Paladin Sword of Beserking


Advice

1 to 50 of 94 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Hello, I have a situation I am trying to decide how to handle. The party is playing through the Champion's Belt for Age of Worms (adapted to Pathfinder) and currently have several cursed items that they are unaware of. The paladin picked up the +2 greatsword from the last adventure, which is in fact a sword of beserking. They are about to face the first match and I am concerned about several things.

1. Does the sword force him to kill unconcious people, or can he assume they are dead and not check?
2. Does attacking a surrendered foe cause him to fall? (Heironeous paladin)
3. Can he still lay on hands himself or use Divine Bond?


For clarity the first round is a free for all between 4 gladiator teams, one of which it the PCs. Gladiators can surrender, and attacking a surrendered foe is grounds for disqualification (which he will have to deal with).


The real problem you have is the Paladin is probably going to try to kill his entire party and wont stop until either he or the party is dead.


"Until no living thing is within 30ft of him" is pretty clear. The cursed sword makes him kill, unconscious foes or foes surrendering don't register as dead until they are.


The first AD+D game I ever played was a tpk with our sadistic GM chortling as the fighter made short work of the rest of the party with one of these things, which after everyone was dead, the sword made him kill himself as the only living thing within 30 feet.


It might be able to be stretched by him going out of his way to kill unconscious targets, but the point of the matter is that he can and will attack surrendered enemies or allies if they're more convenient for him to attack.

This sword will undoubtedly cause him to require atonement at the end of the day (no cost, since unintentional), and his allies may be forced to subdue him the moment they realize what's going on.


Nothing says he can't do nonlethal: he just must attack them all.


Can he still use Lay on Hands/Divine Bond?


Starbuck_II wrote:
Nothing says he can't do nonlethal: he just must attack them all.
Sword, berserking wrote:
This sword appears to be a +2 greatsword. However, whenever it is used in battle, its wielder goes berserk (gaining all the benefits and drawbacks of the barbarian's rage ability). He attacks the nearest creature and continues to fight until unconscious or dead or until no living thing remains within 30 feet. Although many see this sword as a cursed object, others see it as a boon.

If they're unconscious, they're still alive. And he explicitly attacks the nearest creature, regardless of friend or foe. So even if, somehow, dealing nonlethal is not restricted by being berserk, he is still attacking them while they are unconscious, which does cause lethal damage and will lead to their deaths.

Since he's going to keep this up until no living creatures are nearby, and he has no inclination to flee, that means either be has to be made unconscious, or he needs to run out of living things near him (likely due to them being dead).

Liberty's Edge

Gold moment that you have to prepare for as a GM. The Paladin will likely attack one of his allies first. The other PCs will need to stop him while fending off the NPCs. Maybe they can ally with them to stop the Paladin without him or anyone getting killed.

But you have to decide beforehand how the NPCs are likely to react in such a situation


hjs102 wrote:
Can he still use Lay on Hands/Divine Bond?

By the standard rage rules both of these abilities are usable. But divine bond requires a standard action to activate, so the curse requirement to attack would prevent him from taking the action to do so.

Grand Lodge

Stupid questions, would the sword detect as evil to the pali? Does this just happened or is there a save? Could you roleplay the sword as sentient and have the pali struggle with it?


OtrovaGomas wrote:
Stupid questions, would the sword detect as evil to the pali? Does this just happened or is there a save? Could you roleplay the sword as sentient and have the pali struggle with it?

Assuming it follows the normal rules for the cursed berserking swords, there is no alignment to detect, and no intelligence to deal with.

It's the curse that's attached to the blade that causes the problem, not a sentience.


Saethori wrote:

So even if, somehow, dealing nonlethal is not restricted by being berserk, he is still attacking them while they are unconscious, which does cause lethal damage and will lead to their deaths.

It's as restricted as dealing Sneak Attack damage to a flanked foe is(spoiler: it's not restricted). You can eventually kill people through dealing non-lethal damage though.


