Shalmdi's page

I would have to say no here. The corpse is never referred to as alive, so at best, it would be considered undead. It is probably still an object as all corpses are and is immune from the start. If it is undead, it is immune to mind-affecting spells and is not subject to the Zone of Truth. Either way, the net result is "No." At least, that is my two copper.

Interesting thought exercise, but using real world logic, most of your winged flying enemies wouldn't actually be able to fly. Glide at best and almost never hovering. See, there comes a point is size where it no longer matters how big your wings are, you just cannot get some things off the ground no matter how fast they flap. This is why helicopters have propellers and modern planes have jet engines. The dragon could never fly. His body isn't aerodynamic enough and doesn't have sufficient thrust to leave the ground. He probably couldn't even glide. An angel could never actually fly on the strength of its wings or with any level of thermal. Unless of course, magic was involved. Then you get into the argument I always use when players propose anything quasi-logical: most fantasy settings are flush with magic. It must exist everywhere to help people deal with all the things that otherwise don't make sense. Why doesn't a giant spiders exoskeleton crush the gooey inside? Magic! How do giants produce enough of anything to feed themselves and their children? Magic! How does a dire bat ever get off the ground? Magic! How does a giant piece of clay move around on its own power? Mag... okay that last one is kind of obviously magic.

So you see, magic must be a part of your fantasy campaign, and I personalize find that it is more fun to try and justify all the rules than to try and find holes in them. The holes are much easier to spot. From a rules point if a winged creature chooses to do anything but move while slowed, they would have to hover (DC15) to stay aloft. That says to me that if they do anything on their turn but try to stay aloft, it becomes much harder to do so. That's my two copper.

I'm with Azaelas here, Duelist is not my favorite class, but if you are set on it, I recommend the Lore Warden. This will let you be a fighter while still getting something in trade for not being able to use medium or heavy armor and shields. Plus, it rewards the slightly higher Int you will want for Canny Defense. If you must go Rogue for some reason, listen to Azaelas. Take Swashbuckler. However, note that an NPC meant for one-on-one combat will have a hard time getting Sneak Attack after the first round.

Consider taking Power Attack as your damage will suck. Vital Strike and its advanced forms are also good if you want to get anything out of all those movement abilities. This is another reason I endorse fighter, you will want those extra feats to make this viable. Oh and Weapon Specialization please!

I would recommend for simplicity with an NPC that you just choose one of these base classes and stick to that, but I hope this helps. That's my two copper.

Shalmdi: Im not sure a custom cursed item that projects an antimagic field would work.

I say to you, "bah!" Your accurate observation that it will not work based on your "rules" does not dissuade me from my desire to use said thing! I don't play in a fantastical world NOT to procure ridiculous magic items. You may keep your blighted spells. Good day!

Seriously though, I did point out it was illegal from the start :)

Last time I was GM, to try and head off the arguments, I said "you as the player tell me what you think your paladin code should be at how it will be enforced. As long as you don't state something completely unreasonable, we will go with that for the campaign." The player came up with something and I agreed to it. I then told all the other players, "I am not going to be real strict on the paladin code and this is what we are using for paladins."

You handled it well, Gronk. It sounds like some of your players want to be the GM and make the judgment calls. This usually happens when most of the table has GM'ed a good deal in the past. I have encountered this in other rules disputes, but I guess I am fortunate enough to have a group that feels close to how I do about Paladins. You may want to do away with the code. A Paladin is not so powerful that he requires a balancing element that turns into an RP-albatross.

To answer your question, I have "banned" Paladins my entire GM life. I make it clear to my players that they may not bring any character to the table that is going to be completely opposed to group harmony. This usually includes evil characters and most Paladins. The few Paladins I have had in groups had much more relaxed codes, so I would not really call them Paladins anymore. This is just my two copper on the matter.

But again I am hoping for a more universal answer according to the rules (so I can argue with Society GMs if they try to take my powers). Does finishing a foe who attacked you and you knocked to negative but didn't not successfully kill count as an evil act or otherwise break the Paladins Oath? Does actual alignment change that? Does the Oath of Vengeance change that?

Then I fear you will not get a clear answer. To my knowledge this exact situation is not outlined, and Pathfinder Society rules read as follows:

What you have above are a collection of opinions (including mine). Those opinions are as diverse as those will be of the Society DM's. Be prepared to argue this point, buckle to the GM or avoid the paladin. Sorry.

This is much easier to justify in a fantasy setting than most people think. The false assumption most people work from is that there are fair court systems all around with clearly drawn rules of jurisdiction. If you are in a city, you probably do need to turn them over to the local authority IF you deem them to be legitimate. That falls inside your Code. Outside a city? No laws. So who is the law? Why not a paladin? The charge attempted murder and banditry against yourself and other goodly folk (probably). The evidence overwhelming. The charge in a fantasy setting? Execution probably. You are judge, jury & executioner.

And why not you? Paladins are incorruptible and must act completely within the bounds of their code. They "punish those who harm or threaten innocents." Why did these people attack you to begin with? Usually, they are not nice. That does not necessarily entail evil. Even the Lawful Good descriptor says, "hates to see the guilty go unpunished." In most cases, surrender is not a reason a paladin cannot kill someone it just means you have to feel it an appropriate punishment. Surrender just means you bind them and hold a quick Judge-Dredd court.

Now I am working on the assumption that this was not a misunderstanding that your paladin was aware of (people thought you were the bad guy and you realize that). Also, I presume you are not in a city whose rules you recognize. Otherwise, kill them. You can wake them up to let them "testify," or if you are confident enough in your charge, kill them while they are still out as a mercy. That's my two copper.

This is not at all RAW, but I would rule yes with a bit of an addition. Provoking an Attack of Opportunity is a bad thing, but this feat makes it where your character is experienced enough to not do that. Choosing to do so would just be him choosing to be sloppy with that first attack.

Here comes the addition though. You declare that you are choosing to provoke, I will give the enemy a Sense Motive check to see that you did it on purpose. DC probably equal to a Bluff check with a +5 since the target wants to make that attack. If they succeed, they see you are attempting to bait them, and a smart enemy may not take the attack. After you attack without provoking an AoO, said smart enemy now knows you can do that even if they failed the Sense Motive. A dumb enemy or animal may not even notice then. DM's discretion.

Propose this to the DM. I think it would be a fair compromise. Alternatively, you could just do as LazarX and Diego say and lose the feat for one round. It would be simpler that way, and not really much punishment. How many enemies would be taking Combat Reflexes anyway? That's my two copper.

I can't see not putting points in Perception, I mean, I never heard of such a thing.

~_^

Of course you can't see or hear when you aren't putting points in perception! :D

I agree with the general idea that you do not need a healbot. I like having a healer in any group for emergencies, but that is a personal preference. The problem is convincing your GM and group. If he will not accept the argument that preventing damage is easier than healing it, you are out of luck. Maggiethecat's number crunch is great, but I doubt they will accept that logic if they wouldn't even look at Treantmonk's guide.

If you have not already, I would talk to the barbarian / cleric player. It is their job to fight for their right to play what they want, and the DM's job to make sure everyone is having a good time. It is great that you are working towards group harmony, but you aren't the one that buckled to the DM. If the barbarian/cleric doesn't want to push the issue, I doubt you are going to get anywhere on this.

You can make arguments about the efficiency of prevention over cure all day, but if your group won't listen, you will be talking to hear yourself talk. You are still playing a character that can do a lot of prevention. The only way I can think of to prove your argument is play your character to the best of your ability. If the cleric is never healing in battle because the rest of you are doing your jobs well, it will sell your point better than any number crunch.