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

RPG Superstar 2015

"Confessions of a Pre-Meditated Griefer"


Pathfinder Society® General Discussion

101 to 150 of 175 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge *

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Sorry for my strong opinion on this, but when I GM if this situation happens ...
I'm going to warn the Wizard that in this case he is performing an "evil" act and his alignment is in jeopardy. Going so far as to add a comment to their chronical and submitting a report.

PFS says he can play with an Imp (evil companion) but I haven't found anywhere where it says he is immune from evil alignment changes.

Bringing an evil imp into play with any PFS group is bring an evil imp!

You bring evil, you be evil.

I hope PFS changes this so there won't be evil groups playing in Pathfinder.

I can picture the newspapers writing about a group of six children playing six wizards with their evil companions in Paizo's Pathfinder games. What would the legal ramifcations be?

The imp bringer is the "Pre-Meditated Griefer" here.

**** RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8 , Star Voter 2013

@Kevin

"KAM' wrote:
Any paladin, oathbound or otherwise, needs to have a functioning brain and a little bit of basic theology.

Actually any Paladin except for the Oathbound could do this. The oath is pretty clear.

"Never suffer an evil outsider to live if it is in your power to destroy it." Not, try to get the guy back to the light side. it's clear Kill the imp if it's in your power.

The question is does the PVP exist in the game world to take killing the little devil "out of her power?"

@Will

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

I understand this. Personal experience, I picked up Infernal Healing for my Magus, then thought about the spell and realized it's not something my Neutral Good character would ever use, no matter how useful. It's a minor thing, easily fixed by buying another first level spell, but it's still an ethics thing. (Though billing the VC idea is funny)

@Chris Johnson
I keep forgetting that Witches' spellbooks are their familiars. All the more reason for a resolution to the issue.

@Chris Bonnet
Why would a wizard with an imp be in the pathfinder society?,
Sure its fun place to adventure at, but if a character is eager to summon and bond with Devils, why not go to Cheliax? Hypotheticals like this question do not matter as both types are (currently) allowed.

The same goes in general for the "Why do Paladins go on trips with the society, they're not a good group?" There's specifically a 'Paladins R Us' faction and they're not a purely evil group, so why are folks with imps running around.

* Dedicated Voter 2013, Marathon Voter 2014

Thom Riccio, wrote:


I'm going to warn the Wizard that in this case he is performing an "evil" act and his alignment is in jeopardy. Going so far as to add a comment to their chronical and submitting a report.

PFS says he can play with an Imp (evil companion) but I haven't found anywhere where it says he is immune from evil alignment changes.
Bringing an evil imp into play with any PFS group is bring an evil imp!

Unfortunately, in PFS, even the DM is bound by rule of law. That law being the guide to organized play.

Whatever your personal beliefs about the opportunity to have your character consort with evil while playing the game, it is absolutely not appropriate to ding a player for alignment for anything short of essentially kicking a bag full of half-celestial puppies. Having a low-ranking fiend in your service is not "wantonly evil".

I really hope that Mike and the Venture officers would not uphold such a petty alignment infraction were it to happen.

Thom Ricco wrote:

I hope PFS changes this so there won't be evil groups playing in Pathfinder.

There already aren't. The hypothetical wizard is LN.

Thom Ricco wrote:
I can picture the newspapers writing about a group of six children playing six wizards with their evil companions in Paizo's Pathfinder games. What would the legal ramifcations be?

Seriously? What do you think this is, the 80's?

Grand Lodge ***

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

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.

Relevant text follows.

Paladins who take up an oath may make a sacred promise to their god or temple to perform some specific 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 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.

The answer is you don't take up an Oath unless you need to.

Grand Lodge ***

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


The same goes in general for the "Why do Paladins go on trips with the society, they're not a good group?" There's specifically a 'Paladins R Us' faction and they're not a purely evil group, so why are folks with imps running around.

The Shining Crusade may be a "goody goody" group, but they are hardly a "Paladin's rules only" crowd.

Grand Lodge *

Saint Caleth wrote:

Unfortunately, in PFS, even the DM is bound by rule of law. That law being the guide to organized play.

...stuff...
I really hope that Mike and the Venture officers would not uphold such a petty alignment infraction were it to happen.

Thank you Saint Caleth, I just re-read both the Core and Guide on this. It is clear that there is "lee-way" for a GM on alignment issues but that both of our opinions are RAW & RAI.

