|
I have a boon that allows me to play a Nagaji PC, and with the STR and CHA bonuses I chose to play a Paladin. The race has a feat available that allows spitting of poison as an attack. Is this really against the code of conduct for a Paladin of this race? It doesn't seem like a natural attack form should be considered so. What is the official rule, and what do you think it should be in this case?
|
I am not a developer, but I would assume that this feat and its use fall into the same case as regular poison. If it were me, I would strongly suggest on NOT taking the feat for the spitting poison as a Paladin, as BEST case scenario, you will encounter table variance. In my own personal view, poison is poison and it's against the paladin code to use them.
Paladins are usually feat-starved as it is.
|
"I am playing a human paladin. I have taken a feat to give me a improved natural attack in the form of a punch or forceful kick. I am worried that using this human punch or kick on an opponent is against my code of conduct."
It's fine. Any GM who says that a nagaji spitting poison is an evil act needs to take a course in cultural relativism.
|
"I am playing a human paladin. I have taken a feat to give me a improved natural attack in the form of a punch or forceful kick. I am worried that using this human punch or kick on an opponent is against my code of conduct."
It's fine. Any GM who says that a nagaji spitting poison is an evil act needs to take a course in cultural relativism.
Just because it is against the Paladin Code doesn't make it evil. Paladins are restricted from doing things that aren't even close to being evil.
No, you can't use the spitting poison feat of the Nagaji if you are a Paladin.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ugh, curse you paladin code.
One annoying paragraph that's responsible for half the threads on the Paizo forums.
*shakes his atrophied fiendish tyrannosaurus claws*
Interestingly enough, in civilized, democratic present day society, our police officers are allowed to pack cans of mace, to blind and subdue criminals without bloodshed.
But in barbarous, do-or-die fantasy medieval Europe Golarion, a Nagaji paladin spitting his own poison that blinds and subdues suspected criminals is deemed against the code. That's one win for lawful stupid.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Good backstory. A power that he has that he can't come to terms with.
Plus as a dark hero it would be great at high tier if that one abilibity that cost him his paladinhood ended up saving a party.
He could still use the ability but it will cost him an attonement.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Benefit: As a full-round action, you can spit poison up to 10 feet as a ranged touch attack. If you hit, the target must make a successful Fortitude save or be blinded for 1d6 rounds. The DC of this save is equal to 10 + 1/2 your total Hit Dice + your Constitution modifier. You can use this ability once per day plus one additional time per day for every three Hit Dice you have.
Not allowing the use of a nonlethal ability like this does, in my mind, fall into the category of lawful stupid. "I can hack this guy apart with my holy avenger, or I can blind him and tell him to surrender. Oh, nope, spitting would offend my god's sensibilities, so it's hacking time for you!"
I'd allow it but would point out to the Paladin that attacking a foe so disadvantaged (or allowing other party members to do so) might be dishonorable. So, once blinded, the Paladin may have to switch to disarm, trip and grapple attacks.
GMs who feel really constrained by that part of the code could substitute it for something else. In my opinion, a paladin of one god should not have to follow exactly the same code as that of another. The point is that they have *a code*, not a singular, monolithic code. Jmo; ymmv.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
SnowHeart, you're in the Pathfinder Society Organized Play section of the boards. Your suggestion makes perfect sense for certain home campaigns.
The table judge in a PFS scenario, however, isn't allowed to modify the PC's paladin code.
--+--
Regarding "lawful stupid": if a Code of Conduct always enforced the best, most prudent activity, there wouldn't be much point to it, would there?
...
Doh!!!! Apologies. Link came up on the side and conversation was interesting. You're right. For pathfinder society I'd have to agree; no. Doesn't mean it makes sense, but I think that's the appropriate reading of the rules as written. Even though it's nonlethal, it's still poison. (Homer voice: "Stupid gods.")
|
|
I see the section in the CRB that lists this as a dishonorable act.
But I question whether that would really be in the code for a race that can naturally spit poison (and one that was introduced after the CRB).
Perhaps they would normally use it for hunting lesser creatures or on any opponent they had justification to kill (evil enemies, life or death self-defense).
I don't see this as more dishonorable than making any other lethal attack in combat (it isn't even lethal, only temporarily blinds). If you're a reptilian creature and you're fighting to kill something, I don't see having a code against using your racial abilities.
At a cost of 3000 GP or 8 PP for paladin atonement, I don't think I'd take the risk of a GM ruling this as dishonorable. But if the LG nagas that nagaji revere spit poison, I find it difficult to accept that a nagaji character would find the act to be dishonorable. Seems like it would be a culturally acceptable (and perhaps enviable) attack form.
