who aren't willing to be flexible.

The Wizard is being flexible, he's keeping his behavior and that of his imp, presumably to within acceptable guidelines. It's the Paladin that's insisting on getting everything his way if he's not willing to make his own concessions in turn.

Grand Lodge *****

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
nathan blackmer wrote:

I know this has been said a few times but I think it bears repeating - both players can decide not to be jerks and just get along with each other. That really is the crux of the issue - and like that metallica song, nothing else matters.

Cooperation with others, meeting new friends, sharing adventures... these are the reasons Organized Play exists. Who cares about the rest?

People love to take up the paladin discussion battle-flag and rage about, throwing heavy-handed opinions and interpretations. Why? At the end of the day, if you can't sit at a table and PLAY THE GAME with someone, the game's not the problem - you are.

I know that comes off pretty harsh, and I'm sorry for that, but it's definitely how I feel about the issue - not that anyone should really care about little old me.

I am not taking the battle flag up for paladins. I am just taking up the problem with the situation posed in the thread overall. I am not siding with the paladin class in general nor even with the wizard class. What I AM doing though is taking the side of the right of being a player of any class.

If there is a paladin in the group and he/she is there to fight evil as they do (and we know the majority of the fights IN PFS are evil baddies) then he is doing his job. But if a player of a wizard with an imp comes along and is using the imp to commit mildly evil acts and the paladin is aware of it, the paladin has to sit by and do nothing about it, because there are rules against it in PFS play.

None of this makes sense to me. We are not allowed to play evil characters and yet we are "allowed" to bring in evil as a player in the form of a familiar. There by doing some form evil with said imp. Lets face it, the imp "is" evil there is no bones about it. The imp will have it's own agenda and try and convert others to it's side. You are NOT going to convert any imp to the side of neutrality. So again where is the sense of fair play?

If a player decides to bring an imp along that is part of the rules yes. Should a paladin be in the group then the player of the wizard should not flaunt it in their face that the imp is there and it can be played because it is "allowed" It can be role played a couple of ways The imp can change shape to hide itself from being seen as obviously evil in the form of a devil. It can be invisible all the time to hide itself too. of the imp can be left at home. The paladin should not flaunt it either but the lesser of two problems can be solved easier with the wizard then it can with the paladin.

Qadira ****

Posters are realizing that the EVIL Imp is just as much a problem to a Paladin as the Chaotic Barbarian right? In fact the Barbarian is perhaps more, as the Imp is enslaved and the Barbarian is running around loose.

OR... The Druid with an Animal Companion. Let's get real here people. We are talking about a WILD ANNIMAL! a extra-large WOLF! No controls on it at all. Is it on a leese? What, the druid says "It only does what I tell it to"?!!

Of the two the Imp is MUCH more controled (by it's very nature) and is LAWFUL. The Law says not killing young humans in town. The Imp will starve before he breaks a LAW. The Wolf? watch out of the druid isn't feeding him enough. As far as it cares, meat is meat... and fresh is better.


LazarX:

So in your opinion the Paladin should just ditch his oath rather than the wizard leave his familiar home for that one adventure?

That to me sounds abit unreasonable. Did I miss something about the oaths? Can it be retaken later?

If the paladin can just swear or ditch for the beginning of any given adventure then clearly the arugments I've been making need some adjustment.

-S

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

nosig wrote:
Posters are realizing that the EVIL Imp is just as much a problem to a Paladin as the Chaotic Barbarian right? In fact the Barbarian is perhaps more, as the Imp is enslaved and the Barbarian is running around loose.

Actually, we're talking about a specific archetype of paladin who is required to kill evil outsiders if at all possible, or fall.

Taldor ***

As mentioned a bunch of times, the in-character rules AND the organized play rules of Pathfinder Society preclude the possibility of an oathbound paladin killing the imp familiar.

So he needn't worry about falling for lack of killing said imp.