If this were a petty alignment infraction there wouldn't be such a large response to it on these boards.
Looking at this problem from a defensible position for Paizo, Mike and the VCs, which position is easier or better to defend in a public media debate, eliminate the evil imp or the L/G pally? It makes no difference what year it is.
Saint Caleth wrote:
The hypothetical wizard is LN.

A character who continuously calls an evil demon to Golarion to do his/her bidding, is committing an evil act, but not an act that would change their alignment. According to the Guide "Characters who become wantonly evil, whose actions are deliberate and without motive or provocation, are retired from the campaign." So 2 of the three aspects have to be present.

Bringing an evil imp is definitely a deliberate act.
Bringing an evil imp does have a motive, it is a character ability.
Bringing an evil imp does provoke other characters.

If this did come up, if another player was provoked and I raised the issue, if the finding came back saying I was wrong, I really have no problem with Paizo making that call. I will accept and enforce their ruling.

**** RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8 , Star Voter 2013

LazarX wrote:

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.

The answer is you don't take up an Oath unless you need to.

And you don't get an imp unless you choose to.

Plus it says "When the oath is fulfilled they abandon the oath." So how is it that "going on an adventure with a guy with an imp in his pocket" fulfills the oath?

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32 , Marathon Voter 2013, Dedicated Voter 2014

Thom Riccio, wrote:

According to the Guide "Characters who become wantonly evil, whose actions are deliberate and without motive or provocation, are retired from the campaign." So 2 of the three aspects have to be present.

Bringing an evil imp is definitely a deliberate act.
Bringing an evil imp does have a motive, it is a character ability.
Bringing an evil imp does provoke other characters.

The "without provocation" clause is talking about whether or not something provoked the action, not whether or not the action provoked someone else.

Grand Lodge ***

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
Matthew Morris wrote:
LazarX wrote:

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.

The answer is you don't take up an Oath unless you need to.

And you don't get an imp unless you choose to.

Plus it says "When the oath is fulfilled they abandon the oath." So how is it that "going on an adventure with a guy with an imp in his pocket" fulfills the oath?

I'm going to say this one more time and then I'm done with this. The Paladin as usual is the problem because he's chosen to define themselves in the terms of fanaticism. Fanatics have a general problem with working with others. The agreement you make with joining the Society is that Working with your fellow Society members overrides ALL other considerations when you are together on a Society mission. The Wizard is not the problem because he's not asking anyone else to change their behavior. The Paladin is because he's neglecting the concord he made when he joined the Society.

The player paladin has the following choice. Either redefine his character to better fit within an overall neutral organization, or accept the fact that he's going be benched now and then, as a result of his general intolerance.

To play a Paladin properly within the confines of the Pathfinder Society means very much that you have to adopt the mindset of the old Grey Guard Paladin model in 3.5. That you're going to bend the rules in pursuit of a greater good. The Paladin's challenge is to find that greater good in the midst of a very complicated and politically charged semi-secret society.

**** RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8 , Star Voter 2013

Lazar,

So your solution is "Ignore the parts that are inconvient to the legally allowed class." Got it.

Might I propose then that we just "Ignore the part of the Improved Familiar feat that allows you to summon an imp." After all, summoning an imp is going to cause conflict with most good characters and the wizard/witch agreed to work with your fellow society members overriding ALL other considerations when you are together on a society mission. At 7th level, the Wizard/Witch neglected the concord he made when he joined the society by picking such a divisive character.

Sczarni *** Venture-Lieutenant, Connecticut—Manchester aka Cpt_kirstov

I would like to see the Oath Bound Paladin play Eyes of the Ten arc....

Paizo Employee ***** Global Organized Play Coordinator

Cpt_kirstov wrote:
I would like to see the Oath Bound Paladin play Eyes of the Ten arc....

I would love to GM that game!

The Exchange ****

I'm still wondering if this has EVER come up in a PFS game?

Anyone running an Oath Bound Paladin sat down at a table with another PC with an Imp familiar?

Or is this just the corner case where several people want to be a "Pre-Medicated Griefer"? Does this mean people are now going to rush out and build the above character types?

Grand Lodge ***

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

Lazar,

So your solution is "Ignore the parts that are inconvient to the legally allowed class." Got it.