Berserking means you're attacking to kill. Not to take alive, not to beat gently to unconsciousness, but attacking to kill with nothing held back.


hjs102 wrote:

Hello, I have a situation I am trying to decide how to handle. The party is playing through the Champion's Belt for Age of Worms (adapted to Pathfinder) and currently have several cursed items that they are unaware of. The paladin picked up the +2 greatsword from the last adventure, which is in fact a sword of beserking. They are about to face the first match and I am concerned about several things.

1. Does the sword force him to kill unconcious people, or can he assume they are dead and not check?
2. Does attacking a surrendered foe cause him to fall? (Heironeous paladin)
3. Can he still lay on hands himself or use Divine Bond?

If he kills someone who doesn't deserve it, he falls. Paladins can be forced to fall by magic compulsion, but the atonement cost is reduced at least.


when he 1st picks up the sword because it is so against his characters nature would you allow him a will save to drop it immediately before the curse can take effect?


Lady-J wrote:
when he 1st picks up the sword because it is so against his characters nature would you allow him a will save to drop it immediately before the curse can take effect?

Paladins do not get a special break on curses. You apply the mechanics as normal.

Actually I just checked the weapon. It is not a cursed weapon, it's what berserking does. (and that's why berserkers, a barbarian archetype are so dangerous to be with.) There is no save vs the effect. however once all potential targets are further than 30 feet away, the effect will pass and he'll have the opportunity to drop the weapon.


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Berserking means you're attacking to kill. Not to take alive, not to beat gently to unconsciousness, but attacking to kill with nothing held back.

The rules on the item: "This sword appears to be a +2 greatsword. However, whenever it is used in battle, its wielder goes berserk (gaining all the benefits and drawbacks of the barbarian's rage ability). He attacks the nearest creature and continues to fight until unconscious or dead or until no living thing remains within 30 feet. Although many see this sword as a cursed object, others see it as a boon."

Rage does not prevent nonlethal attacks, nothing in the above text prevents nonlethal attacks. Heck, by RAW you could make unarmed strikes for nonlethal while berserk from the sword, and fight defensively to boot. Very much against the spirit of the item, sure, but legal.


It doesn't prevent you from making non-lethal attacks... but it does require you to continue attacking the unconscious target 'until no living thing remains in 30' '

There isn't really a good loophole here that will keep him from falling. However, having just played a paladin through level 20... This would have been a LOT of fun to play with.

Especially since it isn't even a DM trap or moral situation... it's treasure that it sounds like he claimed without properly identifying. Should be a pretty easy 'Fall' then 'redeem' situation with some good RP In between :)


Paladin + Berserking Sword = Fallen Paladin. That's some first level maths, there.


Quantum Steve wrote:
Paladin + Berserking Sword = Fallen Paladin. That's some first level maths, there.

not all paladins just most if you have a strict dm


Lady-J wrote:
Quantum Steve wrote:
Paladin + Berserking Sword = Fallen Paladin. That's some first level maths, there.
not all paladins just most if you have a strict dm
CRB wrote:

Ex-Paladins

A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and class features (including the service of the paladin's mount, but not weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies). She may not progress any further in levels as a paladin. She regains her abilities and advancement potential if she atones for her violations (see atonement), as appropriate.

A careful reading of the CRB says that it should be "all paladins", not just "most" if your DM is a stickler for classic Paladins. Unless your team is hyper-competent and manages to pull themselves and all surrendered enemies 30 feet or more away from you, your paladin will almost certainly execute a prisoner, kill someone who is surrendering, or murder a teammate. And while this is not you willfully committing an evil act, it arguably breaks the standard Paladin code and definitely is not lawful good. Refer to the Ex-Paladins section of the CRB to see what comes next. Spoiler: The result is like tying a Paladin's shoelaces together.


Lady-J wrote:
Quantum Steve wrote:
Paladin + Berserking Sword = Fallen Paladin. That's some first level maths, there.
not all paladins just most if you have a strict dm

Yeah, there is always the possibility that he doesn't draw it near anyone that he wasn't killing anyway. A lot of adventures are like that.

Doesn't seem likely to last long... but if he gets through that first bandit/undead/ooze horde without killing his buddies and ditches it, he could remain intact.