On a related note, would use of the Hypnotic Gaze racial trait be considered dishonorable? Would the use of spell-like abilities in encounters or combat be considered "cheating"? Where do you draw the line on what is "honorable" to opponents? Should the paladin have to ask permission each time he's going to use detect evil? Otherwise he'd get an unfair advantage of knowing who he can affect with smite evil, before the opponents could object to being scanned. Can a paladin not use bluff to make a feint in combat (is that as bad as lying?)
Overall I don't think any available skill, feat, ability or weapon should be considered dishonorable always, everywhere for everyone. It ought to depend upon the specific circumstances when the action is taken. Using lethal force against a defenseless townsperson is different from using it in self defense or in a military skirmish on a battlefield. An exact definition of honor for OP situations is probably not something we'll see in any rulebook or the FAQ - which will make things interesting when my paladin faces some moral dilemmas or gray areas with regard to the paladin code.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Good backstory. A power that he has that he can't come to terms with.
Plus as a dark hero it would be great at high tier if that one abilibity that cost him his paladinhood ended up saving a party.
He could still use the ability but it will cost him an attonement.
Just as I wouldn't ever suggest Deadly Sneak to a rogue, I would not suggest a paladin take a feat they aren't allowed to use. Our characters are supposed to be good, not tragic.
Take the feat, but every time you use it totally angst about it and immediatly go off to seek an atonement.
-k
|
|
Who would really use it if it cost them an atonement?
Given that, I would not recommend taking the feat.
You could add flavor by saying "My spit is poison, but I am so bound to my duty, I couldn't use it if I wanted, or even if magically forced to." Maybe your god even neutralized it for you. :)
(As in, it in no way can come into play other than as flavor.)
Opening can of worms...
Is it 'using poison' to the Nagaji? Or is it just spitting in an enemy's eye? (It is in the Nagaji's mouth.)
Does that matter?
Since somebody with Dirty Trick can spit in somebody's eye, isn't this the same thing, just with better spit? Can't Paladins use Dirty Trick, or is the implied underhandedness verboten?
BTW, isn't feinting in combat a lie? Never thought of that...
Would the enemy prefer to be smote?
Doesn't that matter?
Does cultural relativism matter in a fantasy game, especially re: Paladins?
Why is poison bad? Because it's underhanded and therefore dishonorable? Or just 'cuz the CRB says so.
Because it's unfair?
How 'unfair' can a Paladin be when taking down enemies?
Is the code too tied to our world (and our limited, non-magical options) to be reasonable given all the other 'unfair' options a Paladin can bring to bear against their opponent?
Hmm...
BTW, I would like to do a similar thing with an actually lethal poison. I expect it'll be a case of YMMV. I'd bring up that the Paladin isn't using poison in the traditional sense of applying it to a weapon to gain an unfair advantage with that weapon. He's just biting.
Which brings up another question:
If the extremely LG Couatl becomes a Paladin, couldn't it bite its opponents? No, really, couldn't it?
Cheers, JMK
|
You could always look at the "Faiths of" books to see if there is a deity that allows paladins and doesn't include the "no poison" in their code of conduct... I don't know if there are any, but there might be.
EDIT: Who knew a BIGnorseWOLF could be a ninja? ;)
We're really quite good at the sneaky part, we just have trouble tying on the headbands without the opposable thumbs..
|
|
You could always look at the "Faiths of" books to see if there is a deity that allows paladins and doesn't include the "no poison" in their code of conduct... I don't know if there are any, but there might be.
EDIT: Who knew a BIGnorseWOLF could be a ninja? ;)
Those codes are an addition to not a substitute.
Paladins of all faiths have strict moral codes by which they must abide or risk losing their powers: they must protect the innocent, be truthful, respect lawful and just authority, and live with honor at all times. However, paladins of individual faiths live by additional strictures, and draw on specific codes to seal their bonds with their gods— those who violate the codes of their faiths must atone for their deeds or lose their powers.
|
|
...Doh!!!! Apologies. Link came up on the side and conversation was interesting. You're right. For pathfinder society I'd have to agree; no. Doesn't mean it makes sense, but I think that's the appropriate reading of the rules as written. Even though it's nonlethal, it's still poison. (Homer voice: "Stupid gods.")
Now why cant all such accidents end so decently? It seems like every other time someone who isnt into PFS wanders in here to post and it's pointed out to them it winds up with a 'Organized Play sucks and your rules are dumb!' ending.
