|
One of my players is playing a Crusader (3.5E class from Tome of Battle: The Book of Nine Swords - okay, yeah, I know, dumbest book ever made for the 3.5 system, and I'm still kicking myself for allowing it in my game). Anyway, here is the quandry:
Crusaders are very similar to paladins and cavaliers in that they are strict followers of a cause and a code. They're not just fancy fighters with a few extra abilities - those abilities come with heavy dose of responsibility. Now, the Crusader in question is dedicated to the service of Sarenrae and to the cause of opposing slavery wherever he finds it. Caught in the middle of a wish war, the party enters a room where a trio of efreet are holding some human prisoners and coercing them to make wishes for them (the emulating spells aspect) to use against the party in battle. Two of the prisoners are cowed into making the wishes for the efreet, while the third remains stubborn and refuses to comply. The following round, to punish the obstinate prisoner, the efreeti improves the grapple to do automatic damage, trying to keep the prisoner conscious while putting the fear of death into him. He overdoes it a little, and the prisoner passes out, but is not dead (and the party could tell he wasn't dead by the way the efreeti was treating his unconscious form).
All three efreet are basically grappling the prisoners, holding blades to their throats, so the prisoners are considered as occupying all of the same squares that the efreet are occupying. This is important to note, because the Crusader has a breath weapon ability - line of electricity, and because of the grappling, there's no way to breathe on a grappling efreeti without also breathing on the prisoner he's grappling. Now there were plenty of ways the Crusader could reacted to that situation that would have had a better chance of not automatically killing the prisoner, especially since it was in the efreeti's best interest to not only save but revive the prisoner. But rather than entertain any of those options first, the Crusader immediately chose to breathe, knowing it would probably kill the prisoner as well.
Now, it is my opinion that a Crusader who is dedicated to upholding the tenets of Sarenrae and to freeing the imprisoned and enslaved would have considered such an action to be a last resort, something to be done only when no other options were left, certainly not the first choice out of the gate. As such, it is almost without question a violation of his code and the tenets of his faith. However, what I'm trying to decide is if this should be considered a major transgression, for which Sarenrae would extol a heavy price (long-term blindness and loss of faith-based Crusader class abilities until he completes a specific task that she designates, or something like that), or a moderate transgression for which she would extol a moderate price (loss of his blindsense ability until he again proves himself, and loss of his faith-based Crusader class abilities until he seeks an Atonement spell), or a mild transgression for which she would extol a slap on the wrist (loss of class abilities for a day or so).
Thoughts?
One of Saranrae's most basic tenents is redemption. Her followers should be looking for ways to fight evil, while preserving life (for it's own sake).
She is all about doing the right things for the right reasons. Charity, protection, healing, selflessness... However, Saranrae is also described as having a back bone of steel-"Sarenrae's doctrines preach swift justice delivered by the scimitar's edge"
The players were put in a rough no-good-choice-situation. Hit them all, prisoners included, or proabbly lose the fight! Hitting the prisoners should have been a last resort. VERY last resort. If the Crusader behaved as if the slaves' lives had no value, than yes, he was behaving contrary to Saranrae's nature. If he exhausted all avenues before getting to that dread decision, then, like Saranrae, he bent as far as he could before he had to stop the evil-doers in thier tracks (smoldering carpets under the efreets in this case ;) ).
In any event, what is the rest of the Crusader's history? Does he always behave this way? I think Saranrae would be gentle in reminding at first, then more severe as the warnings were ignored...
Often times we hear about Good Characters put in no-win situations, and when they make *either* choice (sic, kill the hostages or let the villains escape) they are punished (You shed the blood of the innocent?!! You let the Evil ESCAPE?!!?). What would happen if the PC saved the hostages but died in the process? Where's the reward in that? *woot* Reroll? When giving PCs hard moral choices, be sure to include something that will keep them wanting to be heroes :) Lest we all end up with nothing but Gorum worshiping madmen ;)
GNOME
|
|
It's the first time he's really acted out of character in that way. But it's also the first time they've really been in a situation where such a delicate moral choice had to be made. There have been several times in past encounters where the encounter began with parley and diplomacy, which sometimes worked and sometimes didn't. They've been mowing through most of their enemies, which has worked in their favor when they've opened with parleys in the past. Strange that they didn't even try to talk them down this time. Instead, it was, "Oh crap, they're gonna use wishes as weapons, gotta take these guys out NOW, acceptable losses and all that." I think they were alarmed that the efreet broke out the wishes as weapons, forgetting that they still get saves against the spells, just the saves DCs are against 9th level spells, not 6th level spells. The party is average 14th level, by the way.