Qadira ****

Jiggy wrote:
nosig wrote:
Posters are realizing that the EVIL Imp is just as much a problem to a Paladin as the Chaotic Barbarian right? In fact the Barbarian is perhaps more, as the Imp is enslaved and the Barbarian is running around loose.
Actually, we're talking about a specific archetype of paladin who is required to kill evil outsiders if at all possible, or fall.

yeah, sort of. It's kind of derailed though.

I am wondering what to do if I get this archetype in a game, and the party needs to deal with someone (an NPC) from Cheliax. Maybe a Tiefling... or a Sorcerer with a devil in his bloodline.

Goodness, what do we do if we get sent to Cheliax? Is he likely to chop "people" in the street? Normally I worry about the Barbies, the Pallies are usually Lawful.

Hay, what about that? killing someones familiar has got to be against the law in Absalom - does the Palladin "fall" for knowingly brakeing the law? or is it ok to break the law sometimes?

*

Deanoth wrote:

Gee the overall tone in this post is not antagonistic at all ::smirk::

I am glad I am not playing with you based on the above and your overall feelings to players of paladins. Remember this IS a game if you don't like it then why are you playing it?

If my preferences as a PC bother you, sorry. That's just how I feel about "problem Paladins" (of which I've seen maybe only 1 in 30+ years). The problem is not the class, it's some of the players.

Regarding good and evil, summoning devils isn't evil by the rules, so any good/evil argument is irrelevant. So yes, it's time to accept it and move on.

Ditto for the rest. Btw, you missed a major point, I don't have a problem with the class, just some of the players that play them. Can be a fun class if the player is ok.

Grand Lodge *****

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
nosig wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
nosig wrote:
Posters are realizing that the EVIL Imp is just as much a problem to a Paladin as the Chaotic Barbarian right? In fact the Barbarian is perhaps more, as the Imp is enslaved and the Barbarian is running around loose.
Actually, we're talking about a specific archetype of paladin who is required to kill evil outsiders if at all possible, or fall.

yeah, sort of. It's kind of derailed though.

I am wondering what to do if I get this archetype in a game, and the party needs to deal with someone (an NPC) from Cheliax. Maybe a Tiefling... or a Sorcerer with a devil in his bloodline.

Goodness, what do we do if we get sent to Cheliax? Is he likely to chop "people" in the street? Normally I worry about the Barbies, the Pallies are usually Lawful.

Hay, what about that? killing someones familiar has got to be against the law in Absalom - does the Palladin "fall" for knowingly brakeing the law? or is it ok to break the law sometimes?

When did a devil become a person?? Killing a devil is not against the law I am sure. If a wizard is wondering around with an imp on his shoulder in a city full of Paladins and or problematic people that may or may not have a problem with said imp... deserves for the familiar to die. The player of said wizard should be much more covert about having said imp knowing full well that it may cause the problems raised in this thread and that you mention Nosig.

If they are a fiend/devil they deserve what they get then. No I am not condoning PvP or even another PC killing the familiar of another PC, BUT what I am saying is that it is the lesser of two evils for the player of the wizard to be much more covert about it instewad of just flaunting it in the face of good and expect to get away with it just because they can... it is bound to end up with grief if the familiar is killed for some reason because an NPC had a problem with it and the GM can do that as it is NOT considered PvP, then what?

Qadira ****

Jason S wrote:
Deanoth wrote:

Gee the overall tone in this post is not antagonistic at all ::smirk::

I am glad I am not playing with you based on the above and your overall feelings to players of paladins. Remember this IS a game if you don't like it then why are you playing it?

If my preferences as a PC bother you, sorry. That's just how I feel about "problem Paladins" (of which I've seen maybe only 1 in 30+ years). The problem is not the class, it's some of the players.

Regarding good and evil, summoning devils isn't evil by the rules, so any good/evil argument is irrelevant. So yes, it's time to accept it and move on.

Ditto for the rest. Btw, you missed a major point, I don't have a problem with the class, just some of the players that play them. Can be a fun class if the player is ok.