My Self wrote:
Lady-J wrote:
Quantum Steve wrote:
Paladin + Berserking Sword = Fallen Paladin. That's some first level maths, there.
not all paladins just most if you have a strict dm
CRB wrote:

Ex-Paladins

A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and class features (including the service of the paladin's mount, but not weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies). She may not progress any further in levels as a paladin. She regains her abilities and advancement potential if she atones for her violations (see atonement), as appropriate.

A careful reading of the CRB says that it should be "all paladins", not just "most" if your DM is a stickler for classic Paladins. Unless your team is hyper-competent and manages to pull themselves and all surrendered enemies 30 feet or more away from you, your paladin will almost certainly execute a prisoner, kill someone who is surrendering, or murder a teammate. And while this is not you willfully committing an evil act, it arguably breaks the standard Paladin code and definitely is not lawful good. Refer to the Ex-Paladins section of the CRB to see what comes next. Spoiler: The result is like tying a Paladin's shoelaces together.

there are archetypes that allow more leniency towards paladins and can even break them out of their lawful good mold or even the paladin code of conduct all together. I also allow paladins to be the alignment of their god adjusting smite/detect/dr respectably.

Silver Crusade

Lady-J wrote:
Quantum Steve wrote:
Paladin + Berserking Sword = Fallen Paladin. That's some first level maths, there.
not all paladins just most if you have a strict dm

Yeah, I could see a Paladin holding on to one in order to minimize the damage it could cause if it fell into someone with a low will save's hands, while also APTLY warning her party members to stay a good 30 f*+*ing feet away while she's using it.


Rysky wrote:
Lady-J wrote:
Quantum Steve wrote:
Paladin + Berserking Sword = Fallen Paladin. That's some first level maths, there.
not all paladins just most if you have a strict dm
Yeah, I could see a Paladin holding on to one in order to minimize the damage it could cause if it fell into someone with a low will save's hands, while also APTLY warning her party members to stay a good 30 f+~!ing feet away while she's using it.

In that case, I'd say it'd be on the Paladin if things went south, including the extra cost for Atonement for an intentional violation. The Pally knew what she was signing up for.

Silver Crusade

Quantum Steve wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Lady-J wrote:
Quantum Steve wrote:
Paladin + Berserking Sword = Fallen Paladin. That's some first level maths, there.
not all paladins just most if you have a strict dm
Yeah, I could see a Paladin holding on to one in order to minimize the damage it could cause if it fell into someone with a low will save's hands, while also APTLY warning her party members to stay a good 30 f+~!ing feet away while she's using it.
In that case, I'd say it'd be on the Paladin if things went south, including the extra cost for Atonement for an intentional violation. The Pally knew what she was signing up for.

Yep.

Silver Crusade

Lol, you could get one of the old 3.5 Dislocating enchantments put on it so when you hit someone they get teleported at least 30ft away XD

And/or Merciful.


Quantum Steve wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Lady-J wrote:
Quantum Steve wrote:
Paladin + Berserking Sword = Fallen Paladin. That's some first level maths, there.
not all paladins just most if you have a strict dm
Yeah, I could see a Paladin holding on to one in order to minimize the damage it could cause if it fell into someone with a low will save's hands, while also APTLY warning her party members to stay a good 30 f+~!ing feet away while she's using it.
In that case, I'd say it'd be on the Paladin if things went south, including the extra cost for Atonement for an intentional violation. The Pally knew what she was signing up for.

A more ethical Paladin would sheathe it and bury it in the bottom of their Bag of Holding, then maybe take some time to lock it away or carefully destroy it. It's a no-save item, so all berserking uses (once the wielder knows it causes berserk rages) are intentional.

Plus, you'd need an undead or non-living construct Paladin to use it safely (keeping allies 30 ft. away), otherwise they would stab themself unconscious at the end of every combat. And undead and constructs don't get the same kick from emotion effects like rage. Never mind that finding an undead Paladin is like finding something Wizards can't do.