One of my players is playing a Crusader (3.5E class from Tome of Battle: The Book of Nine Swords - okay, yeah, I know, dumbest book ever made for the 3.5 system, and I'm still kicking myself for allowing it in my game). Anyway, here is the quandry:
Crusaders are very similar to paladins and cavaliers in that they are strict followers of a cause and a code. They're not just fancy fighters with a few extra abilities - those abilities come with heavy dose of responsibility. Now, the Crusader in question is dedicated to the service of Sarenrae and to the cause of opposing slavery wherever he finds it. Caught in the middle of a wish war, the party enters a room where a trio of efreet are holding some human prisoners and coercing them to make wishes for them (the emulating spells aspect) to use against the party in battle. Two of the prisoners are cowed into making the wishes for the efreet, while the third remains stubborn and refuses to comply. The following round, to punish the obstinate prisoner, the efreeti improves the grapple to do automatic damage, trying to keep the prisoner conscious while putting the fear of death into him. He overdoes it a little, and the prisoner passes out, but is not dead (and the party could tell he wasn't dead by the way the efreeti was treating his unconscious form).
All three efreet are basically grappling the prisoners, holding blades to their throats, so the prisoners are considered as occupying all of the same squares that the efreet are occupying. This is important to note, because the Crusader has a breath weapon ability - line of electricity, and because of the grappling, there's no way to breathe on a grappling efreeti without also breathing on the prisoner he's grappling. Now there were plenty of ways the Crusader could reacted to that situation that would have had a better chance of not automatically killing the prisoner, especially since it was in the efreeti's best interest to not only save but revive the prisoner. But rather than entertain any of those...
Rules answer:The crusader does not get its powers from a deity.
Fluff: It's power stems from a devotion to a cause.
I would not suddenly push new rules on a player, but I would want them to RP. In game I would have the deity give the character a warning. Out of game I would inform them that I expect them to RP the concept, and if they need clarification I would inform them of what is expected of their deity.
If you still want to impose a new rules mechanic I would inform them of that also, but I would not use it against them this time since there was no prior knowledge.
PS:If you and the player did discuss having rules mechanic then I would hold them to the same standard as a paladin for the purpose of regaining their powers.
Well, the way I read it when I was studying up for my Cleric, there are several options to "punish" this Crusader for choosing unwisely that should get the point across.
Easiest and least harmful way to the player (and the group as a whole), a horrible sunburn. Nothing says "Hey buddy, you messed up" like that special brand of agony whenever you move. Have it persist for a few days, resist magical healing (which is Her thing) and if the Crusader makes another poor choice after reflecting upon this one, then consider stepping up to the blindness.
It might be interesting to note that, in the Pathfinder RPG grappling creatures do not occupy the same space, they are simply adjacent.
Will you make the Gorum-worshiping fighter's sword shatter because he did something Gorum disapproves of?
Will you make the Norgorber-worshiping rogue's tools rust because he disobeyed Norgorber's tenets?
Will you make a wizard's spellbook catch fire for crossing Nethys?
A crusader IS a fancy fighter. He is like the real world crusaders: A complete loon who thinks he is invincible, has the blessing of a god in doing his atrocities, and is always right. This fuels his martial abilities through this conviction.
But all that aside, this entire scenario is bogus:
1) If you successfully grapple a creature that is not adjacent to you, move that creature to an adjacent open space. You have to succeed on a new CMB check to move them from the square in which they are grappled.
2) Efreeti are large.
3) You can easily draw a line through it without hurting the people it grapples.
|
Additionally, I see a lot of DMs set up such events where they believe that the player will react in a certain way because the character has certain beliefs. It never goes the way the DM expects.
The way to set it up to go a way you will expect is to do some foreshadowing. Have your crusader (paladin, cleric, whatever) meet a philosophical member of their order. Engage in some roleplaying where hypothetical scenarios are discussed. Maybe even historical scenarios where some crusaders had to make difficult choices. Discuss other options. Give some XP for the roleplaying encounter and call it a day.
A few sessions later have your fancy event occur. The player(s) will be mentally prepped by the previous conversation. Things will unfold in a more predictable manner.
Set up a code, or multiple codes, of conduct. This is actually a good thing to do for all characters, for purposes of domination, charm and other manners of manipulation.
My paladin follows the paladin code AND a code similar to bushido, revolving ideals I imagine Irori would want his champions to follow. This means he has a straight-jacket on for what he can do in terms of moral gray areas, BUT it also gives a clear set of "will-do"s and a whole lot of new saves when bad guys try to make him do anything contrary to his code.
This makes it a whole lot easier for the GM to say "Would your character do that?" or "That is not something your god will approve of."
Info and Night, it sounds like you two have some talking to do :)
May you reach a fair conclusion that continues with a game that you both want to play.
GNOME
I'd suggest that the crusader go to a spiritual counselor of some kind, and "get it off his chest." The cleric or whatever can offer some advice or even an Atonement. True, the character isn't that connected to a deity, but it would be some good roleplay, and maybe lead to other adventures.