I have a lot of agreement with you here. It is player, not class.

That said, often players that are going to be di.. difficult decide to play Paladins. Humorously I have seen someone come in all set to play an C/E Rogue, but finding out he couldn't, decide to play a Paladin instead. Thankfully, we were able to convense him to go play in the 4E group.

My personal percentage of difficult paladins is about 30% pains. Some to a lesser degree. That said, some of the most fun players I've played with ran Paladins at least part of the time.

Oh, and for the record, I do have a Paladin in the works, though I haven't yet played him. He's a halfling from Cheliax and I am very much looking forward to running him.... eventually.

Cheliax *** Venture-Captain, Washington—Seattle aka Big Kyle

This thread is absolutely making me laugh.

Good is not dumb, despite the infamous Rick Moranis quote. You are not going to change the mind of a wizard by killing his pet and costing him money.

Let me tell you...the amount of times I have kicked a puppy and told the owner that "It was for your own good! The dog was crapping on my lawn!" Those always went over extremely well.

Your "paladin"'s solution to slay the imp of a fellow pathfinder is a violation of his oath he took when joining the society. Isn't there something in the paladin could about betrayal?

Wouldn't you be betraying your oath, your word, the society, AND the wizard by attempting to kill an imp servitor of a neutral character engaged in a quest, at your side, to solve the needs of the society?

Get me a bottle of cheese whiz! This land shark needs more dentistry!

Qadira ****

Deanoth wrote:
nosig wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
nosig wrote:
Posters are realizing that the EVIL Imp is just as much a problem to a Paladin as the Chaotic Barbarian right? In fact the Barbarian is perhaps more, as the Imp is enslaved and the Barbarian is running around loose.
Actually, we're talking about a specific archetype of paladin who is required to kill evil outsiders if at all possible, or fall.

yeah, sort of. It's kind of derailed though.

I am wondering what to do if I get this archetype in a game, and the party needs to deal with someone (an NPC) from Cheliax. Maybe a Tiefling... or a Sorcerer with a devil in his bloodline.

Goodness, what do we do if we get sent to Cheliax? Is he likely to chop "people" in the street? Normally I worry about the Barbies, the Pallies are usually Lawful.

Hay, what about that? killing someones familiar has got to be against the law in Absalom - does the Palladin "fall" for knowingly brakeing the law? or is it ok to break the law sometimes?

When did a devil become a person?? Killing a devil is not against the law I am sure. If a wizard is wondering around with an imp on his shoulder in a city full of Paladins and or problematic people that may or may not have a problem with said imp... deserves for the familiar to die. The player of said wizard should be much more covert about having said imp knowing full well that it may cause the problems raised in this thread and that you mention Nosig.

If they are a fiend/devil they deserve what they get then. No I am not condoning PvP or even another PC killing the familiar of another PC, BUT what I am saying is that it is the lesser of two evils for the player of the wizard to be much more covert about it instewad of just flaunting it in the face of good and expect to get away with it just because they can... it is bound to end up with grief if the familiar is killed for some reason because an NPC had a problem with it and the GM can do that as it is NOT considered PvP, then what?

ok, let's take this one point at a time. I figure I'll get ninja'd but let's see if I can type fast.

"When did a devil become a person??"
I didn't say a devil was a person, though I guess I could have. The nation of Cheliax has devils, recognized citizens and goverment workers. I guess you could say they are not "persons", but don't tell that to the general in charge of the army (he's a pit fiend).
"Killing a devil is not against the law I am sure."
actually I know it would be in Cheliax. Westcrown by the way is in Cheliax. Killing a devil - a familiar - is as much a crime as killing a slave. You are killing someone's property. In fact, the Imp is exactly that, an enslaved creature. Just like the Goblin slave, or the 1/2 Orc slave or the Tiefling slave, or the halfling slave. Or the horse for that matter. AND less of a crime than killing the Druids AC - which is a wild animal, and if one has a hunting liceance... but that is a different issue.