Silver Crusade

My Self wrote:
Quantum Steve wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Lady-J wrote:
Quantum Steve wrote:
Paladin + Berserking Sword = Fallen Paladin. That's some first level maths, there.
not all paladins just most if you have a strict dm
Yeah, I could see a Paladin holding on to one in order to minimize the damage it could cause if it fell into someone with a low will save's hands, while also APTLY warning her party members to stay a good 30 f+~!ing feet away while she's using it.
In that case, I'd say it'd be on the Paladin if things went south, including the extra cost for Atonement for an intentional violation. The Pally knew what she was signing up for.

A more ethical Paladin would sheathe it and bury it in the bottom of their Bag of Holding, then maybe take some time to lock it away or carefully destroy it. It's a no-save item, so all berserking uses (once the wielder knows it causes berserk rages) are intentional.

Plus, you'd need an undead or non-living construct Paladin to use it safely (keeping allies 30 ft. away), otherwise they would stab themself unconscious at the end of every combat. And undead and constructs don't get the same kick from emotion effects like rage. Never mind that finding an undead Paladin is like finding something Wizards can't do.

Ah, I thought it allowed a will save.

... and uh, you don't attack yourself with it if there's nothing else around.


My Self wrote:
Quantum Steve wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Lady-J wrote:
Quantum Steve wrote:
Paladin + Berserking Sword = Fallen Paladin. That's some first level maths, there.
not all paladins just most if you have a strict dm
Yeah, I could see a Paladin holding on to one in order to minimize the damage it could cause if it fell into someone with a low will save's hands, while also APTLY warning her party members to stay a good 30 f+~!ing feet away while she's using it.
In that case, I'd say it'd be on the Paladin if things went south, including the extra cost for Atonement for an intentional violation. The Pally knew what she was signing up for.

A more ethical Paladin would sheathe it and bury it in the bottom of their Bag of Holding, then maybe take some time to lock it away or carefully destroy it. It's a no-save item, so all berserking uses (once the wielder knows it causes berserk rages) are intentional.

Plus, you'd need an undead or non-living construct Paladin to use it safely (keeping allies 30 ft. away), otherwise they would stab themself unconscious at the end of every combat. And undead and constructs don't get the same kick from emotion effects like rage. Never mind that finding an undead Paladin is like finding something Wizards can't do.

weren't there lawful good mummy paladins in an adventure path that guarded the pharaohs tomb for the rest of eternity?


I know I'm going to regret getting involved here, but:

Paladin Code of Conduct wrote:
A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever WILLINGLY commits an evil act.

LINK

I'm fairly sure being magically compelled to commit an act by a cursed object doesn't constitute "willingly".

I'm also fairly sure there's nothing in the rules that say the paladin can't use non-lethal damage (you can eventually kill someone even with "non-lethal" damage). Imagine that the Paladin is trying to resist the power of the sword - I would leave this to the player's imagination though.

I'm sure there are other ways to subvert the swords instructions ("Kill everything") but that's all on the players, your job is to work out how the NPC's react.

Also the Paladin can use Lay on hands etc, although he can't use it if he has to choose between healing someone and attacking them (and he may not want to use it on himself if that stops people from bringing him down).

As for "killing the nearest living creature" - That does indeed include unconscious bodies, although you could give him a perception check to see if they're alive. I'd certainly let him attack someone who's standing rather than ramming a sword into an unmoving corpse. If he does manage to knock everyone unconscious that's bad luck for the party though.


As a GM, I'd play the sword of berserking as you needing to hurt yourself once you finished off all your enemies, since you keep raging until there is nothing living within 30 ft., and the general assumption is that you are a living creature.

Maybe there were LG mummy paladins, I'm not a big AP player.

And believe it or not, Wizards can't cast divine spells of 8th level or lower without spending money or taking time to prepare spells.


My Self wrote:

As a GM, I'd play the sword of berserking as you needing to hurt yourself once you finished off all your enemies, since you keep raging until there is nothing living within 30 ft., and the general assumption is that you are a living creature.

Maybe there were LG mummy paladins, I'm not a big AP player.