Might I propose then that we just "Ignore the part of the Improved Familiar feat that allows you to summon an imp." After all, summoning an imp is going to cause conflict with most good characters and the wizard/witch agreed to work with your fellow society members overriding ALL other considerations when you are together on a society mission. At 7th level, the Wizard/Witch neglected the concord he made when he joined the society by picking such a divisive character.

The Wizard however is not being divisive. He's not evil, he's not making a choice that mandates who he travels with. He's not molesting anyone else's choices or threatening their companions.

It's also been made abundantly clear in the Campaign Guidelines, that the campaign is not going to be equally friendly to all legal character options, especially fanatic Paladins. Players should be reading the guidelines and making informed decisions. If a Paladin set himself up as Scarzoni faction, he's going to have problems doing some of those missions.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32 , Marathon Voter 2013, Dedicated Voter 2014

1 person marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
The Wizard however is ... not making a choice that mandates who he travels with.

Yes he is.

If A and B each make a choice, and the combination of their choices doesn't work, it's no more one A's fault than B's (or vice versa).

They each made a choice, and if either's choice had been different, there wouldn't be an issue.

The issue is the result of BOTH players' choices getting combined, not because of one or the other alone.

You're just playing favorites.

Grand Lodge ***

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
Jiggy wrote:
LazarX wrote:
The Wizard however is ... not making a choice that mandates who he travels with.

Yes he is.

If A and B each make a choice, and the combination of their choices doesn't work, it's no more one A's fault than B's (or vice versa).

They each made a choice, and if either's choice had been different, there wouldn't be an issue.

The issue is the result of BOTH players' choices getting combined, not because of one or the other alone.

You're just playing favorites.

When issues like this comes up, it's always the Paladin that's the complicating factor. He's the class that "I can't tolerate so and so, I must kill so and so, Or he's coming off like a Judge Dredd knockoff. You seem to think that there is some form of equivalent symmetry of blame here, but it's not. The Paladin class is by far the one that has the most potential to be disruptive to party unity so the onus is on the Paladin player to make his character choices in mind.

In a home campaign, a Paladin player will have an idea of who he's playing with. In PFS, it's an implied assumption that you have to be willing to play with ANYBODY. Not that their choices should be hostage to your precious restrictions. The Paladin made his bed by choosing to be an especially fanatic and inflexible form of Paladin. He can go lie in it.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32 , Marathon Voter 2013, Dedicated Voter 2014

LazarX wrote:
When issues like this comes up, it's always the Paladin that's the complicating factor.

If that were true, then removing the Imp wouldn't solve the problem, because "the complicatiing factor" would still be present.

Except removing the Imp does remove the problem, therefore the issue can't be just the paladin.

If removing either of two things (when both are optional) eliminates the problem, then you can't rationally claim that only one of those two things is at fault.

There's not a problem until both are present.

Grand Lodge ***

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
Jiggy wrote:
LazarX wrote:
When issues like this comes up, it's always the Paladin that's the complicating factor.

If that were true, then removing the Imp wouldn't solve the problem, because "the complicatiing factor" would still be present.

Except removing the Imp does remove the problem, therefore the issue can't be just the paladin.

If removing either of two things (when both are optional) eliminates the problem, then you can't rationally claim that only one of those two things is at fault.

There's not a problem until both are present.

No it won't be the only issue. What about necromancers, or Chelaxians for that matter? Paladins generally find lots of things to take offense with. And again. the Wizard does not impose any restrictions on anyone else, the problem is entirely from the Paladin's angle.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32 , Marathon Voter 2013, Dedicated Voter 2014

LazarX wrote:
No it won't be the only issue. What about necromancers, or Chelaxians for that matter? Paladins generally find lots of things to take offense with.

To be clear, I was only talking about the Oath Against Fiends paladin and the Imp Familiar wizard.

Quote:
And again. the Wizard does not impose any restrictions on anyone else, the problem is entirely from the Paladin's angle.

"If you play with an Imp familiar, there will be friction" and "If you play with an Oath Against Fiends, there will be friction" are the same thing.