"If a wizard is wondering around with an imp on his shoulder in a city full of Paladins and or problematic people that may or may not have a problem with said imp... deserves for the familiar to die."
Wow - Not sure what to say about this. I can recall going to the land where humans are considered monsters... killed and eaten often on sight. Guess that is kind of like the place you are discribing above.

"The player of said wizard should be much more covert about having said imp knowing full well that it may cause the problems raised in this thread and that you mention Nosig."
Most of my examples were placed in Westcrown. Where the Imp slave is legal - and would get a PC recognized as "upper class" - and the Paladin is recognized as a "poor, misguided fool, suitable for humor - a humorous side-kick".

"If they are a fiend/devil they deserve what they get then." Well... what game are you playing in? In mine, this would depend on where he was. See my responses above. OH! and the paladin would be paying to replace the familiar he distroyed, at the least. "you brake it, you buy it".

for the rest of your post... I simply did not understand what you were trying to say. Sorry!

Paizo Employee ***** Global Organized Play Coordinator

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm watching this post with interest. It is treading the line of falling into uncivil chatter. Please keep the conversations civil. Thanks.

Qadira ****

Michael Brock wrote:
I'm watching this post with interest. It is treading the line of falling into uncivil chatter. Please keep the conversations civil. Thanks.

sorry! I removed my sarcastic post... should have thought better of it before I posted it. I'll try harder in the future.

Shadow Lodge ***** Venture-Captain, Washington—Eastern Washington aka WalterGM

Selgard wrote:


Hi I'm Wizard the wizard and this is my vile, evil, depraved Outsider. but we're ok. No really, we're fine. he's evil but he only ever does what I say despite the fact that he's trying to lure me into greater and greater acts of irredemable evil. We're fine. Ignore us.

It just doesn't jive.

The options as presented are:
1) The paladin changes characters.
2) The paladin sucks an atonement.
3) The wizard changes characters.
4) The wizard leaves his vile, evil beastie at home.

As someone who has a neutral spellcaster with an Imp, I've had zero problems gaming with paladins (although if they were oathbound or not, I don't know). My witch (who has the imp) sees his familiar is the means to an end. He's looking out for himself and his allies, and as situations come he rationalizes through them. The imp is just a wise way to keep them safe. It doesn't constantly try to lure him toward evil acts, if it did, I'd find one that didn't or punish him until he was quiet. He is my minion, not equal. I say jump, he jumps. I say provoke that AOO so my paladin can retreat without dying to the BBEG, he does so. There is no chance of my characters alignment changing from having an imp, because there is nothing in RAW or RAI to back that sort of GM ruling up.

Additionally, when you limit it to four options, again, I don't see why. There's countless options for any situation. And the four you've presented, in my mind, are very limiting. Here's four more that don't require people to hamper their characters. Five - the paladin keeps a close eye on the creature, since he cannot kill the imp and, because he is bound by more than just his oath (he is a pathfinder too), he looses no powers. Six - the witch/wizard/whatever keeps his imp disguised as something else, and shielded from view of the paladin. Seven - The two players have a discussion on the matter, where the good tries to convince the neutral to change sides, and see where that goes. Eight - The wizard tells the paladin that he's keeping the imp around so that they can study evil creatures, and find their weaknesses, and the paladin understands. Etc, etc, etc.

There have been comments about PFS characters being "not good, " or "not heroes" and the reality is, by definition, they're really not (cooperate, explore, report can define a group of LE assassins too) -- but sometimes people want to play heroes. That said, you don't have to play a hero that has a problem with everyone else that's not like you. You don't have to be a paladin that blindly follows his god, or a wizard that has an imp and thus decides to burn down orphanages. The alignment system is an incredibly simple way of categorizing the infinitely complex way people make judgement and decisions, and I think it's going against the motivations of PFS to look at a situation like a Paladin and an imp familiar and assume that there will be conflict. The only conflict that exists is one that people, not characters, bring to the table.