SnowHeart, thank you for your posts, I found them quite pleasent. :D
@ Castilliano:
I dont think the racial norms come into play at all in this situation. The deity you choose to worship likely doesnt care what race you are, and likely wouldnt make an exception for you to be allowed to use poison just because it's coming from you naturally.
Regarding the spitting thing, if they wante dto do that and flavor it, they could take Improved Dirty Trick and spit into someone else's eye, saying that their deity has cleansed them of having the poison in their blood. Personally, I'd be fine with a paladin using feinting in combat, too. Trying to say a Paladin cant do those things is like saying they cant use a bow to shoot at their enemies because the enemy isnt similarly equipped with a ranged weapon. That's not being underhanded, it's being tactically sound.
As for the Couatl, I think any creature with a poisonous bite can suppress it if it wants.
|
|
I decided not to take the poison spitting feat for my nagaji battle oracle just because it sucks. You can only use it once per day, the range is only 10 feet (and as a ranged attack, it provokes an AoO if there's a foe who can reach you), you have to hit with a ranged touch attack, and they still get a fortitude save even if you hit.
It's one of those things that seems really cool from a flavor perspective, but it's a complete waste of a feat from a usefulness perspective. I wish it was useful, because I'd love to take it.
So my advice: Just ignore the feat and don't worry about whether it works with a paladin code, because it's not good enough to be worth the angst.
As for the paladin code, I think it should have a wording change to rule out lethal poisons as too dishonorable for a paladin. But anything non-lethal and non-permanent as a way to subdue an enemy without killing them should always be allowed, even if it involves poison. That's how I'd handle it in a home game, but again, that won't work by RAW.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Kirk: You ... lied?
Spock: I exaggerated.
--+--
Good day to you. Please, join me in the lodge's observation deck. From here, you can get a good overview of Master Farbellius' training field over there to the left. I enjoy watching him train the aspirants in combat fundamentals; it reminds me to review them myself every once in a while.
I understand that you had some cutting words for Sir Yopan last week, yes? Something about how he's a paladin and you'd caught him bluffing his opponent in honorable combat? I thought that your little gift to chip in for his holy atonement was very ... witty.
There is a great gulf, you know, between "not lying" and "blabbering about everything anyone else might want to know." As a warrior of Torag, I have accepted the burden that my behavior affects not only myself but also the Forge-father. When I lie, he must choose to either lie through my tongue, or else withdraw his favor, indicating to the world that I no longer speak for him.
There is a trade-off. In exchange for comporting myself with honor, on and off the field, I can speak with a certain authority, so that others know I am honest. That's why paladins often cast a simple light spell after giving testimony.
But that doesn't mean that the next time I see Yopan, I have to volunteer that I saw who coated his sword hilt with butter. If he asks me, I might tell him, or I might not. If I say something, it shouldn't be a lie. But I am certainly permitted to change the subject, saying something like "Valeros is in the kitchen."
And my oath does not mean that I cannot tell fairy tales to children. Everyone in attendance understands that they are stories, and if I tell of strange magic or princesses of kingdoms that never existed, I've deceived no one.
It seems an odd analogy, but the same holds true in combat. Circling around my foe, I know she is trying to find advantage over me, and she knows the same of me. It is impossible to engage a foe in combat, honorable or otherwise, while explaining where your upcoming blows are all actually going to strike.
If I were to say, out loud, "my next strike will take your leg," she would be a fool to believe me, and I would be guilty of speaking a falsehood. So I imply certain maneuvers. Against one of those trainees down there, I would look down at his leg before I swing high. Against a more weathered opponent, I might change my grip slightly or raise my shield an inch. What they make of these small movements is up to them.
|
|
As CRobledo mentions, paladins are somewhat feat-starved (so many class features instead), so I probably wouldn't select this feat soon, if ever. There are others that will be more effective in the near term, or at least a better deal in terms of cost to use. The character probably won't be able to afford an atonement by the time he can next select a feat.
I do want to give the character a good backstory, and internal conflict that is fun for roleplaying, but not crippling. So I do want to have a better understanding of the racial/cultural background. I don't have the "faiths" books, but nagaji are supposed to revere nagas as gods, which suggests to me that they aspire to be like them. I doubt that there is anything explicit written about an alternate code for paladins that worship them, but that might be something good to develop if many other players have received the boon allowing nagaji PCs and are creating nagaji paladins. I suspect we are a very small minority and that isn't high on the list for PFSOP development.