And believe it or not, Wizards can't cast divine spells of 8th level or lower without spending money or taking time to prepare spells.

frenzied animals don't go attacking themselves when every thing around is dead or there is nothing around to attack anymore they may run into a wall or something but they wont try and kill themselves and that is pretty much what berserking is a frenzy.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MrCharisma wrote:

I know I'm going to regret getting involved here, but:

Paladin Code of Conduct wrote:
A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever WILLINGLY commits an evil act.

LINK

I'm fairly sure being magically compelled to commit an act by a cursed object doesn't constitute "willingly".

I'm also fairly sure there's nothing in the rules that say the paladin can't use non-lethal damage (you can eventually kill someone even with "non-lethal" damage). Imagine that the Paladin is trying to resist the power of the sword - I would leave this to the player's imagination though.

I'm sure there are other ways to subvert the swords instructions ("Kill everything") but that's all on the players, your job is to work out how the NPC's react.

Also the Paladin can use Lay on hands etc, although he can't use it if he has to choose between healing someone and attacking them (and he may not want to use it on himself if that stops people from bringing him down).

As for "killing the nearest living creature" - That does indeed include unconscious bodies, although you could give him a perception check to see if they're alive. I'd certainly let him attack someone who's standing rather than ramming a sword into an unmoving corpse. If he does manage to knock everyone unconscious that's bad luck for the party though.

I agree with you on the "willingly" underline. The first time you realize a sword is a berserking sword and end up skewering McSneaky, the party Rogue, you are not at fault, although McSneaky's death might violate another part of your code. Continuing to use the cursed object when there are other alternatives means you are willing to accept the consequences. If you know that things burn when they catch on fire, don't act like you didn't know your house would burn down when you drop burning matches on the sofa.


Lady-J wrote:
My Self wrote:

As a GM, I'd play the sword of berserking as you needing to hurt yourself once you finished off all your enemies, since you keep raging until there is nothing living within 30 ft., and the general assumption is that you are a living creature.

Maybe there were LG mummy paladins, I'm not a big AP player.

And believe it or not, Wizards can't cast divine spells of 8th level or lower without spending money or taking time to prepare spells.

frenzied animals don't go attacking themselves when every thing around is dead or there is nothing around to attack anymore they may run into a wall or something but they wont try and kill themselves and that is pretty much what berserking is a frenzy.

We might have to agree to disagree. When it comes to curses, I prefer to interpret them a bit painfully (with the OK from the players, of course). Cursed items are not called "alternatively enhanced" items for a reason.

Silver Crusade

My Self wrote:
Lady-J wrote:
My Self wrote:

As a GM, I'd play the sword of berserking as you needing to hurt yourself once you finished off all your enemies, since you keep raging until there is nothing living within 30 ft., and the general assumption is that you are a living creature.

Maybe there were LG mummy paladins, I'm not a big AP player.

And believe it or not, Wizards can't cast divine spells of 8th level or lower without spending money or taking time to prepare spells.

frenzied animals don't go attacking themselves when every thing around is dead or there is nothing around to attack anymore they may run into a wall or something but they wont try and kill themselves and that is pretty much what berserking is a frenzy.
We might have to agree to disagree. When it comes to curses, I prefer to interpret them a bit painfully (with the OK from the players, of course). Cursed items are not called "alternatively enhanced" items for a reason.

I think the fact that you HAVE to attack everything around you fits the "painfully" bit.

There's also the fact that it doesn't say you have to attack yourself, which would be something very important to point out, and the fact that the item's description ends with "some see it as a boon".

If you have to attack or kill yourself with it, no save, there would a lot less discussions about people wanting to use it or it showing up.


My Self wrote:
Cursed items are not called "alternatively enhanced" items for a reason.

Look at the full description Saethori quoted earlier (9th post in this topic). It ends with: "Although many see this sword as a cursed object, others see it as a boon."

The berserking sword is indeed "alternatively enhanced" - it can be useful, if you don’t care who you attack.


I only read the first post so this may have been covered but no the Paladin will not fall. He as to willingly commit the act.