Shadow Lodge ***** Venture-Captain, Washington—Eastern Washington aka WalterGM

Michael Brock wrote:
I'm watching this post with interest. It is treading the line of falling into uncivil chatter. Please keep the conversations civil. Thanks.

*hides under the covers*

**** RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

Ultimate Magic wrote:
Code of Conduct: 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 fiends

Looking at the oath, it looks like the 'problem' for the Paladin is that he has a class related oath to kill the imp, and an oath to the Society (implied?) to not kill the Imp. The question is, does the meta-reason of PVP [b[officially[/b] remove it from the 'Paladin's power to destroy'?

The Wizard at the same time has his Imp that he's invested a 'feat and a half' invested in his fiendish little friend. Um, that's it.

For the people who say "Why not just have the Paladin exchange his oath" Where does it say he can? The only place I can see is "When a paladin completes the sacred promise, the oath is fulfilled, and she may abandon the oath if she so chooses; she may then select another oath or become a standard paladin or a different paladin archetype."

So I don't see the Paladin being able to 'swap it out' The Wizard however can swap the familiar out. Really, a regular group that meets should run into this issue long before 7th level, a wizard with an imp who comes to a table should 'leave the familiar home' if the table happens to have the specific paladin archtype, in the name of harmony.

Just like if your character has a hatred of Andorans, you 'tone it down' when you see it's affecting the Andoran Player's fun.

If it becomes an issue commonly, talk with the Paladin player about splitting the cost of getting a new familiar.

Osirion

Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Cards, Companion, Maps, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Jason S wrote:
Regarding good and evil, summoning devils isn't evil by the rules, so any good/evil argument is irrelevant.

Eh?

0_o?

What game are you playing?
This is the PF boards.

Besides, we're not discussing Summoning an imp, which is an evil act, even for a few rounds, but bonding yourself to one, nurturing it, feeding it with the blood of innocents, or having it under your robes, suckling on your own teats. (Like THIS GUY, see 4:55 onwards)


I think clearly, IF the metagame rule of no PVP acts as a mechanical break for the Paladin to not lose his powers, then .. well.. the argument is over.

It goes from griefing to aweosme Rp opportunity- for both sides.

The issue is that without such a break, the paladin gets hosed because someone brings an imp and won't leave it at home.

The wizard's IC Rp behind it, sadly, has no bearing on the issue. he could have saved it from death and maybe the Imp is really leaning towards good. (not hardly, but hey its RP). it doesn't really matter. Until it loses the [evil] tag and the devil/demon sticker its still going to break the paladin for being there.

This isn't an RP issue. This isn't the paladin being a jerk and its not really the Wizard being a jerk. Not on its face.

*one of them* has to leave, or the paladin loses his powers and has to pay for an atonement spell. The Wizard can be the nicest guy on planet earth filled with warm fuzzies and the bestest of intentions with his imp but that doesn't make the Paladin *not* fall if they are in the same group.

Thats why the Oath and the Imp clash so much. Who wins? Who knows. As is currently written, apparently the Imp wins since the paladin can just opt to not sit at that table.

The rules as written currently support *both* characters. *both* are legal. Preferably, *both* can sit at the same table and work together. Right now- they can't.

Pick one:
1) That oath is banned.
2) Imps are banned.
3) Paladin get a break because of the No PVP rule
4) Wizards with imps *must* leave the imp at home when an oathed paladin joins the table.

We need something like this to happen. Any one of them would create a rule so that its not just arbitrary.

The rules *right now* however are like this:
1) Paladin goes home. (uses diff character or literally leaves)
2) Paladin ditches oath.
3) Paladin becomes a warrior, and has to pay to get his powers back.
4) Wizard goes home. (uses diff character, wut evs)
5) Wizard leaves his familiar at home.

My preference? Slip a rule in to give the Oath bound paladin a break. This makes *neither* class option a trap while opening up alot of RP possibility.