Other than the ability score adjustments, there doesn't seem to be a lot of rationale for playing a nagaji paladin. They can't call for a reptilian mount (neither horse nor camel seems a good choice) so the handle animal (reptiles) bonus has limited use, the alternate hypnotic gaze is not a lot better than diplomacy (the effect and DC to resist do not improve with level), and the available racial feat conflicts with the paladin code in the CRB. It's also a bit tough to sell a reptilian as the most charismatic member of the party (a lot of human stories seem to have prejudice against reptiles and snakes) and a low intelligence and strange customs/gods feeds the stereotype of a dumb savage brute.
I am trying to make this character option fun and interesting (with some success per others in our last session), but I find some of the racial details to be lacking. Why or how do nagaji have a high charisma? Did naga magic create them in some way that just impresses people? The more unusual this character is, the more fun I think it will be. A snake-man with 20 charisma is already pretty unusual. But if he could have a magical charm affect, a wall-crawling mount and a blinding spittle, that would make for a very unique breed of paladin.
|
|
I agree with Andy. I'd warn you for the poison use and if you went ahead I'd have to get an atonement later.
The paladin code is clear.
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/classes/paladin.html#_paladin
"Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents."
Mike
|
|
@BigNorseWolf: for the fun of it. Not aware of another race where you could get a paladin with 20 CHA and 18 STR using PFSOP point buy. +5 on all saves and 6 uses of lay-on-hands at 2nd level isn't bad either.
@FunkyBadger: the weapon doesn't cause dishonor - how it's used makes the difference. As KestlerGunner mentioned, a policeman can follow a code and have no issue carrying a gun or a can of mace (which both can be used responsibly for good), and an exterminator can use poison in a way that is viewed as neither evil nor dishonorable by his society.
Stature, shiny scales, unblinking eyes may all add to the "presence" of this race, but it still seems odd that these qualities could make a nagaji seem more charismatic to PCs than someone with similar personality and leadership skills from a more familiar race. Maybe that stigma isn't supposed to be there on Golarion, but the initial reaction of other players was to be suspicious of the snake-man. That sounds more like a racial CHA penalty than a bonus. Had to play up the personality and diplomacy skill to overcome the stereotype. All with a forked-tongue lithsp, which was fun although needing some refinement.
There were a few good ideas here for explaining why the character might choose to forego the poison spittle (inventing a backstory that doesn't conflict with the prohibition in the CRB), but in the end he'll do whatever makes him appear as the most awesome and unwavering ambassador of his people (and champion of good and juctice) in the Inner Sea:
"I am the law. I thfollow my own code. I do not recognithe the legitimacy of your human authoritieths in matterths governed by the Guardian Nagas of Nagajor. I will deal out the chuss'tith thfor which I was named. All must thsee the rightheousnessth of the holy onesth of Tian Xia. All (rules and GMs) who opposthe be damned. Sssssth! Now I mustht go atone thfor thswearing."
If I can chip in, the poison isn't one you coat on your blade(contact) or one you use to kill someone from afar(ingestion). Its just a spit that blinds your foe. It lacks a type, frequency, and onset normal poisons do. You can't raise its DC or duration with multiple applications. It appears to be poison in name only compared to something such as arsenic, drow poison, or black adder venom.
As to the commentary about the code, there always seems to be threads on it on the forum. Its loaded with problems of its own.
There is actually a good number of effects labelled as 'poisons' which don't use the Poison type/onset/frequency rules,
besides this one, Cloudkill comes to mind off the top of my head... It doesn't have any poison 'type' (contact/inhaled/etc), it just does what it says.
Whether or not the normal poison type/onset/frequency mechanics are used, these are still labelled as 'poisons',
and as such are just as relevant to the Paladin Code prohibition, and things like the Dwarven racial bonus vs. Poisons.
The normal Poison rules never say that something cannot be a Poison unless it uses one of the given categories.
The Poison type/etc rules exist to give context for when a Poison DOES list a type/onset/duration,
but if the Poison tells you how it works without mentioning those, there isn't really any problem or conflict.
Is it still poison if it doesn't do poison things? Weird.
|
|
@ Castilliano:I dont think the racial norms come into play at all in this situation. The deity you choose to worship likely doesnt care what race you are, and likely wouldnt make an exception for you to be allowed to use poison just because it's coming from you naturally.
Regarding the spitting thing, if they wante dto do that and flavor it, they could take Improved Dirty Trick and spit into someone else's eye, saying that their deity has cleansed them of having the poison in their blood. Personally, I'd be fine with a paladin using feinting in combat, too. Trying to say a Paladin cant do those things is like saying they cant use a bow to shoot at their enemies because the enemy isnt similarly equipped with a ranged weapon. That's not being underhanded, it's being tactically sound.