Shadow Lodge ***** Venture-Captain, Washington—Eastern Washington , Star Voter 2013, Dedicated Voter 2014 aka WalterGM

Just wanted to say that I'm bowing out of commenting further in this thread, as I'm questioning whether or not it's actually going places. Some things have been said here that I really disagree with, and when two people's opinions are so drastically apart .. well, it's like a paladin adventuring with an imp: I could do it if I had to, but I don't have to so I won't. ;)

Grand Lodge *

WalterGM wrote:
deleted stuff ".. well, it's like a paladin adventuring with an imp:";)

Do you mean a multiclass Pally/Wiz with an imp? LOL

1) Calls imp,
2) banishes imp,
3) repeat

Spends the whole game completeing his "oath" to banish the imp over and over and over LOL

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Cards, Companion, Maps, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
WalterGM wrote:
Just wanted to say that I'm bowing out of commenting further in this thread, as I'm questioning whether or not it's actually going places. Some things have been said here that I really disagree with, and when two people's opinions are so drastically apart .. well, it's like a paladin adventuring with an imp: I could do it if I had to, but I don't have to so I won't. ;)

For the record, I'm fine with several of the suggestions you made, and wouldn't consider you a problem player.

It's the ones who feel they have a right to sit with their middle finger up at everyone else, while playing an evil character, under the loophole of "Yeah, well it says LN on my sheet, so you can all suck it', that Team Paladin have a problem with.


You know this thread and all like it could be avioded if they could just say that the process of binding the imp to your will forces it to C/N.


Regardless of what the two conflicting classes may be, in a home game the GM would know better than to let them adventure together. But this is an organized play campaign and the scenarios cannot have exceptions or restrictions written into them to deal with every situation, though what idiot in-game venture captain would try to team up two characters that would have such a conflict in the first place? I think the Guide needs a rule written into it, so that players cannot dispute a GMs decision, that allows a GM to require the players of the conflicting characters to both choose something else to play. The only issue would be if one of the players did not have any other level-eligible characters to use.

Paizo Employee ***** Global Organized Play Coordinator

7 people marked this as a favorite.

Instead of a new rule, I prefer to have the two players and GM handle it like adults and work it out among themselves. It is, after all, a game that everyone wants to enjoy.

**** RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8 , Star Voter 2013

Michael Brock wrote:
Instead of a new rule, I prefer to have the two players and GM handle it like adults and work it out among themselves. It is, after all, a game that everyone wants to enjoy.

In an ideal world all of us would feel that way (Except Lazar*). Also in an ideal world, if the Paladin stepped aside one week, and the next session both players showed up with the same characters I'd expect the wizard to make the imp stay at home.

"But what if the wizard is a witch?" "Sucks to be her."

I'm all for banning imps, personally ;-)

*

Spoiler:
I kid! I kid!

Dark Archive **

I play 10th lvl Chelaxian Diabolist who has had an imp companion since level 6 (not easy but doable). I have considered hiding the fact that I have an Imp with me from the party when there is a paladin type present, via Invisibility, but choose not to do so for what I think is a very good reason. If suddenly the Imp's invisibility is blown I do not want the Pally to think the Imp is not with me, and therefor fair game, and smite it back to hell. I want to avoid plausible deniability on the Paladin's part.

I have played with multiple paladins, and so far have had no issues other than the pally asking that I keep the little devil away from them, which I gladly do. I even exclude them from his telepathic conversations. But if there was an issue a table I sat at I would prefer to settle it via RP with the venture captain. "No Venture Captain, I have no problem accepting this mission and your choice of adventuring companions to help assure its success. What about you, Sir Perplexed?"

Scarab Sages *

deusvult wrote:


Oath Against Fiends' 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

If I'm playing a paladin (which my current character will be multi-classing into) and a devil parks in front of me, it's going to take a whole lot more than an upset hedge mage to keep me from killing it.

To do any less would be ignoring the very heart and soul of what a paladin is. The choice is not about convieniance or being pragmatic, it is about fulfilling your characters purpose, the very core of who and what he is. Anything less and your just wearing a mask of rightousness to justify actions taken to serve your own self-interests.

The wizard made a deliberate choice to bind a devil for the easy power it provided. That choice has consequences...evil will not be tolerated by those who uphold the light.

Paizo Employee ***** Global Organized Play Coordinator

So, if you are a paladin in the Andoran faction, do you try to free every slave you come across, even where slavery is legal?