Jodokai wrote:
I only read the first post so this may have been covered but no the Paladin will not fall. He as to willingly commit the act.

It says "willingly commits an evil act, OR violates the code of conduct" so I assume if there is a stipulation about not attacking the helpless (which is in the case of my player's code) he will fall. However the atonement will count it as unintentional.


hjs102 wrote:
It says "willingly commits an evil act, OR violates the code of conduct" so I assume if there is a stipulation about not attacking the helpless (which is in the case of my player's code) he will fall. However the atonement will count it as unintentional.

While I have to agree that that is what it says, I do have to point out that I kind of doubt that there are many, if any, evil acts that don't also violate the code of conduct, making it kind of redundant.


Hopefully someone in his party has Create Pit. Its great for when the fighter gets confused and turns the lawnmower the wrong way. In this case it has the added benefit of probably moving him more than 30' away from anything else.

As far as the berserk goes, I also agree that he can attack for non-lethal, and doesn't have to attack himself at the end.


Tarantula wrote:

Hopefully someone in his party has Create Pit. Its great for when the fighter gets confused and turns the lawnmower the wrong way. In this case it has the added benefit of probably moving him more than 30' away from anything else.

As far as the berserk goes, I also agree that he can attack for non-lethal, and doesn't have to attack himself at the end.

I will probably rule that the beserk effect is not intended to allow nonlethal, and he will need to attack for lethal (we do not do strict RAW if there is a solid case for reasonable intents).

The party arcanist does not carry Create Pit very often, so I doubt he will have it. He does usually have Ice Wall, so if he traps the paladin in the hemisphere I will rule that he can break the effect and drop the sword since he cannot perceive anyone within 30ft of him. I was also going to have the effect happen once he hits with an attack.


My Self wrote:
Lady-J wrote:
My Self wrote:

As a GM, I'd play the sword of berserking as you needing to hurt yourself once you finished off all your enemies, since you keep raging until there is nothing living within 30 ft., and the general assumption is that you are a living creature.

Maybe there were LG mummy paladins, I'm not a big AP player.

And believe it or not, Wizards can't cast divine spells of 8th level or lower without spending money or taking time to prepare spells.

frenzied animals don't go attacking themselves when every thing around is dead or there is nothing around to attack anymore they may run into a wall or something but they wont try and kill themselves and that is pretty much what berserking is a frenzy.
We might have to agree to disagree. When it comes to curses, I prefer to interpret them a bit painfully (with the OK from the players, of course). Cursed items are not called "alternatively enhanced" items for a reason.

This sword appears to be a +2 greatsword. However, whenever it is used in battle, its wielder goes berserk (gaining all the benefits and drawbacks of the barbarian's rage ability). He attacks the nearest creature and continues to fight until unconscious or dead or until no living thing remains within 30 feet. Although many see this sword as a cursed object, others see it as a boon.

if the sword made the wielder kill them selves it would not be considered a boon to anyone


Hopefully the arcanist has Quick Study and can swap out spells to remediate the problem quickly.


The real question is, can you drop a cursed sword of berserking?

This is one of those cursed items that seems to fit the mold of needing remove curse to drop, though the official entry does not mention yes or no.


GM_Beernorg wrote:

The real question is, can you drop a cursed sword of berserking?

This is one of those cursed items that seems to fit the mold of needing remove curse to drop, though the official entry does not mention yes or no.

There's no language saying that you can't drop the weapon whenever you want, although as a GM, I'd say that you can't drop it while you're berserking.


Starbuck_II wrote:
Nothing says he can't do nonlethal: he just must attack them all.

With all due respect, it's a cursed item. I don't think you can play nice.


hjs102 wrote:
I will probably rule that the beserk effect is not intended to allow nonlethal, and he will need to attack for lethal (we do not do strict RAW if there is a solid case for reasonable intents).

I'd let them do non-lethal if they come up with it, but I wouldn't suggest it to them. (Or you could let them deal non-lethal only if they pass a save or something?)

Think of it as the Paladin trying his hardest not to kill people despite the curse.

1 to 50 of 94 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Paladin Sword of Beserking All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.