*until then* however, the Wizard basically gets to sit there with his middle finger up at the Paladin, despite being the one causing all the trouble. Yanno, with his despicably evil familiar. Did I mention it was evil? I thought so. Just wanted to be sure.

I think the point of this thread isn't for us to beat each other up over who is right or wrong, but rather to gently request that a change be made to the rules to allow for both characters to co-exist without powers being lost and such.

-S

Qadira ****

ok...
has anyone seen this at a PFS table, ever?

Contributor

Any paladin, oathbound or otherwise, needs to have a functioning brain and a little bit of basic theology.

Wizards with imps and quasits are playing with fire, specifically the flames of Hell and the Abyss, especially if they're not evil themselves. Smacking the imp familiar of a wizard is just playing whack-a-mole--you annoy the wizard, but he's going to summon a new one next Tuesday, so you really haven't done much to decrease the evilness of the world.

What you need to be working on, if you're a paladin with a brain, is convincing the wizard that the little fiend only exists to drag him to Hell and he'd be better served by just banishing the damned thing and getting a pseudodragon instead. If he's not nice enough for a pseudodragon to want to associate with, then he should work on becoming a better person.

If you're going to be a member of the Pathfinder Society, you're going to have to be able to deal with comrades you don't like or may even be morally opposed to without going against them and theirs.

Similarly, if you're playing a goblin PC who really and truly believes that 'books is eViLz' and the only good book is a burned book, if there's a wizard in your party, you should be working on the wizard to get him to burn his own books and swear off making any of the damned things again because goblins know that, if you burn a wizard's books, next town you go to, he'll get some paper and start making more. And if you can't kill the wizard, you have to convince him not to make any more evil thought-stealing books.

If the paladin can't be as smart as an illiterate goblin, he's got a severe problem.

Andoran ***** Venture-Lieutenant, California—Fresno aka Sarta

nosig wrote:

ok...

has anyone seen this at a PFS table, ever?

I've seen Pharasman clerics and inquisitors at the same table as an Undead Lord. They felt that the presence of his companion AND the no pvp rule, really strained their ability to play their characters.

It's not as severe as a paladin with such an oath, but both players felt they needed to seek atonement afterward.

In that case, the Pharasmans were out 500 gold, while killing the companion would have merely meant an 8 hour inconvenience.

Grand Lodge ***

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
Selgard wrote:

LazarX:

So in your opinion the Paladin should just ditch his oath rather than the wizard leave his familiar home for that one adventure?

That to me sounds abit unreasonable. Did I miss something about the oaths? Can it be retaken later?

If the paladin can just swear or ditch for the beginning of any given adventure then clearly the arugments I've been making need some adjustment.

-S

1. Yes. again, not every character type fits within the Society. The Society is a subset of Golarion it's not the totality. It's also NOT a Good organisation. This is not the only conundrum that Paladins face. There's the Chelaxians, the Scarzoni, heck even some of the missions the Andoren pursue should give a Paladin pause.

2. Check the text on the Oathbound archetype and read it stem to stern. The Oaths can be changed, they can be abandoned and taken up again. The Oathbound is unique from every other archetype in the game in that it can be modified and taken and set aside.

3. I'm a bit less sure about this bu a Wizard who summons a familliar would have to make level checks on every spell cast if he left it home.

Either way he'd be giving up a good deal more than the Paladin changing his oath.

Contributor

Will Johnson wrote:
nosig wrote:

ok...

has anyone seen this at a PFS table, ever?

I've seen Pharasman clerics and inquisitors at the same table as an Undead Lord. They felt that the presence of his companion AND the no pvp rule, really strained their ability to play their characters.

It's not as severe as a paladin with such an oath, but both players felt they needed to seek atonement afterward.

In that case, the Pharasmans were out 500 gold, while killing the companion would have merely meant an 8 hour inconvenience.