I like these siturations where we get both sides of the story.
It seems to me that InfoStorm thoiught it was the only option that would work. And did not know that he would be held to a higher standard because the book did not say so(which I'll comment on in a little bit). So as a DM I would give the player a warning in the form of a dream or vision.
The problem with ToB is that it was a hidden play test for 4th ed. One of the concepts in 4th ed play tested in that book was that Divine characters don't loose their powers due to transgression to the souce of their divine powers. In 4th ed you could as a cleric get invested with the power of the deity and than use that power to start a church of whorshipping of you. That is why I think Crusader's in ToB don't say directly like the other classes do.
I think there was misunderstanding on both sides that you two need to talk about.
Being the Crusader in question, I would like to state:
1. My characters did not immediately attack, thinking hostage situation and negotiations possible.
2. Another character attempted to parley and his response was a greater bestow curse to 1 CON from the hostage.
3. Do to misunderstanding from comment from the DM (my fault) I thought that the prisoner in question was already dead. I passed two other efreet to harm the one I did.
4. The efreet's goal is nothing but our deaths. If we die the world goes into darkness and everyone will be enslaved. While they were under duress, the prisoners were still acting against us, by making wishes to harm us. By attacking us, are they truely innocients?
5. Someone was having fun quoting Speed, "Shoot the hostage."Basically it comes down to Spock's comment, "The needs of the many out weigh the needs ot the few." Is harming one semi-innocient destructive to one's morals when the entire world will be harmed if I did not.
Rules wise: It does not specifically state that a Crusader looses class abilities if they vear from their tenants, unlike 3 other classes that specifically state so.
End of the world and loss of con when trying diplomacy equals dead hostage.
I agree with you in this case, and even if I lose my powers it is worth it if it saves the world.
PS:For those of you that come here with two side of an argument--> When you(general statement) try to come here with a complete version of the story that is neutral. Leaving out "end of the world" information is pretty important. I think I am going to start asking, "Is that the entire story?".
|
|
Being the Crusader in question, I would like to state:
1. My characters did not immediately attack, thinking hostage situation and negotiations possible.
2. Another character attempted to parley and his response was a greater bestow curse to 1 CON from the hostage.
3. Do to misunderstanding from comment from the DM (my fault) I thought that the prisoner in question was already dead. I passed two other efreet to harm the one I did.
4. The efreet's goal is nothing but our deaths. If we die the world goes into darkness and everyone will be enslaved. While they were under duress, the prisoners were still acting against us, by making wishes to harm us. By attacking us, are they truely innocients?
5. Someone was having fun quoting Speed, "Shoot the hostage."
Not to butt heads, but I think you're slightly misremembering how things went. During the surprise round, the efreeti grabbed the prisoners and held them as human shields, basically. When regular intiative started, Miranda remained out of the room. Then Mandy double-moved to move immediately adjacent to the first efreet, a move that would be seen as aggressive by pretty much anyone (no attempt at parley, unless you define rushing the enemy as an attempt to negotiate). Then Clyde moved into the room and readied an action (no attempt at parley). Then the efreet, having already been aggressed towards, demanded wishes of their prisoners and targeted Mandy and Clyde, being the only two in the room at that time. Then Yllari moved past the first two and breathed on the third (again, no attempt at parley), targeting and killing the only prisoner who had refused to make wishes against you. No attempts at diplomacy or parley were ever made. Plus, through the course of the adventure, the party has met several evil creatures (div paraikas, harpies, evil janni and other efreet previously loyal to Javhul who you were able to sway to the other side, even in areas held by him, so metagaming that these efreet could not possibly have been bargained with isn't going to fly as an excuse for rushing headlong without regard for your code, but I do agree with some of the others that it isn't a capital offense and should warrant nothing more than a slap on the wrist from Sarenrae, since it was the first time Yllari really strayed from his code.
Regarding whether or not the grappled creature shares the same square as the grappler, the rules are not overly clear on that. It does mention two instances where the grappled target is moved to an adjacent square - 1) if the grappled target was not adjacent to the grappler when the grapple began, and 2) if the grappler improves grapple to move the target, he can move him to any adjacent square (i.e. in any grappling scenario, the grappler cannot move the grappled target more than one square). Moving into the space of the target (for targets the same size or larger than the grappler), or moving the target into the grappler's space (for targets smaller than the grappler) has always been the standard for grappling, and it has always been the understood rule in our game from day one.
By the way, just so nobody misunderstands, 99.9% of the time, Infostorm is one of the best roleplayers I've ever had the pleasure of gaming with. It's only the fact that his character is a strict code-based character that even makes this an issue.