As for the Couatl, I think any creature with a poisonous bite can suppress it if it wants.
There are lots of things that are 'tactically sound' that are underhanded (including poison). That, along with 'practical' actions, will break a Paladin's code pretty fast.
As for bows, there is a history of dishonor in those funnily enough, especially vs. someone without one. Though not in PFS/Golarion.Paladins are the silly people who would actually give their enemy a bow so it's fair, or set their own down. (Though I wouldn't force that.)
I don't think culture plays a part either in a high-fantasy world.
Good is good and honor is honor across the board.
But innate abilities having to be suppressed to be good...not sure I agree. Somebody's natural attack forms being deemed 'dishonorable' (the heading poison falls under) seems a stretch, even if RAW.
I'm not so sure a Couatl, or any other creature, can suppress its poison when attacking. I used a Couatl because they are paragons of Law & Goodness. Yet they go around poisoning every time they use their main attack. Is that unfair or dishonorable?
"Who knew the snake creature would poison me?"
"Umm, everyone?"
Maybe there should be an "Order of the Couatl" Paladin/Cavalier group.
This does lead to other messy questions (especially if an Eldritch Knight too):
If a Paladin summons a poisonous creature, is that un-Paladiny, even if it is a Couatl?
How about if he Polymorphs into one and uses its attack?
Clearly RAW is saying using poisons is dishonorable and therefore verboten. But it seems that having a natural attack that has poison is a not so dishonorable way to use poisons which would circumvent that.
I'm not saying I expect PFS to accept this (or specifically rule against it either), but rather YMMV. Go in expecting a 'no', and accept it graciously, and it should be fine.
Cheers, JMK
|
|
Point is, the language used in the ability does call it a poison. Even a poison in name only, it's still a poison. Which means paladins using it, just going by PFS' raw rules, would in fact be screwed out of their divine given power immediately. The fact that it's illogical on a massive level is irrelevant in the matter. At least that's my take on it.
Others can levy arguments against this point of view quite obviously. However, it seems to me the only ones that can really resolve the issue are the paizo guys themselves. Maybe eventually there'll be an addendum clarifying this mess, but probably not. I wouldn't exactly call it something that should be given a high priority spot. :P
|
|
Reluctantly I am forced to agree that you probably shouldn't try this in PFS. It is unfortunate, but there is way too much table variation driven by DMs who crack down and play paladins completely circumscribed. There are character concepts that are really only workable in a real campaign where you have the chance to communicate and work things out with the DM.
My opinion is that saying that the nagaji spit is not poison would be an obvious interpretation given what is said above about culture and natural abilities. However, even obvious fixes are the providence of proper campaigns and not organized play.
homegame ruling it's OK by paladin code is one thing, saying it's not poision when it specifically says so (and is supposed to count as such vs. immunities and save bonuses like dwarves or constructs) is ridiculous and doesn't achieve any roleplaying purpose. i don't think that is really what saint caleth meant, even though it came out that way though. personally, in home games the whole poison use thing is much more broadly OK with the paladin code, using poison to sneakily debilitate is not OK but using it as an in-combat debuff is no different than any other debuff (which are OK by the paladin code). there's plenty enough of tricky situations that actually bring out tough roleplaying situations for paladins that harshly enforcing a poison rule doesn't really enhance the game one way or another IMHO. that said, i don't really find it that harsh an imposition, and going along with the rules to fit in for PFS is just part of that game.
|
|
homegame ruling it's OK by paladin code is one thing, saying it's not poision when it specifically says so (and is supposed to count as such vs. immunities and save bonuses like dwarves or constructs) is ridiculous and doesn't achieve any roleplaying purpose.
Actually I was saying that the problem is that PFS effectively tosses out meaningful player-DM discussion since the DM cannot act on that discussion, thus loosing arguably the most important dimension of the game, working with as opposed to alongside the DM to tell a story.
It is not ridiculous to say that the paladin can use their spit and it does serve a roleplaying purpose, namely letting the player play the character that they want and also RAW for the paladin code is stupid. It is never ridiculous to bend the rules ever so slightly to facilitate a player's concept. Being able to adjust when there is a problem with RAW (and there always will be some little thing given how many fiddly bits the rules have) is called good DMing and its absence in PFS is a cause of the chronic failing of all organized play.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
If a player is looking for an experience that only a home campaign can provide, then organized play environments will not be able to give that player what he is looking for.
I'm not sure that constitutes a chronic failing. If I want an off-road BMX experience, a roller coaster won't be able to provide that. But we still have a lot of people who like to ride roller coasters.