If I were the Pharasman in question, I would submit the bill for the Atonement to the Venture Captain who decided that the two characters would work well together.

And if the Venture Captain didn't pay it, I'd have it reflect badly in his yearly review by the Decemvirate.

This is why they have Venture Captains.

Grand Lodge ***

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
nosig wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
nosig wrote:
Posters are realizing that the EVIL Imp is just as much a problem to a Paladin as the Chaotic Barbarian right? In fact the Barbarian is perhaps more, as the Imp is enslaved and the Barbarian is running around loose.
Actually, we're talking about a specific archetype of paladin who is required to kill evil outsiders if at all possible, or fall.

yeah, sort of. It's kind of derailed though.

I am wondering what to do if I get this archetype in a game, and the party needs to deal with someone (an NPC) from Cheliax. Maybe a Tiefling... or a Sorcerer with a devil in his bloodline.

Goodness, what do we do if we get sent to Cheliax? Is he likely to chop "people" in the street? Normally I worry about the Barbies, the Pallies are usually Lawful.

Hay, what about that? killing someones familiar has got to be against the law in Absalom - does the Palladin "fall" for knowingly brakeing the law? or is it ok to break the law sometimes?

One thing that comes across from reading a lot of the Forgotten Realms novels is that many of the movers and shakers in the Harper community ARE afraid of what Paladins will do because of their tendency to be slow to compromise. They get even more worried when Paladins are gathered in numbers.

The Paladin who chops down an evil person on sight in Absalom doesn't have to worry about falling. He's got to worry about what the Law is going to do to him after he's arrested for cold-blooded murder.

Qadira ****

I have to confess that everytime I look at the heading for this Thread, I read it as "Confessions of a Pre-Medicated Griefer"....

anyone else seeing that?

*

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Matthew Morris wrote:
So which is more disruptive? Making the Paladin change his entire concept, or making the wizard leave one of his class features 'at home' for one adventure?

Devil's Advocate for a moment: What about a Witch? You're not asking this character to leave ONE class feature at home, but most of them.


LazarX:

I did read the Oath class as you suggested, quite thoroughly more than once.

I don't see anywhere that they can just decide to up and abandon their oath. Not only that, only paladin who further swear a more specific oath than the typical Oath bound Paladin is ever done with their oath at all.

From the print:

Spoiler:
Paladins who take up an oath may make a sacred
promise to their god or temple to perform some specif ic
and grand action associated with the oath. For example,
an oathbound paladin who takes the Oath of Vengeance
may be tasked with killing the orc warlord who razed
her home city, while a paladin with the Oath against
the Wyrm may be asked to secure a nonaggression pact
with a family of dragons. When a paladin completes
the sacred promise, the oath is fulf illed, and she may
abandon the oath if she so chooses; she may then select
another oath or become a standard paladin or a different
paladin archetype.

Only those who take up the sacred promise to perform a specific and grand action eventually come to the conclusion of their Oath which then allows them to ditch the ARchtype altogether or select a different generic or more specially specific oath.

The generic Oathbound Paladin with the Anti-Fiend oath can't just drop it because a guy is in the party with a fiend. Rather, he can stay in the party and lose access to all the benefits of the Archtype and have to get an atonement later. Which pretty much means he's out cash and any special powers for the ARchtype (as well as any pretties he exchanged them for). The only benefit at all is that there are only two abilities on the Oath vs Fiends list and they aren't all that terribly impressive. (at least, imo, for what you give up)

Even still though you are talking about someone losing their class powers vs evil, because someone thought it a bright thought to drag an evil being along with their character.

I don't really think either side is going to convince the other. Those who think the Paladin deserves to get hosed for daring to select "anti Fiend" as an archtype and oath aren't going to change their minds.

And those who think the slime sucking evil outsider sitting on the wizard's shoulder is the cause of the problem, aren't going to change their minds either.

Regardless of which side you are on though I think both would agree that
1) Currently, it can't just be handwaived. Paladin w/oath who hangs with the imp is gonna lose his powers.
2) Someone at the table is gonna get hosed, under the current rules.