Well, it seems that as written, the paladin has to kill the imp or lose their paladin powers. Maybe a better option would be to put the Oathbound Paladin (or the offending oaths) and Evil companions, familiars, etc. on the list of material not useable in PFS. It seems to me that if you have some meta-game rules that encourage cooperative play and rules against PVP, that you shouldn't include character options/rules that discourage cooperative play and allow situations where PVP is the only non-crippling option available.

I realize that this type of common-sense solution may be considered extreme, but I hope those involved might take the time to give it proper consideration.

The Exchange ***** RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

Caedwyr wrote:
Well, it seems that as written, the paladin has to kill the imp or lose their paladin powers.

Look again. Acting with temperance towards your Lawful Neutral ally will cost your paladin only those powers granted by the Oath itself, not the more general class abilities.


A paladin of the andoran faction would try to free slaves where he could and was able, and would definately RP angst about not being able to.

A paladin who is of the Oathed archtype with an active oath though loses some powers for doing so an incurs the cost of the Atonement.

Granted its not "all their powers" like I first thought it was, but its still some of their powers and their gold for the atonement.

I'm all for the players trading off for multiple scenarios run and all that. But when they both show up for 1 game I'm against it automatically being the good guy's fault that the evil guy brought evil to the table and gets to sit there with his middle finger high in the air sayin neener.

The guy who chose evil should be the one made to swap characters or leave their class abilities at home, not the guy who chose good.

As the rules currently sit- its the other way around. Evil wins because the rules prevent the good guy from laying the smack down on the evil guy. Thats just not right.

As for rules changes I'd much prefer that the imp be made Neutral in the binding process or that the Paladin be allowed to group with them despite the oath- assuming the wizard/witch in question kept the imp in line or.. really anything to alter the current state of the rules that just says "sorry Paladin, swap characters, leave the table, or start ditching class abilities, the evil guy wins"

Acting with temperance towards your evil ally means you lose your powers. I've seen this tossed around a good bit, and I have to say its sort of like a chicken bone stuck in my throat. Folks want people to RP but when it comes to this they want the paladin to ditch his RP and just say "well ok mr wizard, I'll lose my class abilities for you. Oh yeah, and some of my gold so I can try to get them back later, No prob, yo."
A normal paladin could stay in the group, but the Oathbound one can't. he can't just "be nice" and "get along" There is no "temperance" to be had here. His choice is a toggle not a sliding scale. he either 1) Smites the evil demon/devil until it is dead. or he 2) loses his powers associated with that oath. Thats it. Good Rp doesn't get him out of that. That absolute best hands down 100% grade A RP anyone's ever done on Earth ever since RPG's were created doesn't get him out of what the rules say happens if he doesn't follow that oath. He either follows it, or he doesn't. It isn't an RP issue. It isn't a lawful stupid or bad paladin player issue.

Its an issue that is created due to the rules allowing one person to create someone who hates evil outsiders so much that he gains powers to slay them, while allowing another person to bring an evil outsider to the table as their playtoy.
The Paladin can Rp all he wants. He either kills the imp or he loses his powers.
And he can't kill the imp. The meta-rule prevents it. So the paladin auto-loses his powers just by being at the table with the Imp.

-That- is the problem.
And it needs to be remedied, preferably by something other than "The paladin has to leave the table" or "the witch can't use their spellbook for this adventure" or "the paladin has to suck up the cost of the atonement and loses those abilities for this scenario".

No other class combination has this issue. All other issues can be handled by 'don't be a jerk' and people RPing (or not RP'ing) their classes in ways so as to not antagonize others.

This can't be. It is a mechanical prohibition.

Please fix it.

Pretty please? :)

-S

Scarab Sages

Michael Brock wrote:
So, if you are a paladin in the Andoran faction, do you try to free every slave you come across, even where slavery is legal?

Well ... okay. I guess I will concede that this is a valid point. Before I will address the question, I want to say - Snarky much, Mr. Brock? I wouldn't expect you to be the one subtly trolling the forums.

Nevertheless, your point is a valid one. Though the question was not asked of me, I want to answer it. No, I would expect as a player of a paladin that I wouldn't be able to confront every evil tha tI see occur, because it isn't always within my power to do so. Especially in a land in which slavery is legal. Nor would I want to try to go into Cheliax to slay a single imp. It wouldn't be prudent. Not at this juncture. <impish grin>
But, by the same token, I wouldn't accept a member of my own adventuring party to be participating in the slave trade. And if they were, I think that there should certainly be a roleplaying opportunity in which my paladin gets to address the issue within the concepts which he is designed by. Which is to say, a paladin has a code, and I would get to RP that.

It seems to me that paladins are nearly always decried because they play by a code, as written in the rulebook. I'm an in no way justifying players of paladins being jerks about it at the table. That is as odious as any other player doing so. The problem that I have is the objection that paladins are outright wrong, whilst summoners are bonding devils to their soul and not being called evil characters. If it's going to be made an issue, it needs to be addressed across the board. If they're allowed to play with Ultimate [Evil] then I am allowed to play with Ultimate [Good] ... and not be driven away from a table for it. It's nice for the developers to say it in practice (and I agree with it) that we should all just be able to have a great RP story out of it, with a little fun contention and character development, but, if that's not the way it happens and players drive away paladins from their tables ... then *something* needs to be adressed.

Scarab Sages

nosig wrote:
I'm still wondering if this has EVER come up in a PFS game?

Nosig ... I can't say that I have ever actually played an Oath Bound Paladin in PFS, or for that matter, a paladin in PFS - though it is certainly my favorite class.

The reason for this is because when I was playing in the PFS before I moved, it was made perfectly clear by the organizing DM in the area - when there was essentially no other open PFS-OP games being played - that paladins were not acceptable withint he context of the games he organized. Mind you, these were open game day held at an area college. Apparently, he felt it wasn't appropriate for play, he didn't like them, whatever, and so he made it abundantly clear that he'd never seat a paladin at a table.

And the reasons given were the ones being summarized in this thread. Paladins are awful/bad/wrong/nofun to have around. And so, the prospective new player was penalized. Never saw a single paladin ever played in that area in four years. Not one. So ... no, I've never had it happen to me, because it wasn't ever allowed to happen.

Off topic mention of other thread:
Which is why in the "Banned Class" thread I so vehemently opposed it being even implied that Paizo will support a DM who chooses to not allow a player to play any class they choose. (Which is what the majority of readers got out of the "official" statement made there.)

Grand Lodge ****

It happened in one of my Lodge games a couple of weeks ago, sort of.The OP who asked the original question was playing an oath bound paladin, and the scenario involves an imp that the party managed to capture. The paladin wanted to know if he was allowed to accept the surrender due to his oath, or if he was forced to slay it and thus upset the owner of the imp who was NOT a PC, but a very important NPC. It was the first time I came across the issue, and I ruled that since the rest of the group wanted the imp alive, and that their only resort would be PVP to stop him, he shouldn't slay the imp. I also ruled he didn't lose his power over it.

Really, while there is a mechanical problem, the GM should be able to resolve this between players. If you are going to strip a paladin of his powers for being a team player instead of a zealot, you may be on the wrong side of Rule Zero.

Paizo Employee ***** Global Organized Play Coordinator

W. Kristoph Nolen wrote:
Michael Brock wrote:
So, if you are a paladin in the Andoran faction, do you try to free every slave you come across, even where slavery is legal?

Well ... okay. I guess I will concede that this is a valid point. Before I will address the question, I want to say - Snarky much, Mr. Brock? I wouldn't expect you to be the one subtly trolling the forums.

...

I apologize if it came across like that to you. It certainly wasn't my intent. I meant nothing snarky or trolling about it. I was interested in hearing thoughts since slaying the imp in this situation is very similar to an Andoran paladin facing going into an area full of slaves on a mission. I could also use the example of going into Rahdoum and having to hide your faith. What paladin would conceal their holy symbol of the god they venerate and not proselytize to the common people? There are several examples I could provide.

My own paladin of the Andoran faction faced that very situation. It was a serious question. Just as a paladin can't go around slaying every evil in the world, the same applies with a paladin not being able to free every slave out there.

Scarab Sages

Michael Brock wrote:
I apologize if it came across like that to you. It certainly wasn't my intent. I meant nothing snarky or trolling about it.

Aw, man! Here I was thinking that I could play like Jiggy, and Dragonmoon, and Kyle, and all the other cool kids.