I just hope the powers that be continue to take notice and resolve the issue for one side or the other, so that neither becomes a problematic game choice for the players.

-S

Andoran *****

Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber
Michael Brock wrote:
I'm watching this post with interest. It is treading the line of falling into uncivil chatter. Please keep the conversations civil. Thanks.

As long as I don't post in this thread it should be fine...

Wait... Damn It!!! ;)

***** Venture-Captain, Indiana—Indianapolis aka Red-Assassin

Why would an Oathbound paladin be in the pathfinder society, sure its fun place to adventure at, but if a character is such a zealot to be forced on a rigid moral path, why not go to Worldwound.

So if an oathbound paladin meets a player who is also a paladin on the same diety but is a Tiefling what would he do. Or could this example be used to show the compassion one would learn from following this diety.

Would working with the society take a higher precedent than an oath, remembering that cooperation is the key tennant. Perhaps we need a new archtype oath of the Grand Lodge.

I am not sure that a Paladin would really care about an imp if a pc is controlling them. It would be like a mosquito, bothersome.

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Captain, Illinois—Decatur aka TwilightKnight

1 person marked this as a favorite.

IMO, any character that has an extremist's views, regardless if that is a LG pallys or necro-voking death priest with evil tendencies. We all voluntarily joined the Pathfinder Society knowing the expectations for cooperation. If your character cannot do that, it is likely you would never have been allowed to join in the first place. I'm all for player options and character variation, but there are limits to what you can do, thematically, in organized play.

****

nosig wrote:

I have to confess that everytime I look at the heading for this Thread, I read it as "Confessions of a Pre-Medicated Griefer"....

anyone else seeing that?

Curse you, for now whenever I look at this thread I will picture imps and paladins in drug induced comas drooling on themselves. Actually, that may be an improvement ;)

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules Subscriber

I've always been leery about the Oath Against ______ options, for some of the same reasons I dislike the Wild Rager: It's a hardline approach to a certain mode of play that forces some ugly issues onto the game and the group.

I love (well-played) paladins, but the Oath Againsts encourage such a absolutist attitude that it becomes nigh-impossible to make certain stories work unless that paladin takes care to carefully keep the oath worded within reason. The "redeeming a fiend" character concept mentioned upthread is one example.

I'm all for protecting paladin players rights to have fun with the group, but it's hard to keep that level of sympathy for options that present a hard "lock-out" for other players(as opposed to the vanilla paladin's softer restrictions), especially in public scene where you'll likely be playing with very varied strangers with very varied characters.

Of course that applies equally to "dark and edgy" characters run by players looking to cause trouble, but I'd rather not assume the worst about players regardless of whether they're bringing a paladin or an undead lord to the table.

In an open campaign such as this, it just seems like it's bad pool to not put a bit of effort into making sure your character is reasonably flexible enough to get along with a wide range of PCs. Paladins are reasonably flexible. Oath Against X types, not so much.

***

I am confused by all the people saying the paladin becomes a warrior if he associates with the devil summoner, did they not read the oathbound paladin archtype?

From Ultimate magic page 60

"If a Paladin violates the code of her oath, she loses the class abilities associated with that oath until she atones. If she violates the Paladin's code she loses her oath abilities as well as her other Paladin abilities"

Quick note as a Oath against Fiends paladin this means you are missing Aura of Resolve and 1 mercy (well actually the 2 class features that oath against fiends gives but lets just pretend its compared to a normal paladin) and some free spells till you atone, hardly the "Paladin instantly becomes a warrior" that some people are claiming, now if you break the paladin oath thats a different matter, although associating with a neutral player with an evil familiar wont cause you to fall instantly I would make sure to frequently seek atonements if its a common team composition.

51 to 100 of 175 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder Society® / General Discussion / "Confessions of a Pre-Meditated Griefer" All Messageboards

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.