Mike ... while there is the truth that every joke has a bit of cruel truth buried within it, I was largely teasing. It was mostly poking a little fun at the title of the thread. Yes, your remark could be read as snarky, but, only were one trying to read it that way.
I am very happy with the job that you do, and your presence on the boards ...
I guess I've got big sabatons to fill if I'm gonna tease like the big boys do. <grin>

Scarab Sages *****

Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber
W. Kristoph Nolen wrote:
Aw, man! Here I was thinking that I could play like Jiggy, and Dragonmoon, and Kyle, and all the other cool kids.

You forgot the ;)...

And it is Dragnmoon!!! ;)

*

1 person marked this as a favorite.

From a purely RP perspective, the concept of a paladin conducting a cold war against a fiend for the soul of a wizard/mage/summoner seems pretty damn awesome to -me-.

Liberty's Edge

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

Actually, let's look the rules for a normal paladin:

PRD wrote:
Associates: While she may adventure with good or neutral allies, a paladin avoids working with evil characters or with anyone who consistently offends her moral code. Under exceptional circumstances, a paladin can ally with evil associates, but only to defeat what she believes to be a greater evil. A paladin should seek an atonement spell periodically during such an unusual alliance, and should end the alliance immediately should she feel it is doing more harm than good. A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good.

1) a imp is a evil creature

2) the paladin is associating with him
3) standard pathfinder missions are hardly "defeating a greater evil" than a devil or demon. Generally they are different shades of grey from what have seen.
4) even if he was defeating a greater evil the paladin would need to "seek an atonement spell periodically during such an unusual alliance".

So my opinion is that bringing a evil outsiders as a familiar in a a pathfinder group is saying "no paladin allowed in my group" and playing the PvP card in a pre-emptive way.
As a minimum effect you are damaging the paladin resources a he would need to spend them to get an atonement spell at the end of the game session. one of the reason to have a "no evil alignment" rule is to avoid this kind of problem, bringing a blatantly evil familiar to the game is a way to break this rule wile trying to play the innocent card.

My opinion is hat evil outsiders familiars should be banned from organized play.

***

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I hardly think a Paladin would go on a quest with an imp that doesnt meet the "but only to defeat what she believes to be a greater evil" because honestly if you as a Paladin dont believe the quest is important why are you even going on it?

Yes atonement would be required for consistant association (such as multiple scenarios in a row) although the ambiguity on time spent between missions could mean you can consider each scenario seperated by sufficient time that the association is merely casual rather than a home games enforced consistancy.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Let's break down what you are saying, or at least what I am getting from your post, and see how you think it should work:

"I hardly think a Paladin would go on a quest with an imp that doesnt meet the "but only to defeat what she believes to be a greater evil" because honestly if you as a Paladin dont believe the quest is important why are you even going on it?"

1) A paladin will not go on a quest with an imp unless the goal is to defeat a greater evil - Agreed

Corollary: the guy with the imp familiar is saying "no paladin when I am playing unless we are going to save the world from great evils".

2) "if you as a Paladin dont believe the quest is important why are you even going on it?" - So you are saying that paladins can go only to important quests? They should dismiss mundane requests because they are beneath them? - I disagree

"Yes atonement would be required for consistant association (such as multiple scenarios in a row) although the ambiguity on time spent between missions could mean you can consider each scenario seperated by sufficient time that the association is merely casual rather than a home games enforced consistancy."

No, that is not the rule (and the paladin code of conduct is a rule). The rule say: "A paladin should seek an atonement spell periodically during such an unusual alliance, and should end the alliance immediately should she feel it is doing more harm than good.". From the text he is immediately guilty from association and in need of an atonement. He will not lose immediately his powers, but the need to seek an atonement spell is a requirement that happen as soon as he accept to associate with an evil creature.
Hand waving the requirement with the excuse of "he can stay away from evil long enough that the stain will disappear" is not valid for a paladin.

The problem with the imp and similar familiars is that they are evil outsiders and associating, even briefly, with them will require an atonement from a paladin.

The situation is strongly asymmetrical and that is the reason why I feel that the best solution is to remove the evil outsiders familiars from Society play:
- on one side we have a whole class that will be damaged every time one of those familiar is present in a group
- on the other side we have a familiar that is one (arguably the strongest) of several potentials choices from a single feat.

Removing two (imp and quasit) of the feat options seem less problematic than requiring a atonement from every paladin every time one of these creatures is present in a group and some feeble excuse about all the Society mission being "world saving" quests.

***

Its true all society missions arent world saving quests, but one would hope that by level 7 (imp familiar level) that the majority of the quests your paladin would be going on would be in some shape way or form considered for the greater good. Considering the number of powerful evil aligned creatures in higher level scenarios I have no problems saying that by going along on the mission im helping reduce the influence of evil on the world.

Honestly though imp familiars and paladins in the same party dont come up enough to effect the majority of players, if I felt it would be a problem for my Paladin (which in my consideration would only be under repeated exposure to said familiar not a single session), I would either pay for atonement or refuse to travel with them, but as the Paladin its my choice to do so as I made the choice to play a character with a restricted code of conduct.

Playing a Paladin is not a decision to be entered into lightly, however the fun of being a holy warrior who fights for the greater good definately has its benefits.

I mean if your consistantly playing with the same people yes paladin + imp = bad combination but then if your always playing together why would your teams arcane pick an imp familiar anyway?

If its a one of con game, either play the paladin and ignore the imp completely, play a different character, or just bow out if you feel its not something you can reconcile for your character. If you feel at the end of the session that you didnt achieve enough for the cause of good then you seek atonement afterwards.

So far my Paladin has never used detect evil (I use it as a move action against a single hostile target that I plan to smite), everyone looks at their Paladins abilities in a different way, my Paladin would never use detect evil against a creature that isnt attacking him or a "friendly" target as he feels using it without a just cause would be a small breach of trust between him and the person he uses it on. Although it mechanically would have no effect RP-wise I have never been able to reconcile detect spamming Paladins but thats just me and not something I would enforce on another player.

Even if you removed those two options you would still have to worry about summons with the fiendish subtypes, spells with Evil descriptors, recieving missions from evil NPCs (im sure it happens in PFS) and many more possible issues for the Paladin, its why when you pick the class you have to understand that alot of your costs will be for atonement spells.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

... Alright. Even I can see the possibility that no one is going to change their mind here.
But even as a player of a paladin, I would have to agree that the goals of Pathfinder missions are often a Greater Evil than an Imp. Even considering that a familiar has greater HD.than a typical Imp and is far more powerful.

But, in the interest of the request by the hierarchy to all play together and have fun, I'm going to offer a compromise. It was jokingly suggested earlier, far upthread but, I've liked the idea since it was mentioned. ...

How would all of the paladins out there (or their advocates in this thread) feel if atonement were offered by the Venture Captain giving them the mission? In this one specific, solitary, and isolated instance, it could be offered to alleviate the problem. That way we could all have fun, and maybe still RP the "cold war against a fiend" without mechanics getting in the way.

My opinion is that imps and quasits should not be legal because they are [evil], but this seems a reasonable compromise. ... So let's all click on FAQ in the corner of this post to let Mike know when he comes into the office this morning that we all found a solution to our problem. Here ... I'll start. <click>

Paizo Employee ***** Global Organized Play Coordinator

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't wait to get to the office to read the message board. I start with my morning coffee :-)

Scarab Sages

AH-hahahahahahahahaha!
Dude, it's five in the morning in Seattle. Go snuggle your wife/girlfriend or something! ;-)
Seriously ... Thank you for the dedication, though, Mike.

Paizo Employee ***** Global Organized Play Coordinator

I've been up for an hour typing up notes for the faction mission meeting later today :-p (It also doesn't hurt that the Mariners are playing the As live right now in Tokyo. Bottom of the 9th, tied 1-1).

***** Venture-Lieutenant, Arizona—Tucson aka Sir_Wulf

In some ways, a paladin in the Society is faced with dilemmas similar to those a police officer deals with in real life. His oaths declare that he will oppose evil and protect good with all his ability, but sometimes he is forced to deal with situations that he can't address. Hopefully, good will overcome evil in the end, but he has to work within the rules he agreed to follow.


W. Kristoph Nolen wrote:
How would all of the paladins out there (or their advocates in this thread) feel if atonement were offered by the Venture Captain giving them the mission?

It's better than nothing. I could see a Paladin being angsty at having to do so, even though it cost him nothing.

I would prefer just having familiars share the alignment of their master, like Eidolons do.

** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

If a paladin swears two mutually incompatible oaths (kill all devils, agree to consort with devils if my VC tells me to) and puts himself in a catch 22 situation, then it's his own silly fault really. That's a perfect candidate for Int 7, Wis 7...

101 to 150 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.