Not to butt heads, but I think you're slightly misremembering how things went. During the surprise round, the efreeti grabbed the prisoners and held them as human shields, basically. When regular intiative started, Miranda remained out of the room. Then Mandy double-moved to move immediately adjacent to the first efreet, a move that would be seen as aggressive by pretty much anyone (no attempt at parley, unless you define rushing the enemy as an attempt to negotiate). Then Clyde moved into the room and readied an action (no attempt at parley). Then the efreet, having already been aggressed towards, demanded wishes of their prisoners and targeted Mandy and Clyde, being the only two in the room at that time. Then Yllari moved past the first two and breathed on the third (again, no attempt at parley), targeting and killing the only prisoner who had refused to make wishes against you. No attempts at diplomacy or parley were ever made. Plus, through the course of the adventure, the party has met several evil creatures (div paraikas, harpies, evil janni and other efreet previously loyal to Javhul who you were able to sway to the other side, even in areas held by him, so metagaming that these efreet could not possibly have been...Being the Crusader in question, I would like to state:
1. My characters did not immediately attack, thinking hostage situation and negotiations possible.
2. Another character attempted to parley and his response was a greater bestow curse to 1 CON from the hostage.
3. Do to misunderstanding from comment from the DM (my fault) I thought that the prisoner in question was already dead. I passed two other efreet to harm the one I did.
4. The efreet's goal is nothing but our deaths. If we die the world goes into darkness and everyone will be enslaved. While they were under duress, the prisoners were still acting against us, by making wishes to harm us. By attacking us, are they truely innocients?
5. Someone was having fun quoting Speed, "Shoot the hostage."
In 3.5 they occupied the same square. In pathfinder they specifically state "adjacent square". There is nothing unclear about it. It is a moot point now, but it might matter in later games. The rules also state that if there is no clear path for the target to be pulled into the adjacent square that the grapple automatically fails. There is also no rule saying the grappled target can not be moved more than one square to be next to the target. If that were the case monsters with reach and improved grab would have to put themselves at risk, and their reach would not be as useful.
PRD:If you successfully grapple a creature that is not adjacent to you, move that creature to an adjacent open space (if no space is available, your grapple fails).
SRD(3.5):Step 4Maintain Grapple. To maintain the grapple for later rounds, you must move into the target’s space. (This movement is free and doesn’t count as part of your movement in the round.)
I think the issue is a misunderstanding with what the player saw versus how things were described. It happens at my table sometimes too. Happy Gaming.
|
Gods are not necessarily just set-pieces - if the character in question is of high enough level to be on Sarenrae's radar, and if it turns out that the act was contrary to her teachings, it may be appropriate for her to bestow a minor curse on the character until an atonement or similar action is undertaken. Penalizing a class that doesn't gain its powers direct from a deity or divinity in general (such as clerics and paladins) with loss of said powers due to an angry deity seems little supported by the rules, though.
Basically, did he screw up and make a mistake (pissing off Sarenrae in the process), or did he subvert his cause and knowingly slay an enslaved innocent? It seems like this is so borderline a case you might give the player the benefit of the doubt and hit him with a curse form of doom until he can work things out with Sarenrae.
If you did want a slap on the wrist. Perhaps it should be a thematic warning.
I like the idea of the character waking up to find the area around his camp scorched by lightning, excluding him precisely. The message: "This is what you did not do."
|
|
Maintain Grapple. To maintain the grapple for later rounds, you must move into the target’s space. (This movement is free and doesn’t count as part of your movement in the round.)
This is the rule we were playing under. Whether it was officially adopted into the PRD is beside the point, since we have been playing with this rule from the beginning, and everyone has been aware of it (in fact, the other players have cited it on numerous occasions when trying to decide who ends up where). So whether you consider it RAW, RAI or a house rule, every player at that table has known that rule from the start. As explained before, they began the grapple during the surprise round. When that one prisoner refused to word a wish for its captor, the captor then, during its regular initiative, maintained and improved the grapple to deal automatic damage. And before the Crusader breathed the line of lightning, I made it explicitly clear, "You know that both the efreet and the prisoner are now considered as occupying the same space (just the same way a mounted rider is considered as occuping all the squares the mount occupies). If you target the efreet, you're also going to hit the prisoner and quite possibly kill him. Are you sure you want to do that?" Of course, at that point everybody chimed in, the responses including, "Shoot the hostage!," "he's gonna die anyway," and "we're at war!" So everyone at that table was aware, for at least a moment in time before the decision was made, that the prisoner was still alive and that breathing the line of electricity would hit and possibly kill him. That point was made very, very clear, even if people may have lost sight of it during the momentary joking clamor.
Ultimately, though, the quandry comes from this passage from the Crusader section in the Tome of Battle (since the character in question is a Crusader of a holy faith): "A crusader who embraces a religion or holy faith is similar to a paladin in that she commands a number of holy (or unholy) powers. However, a crusader has no skill with divine spellcasting; she is a martial adept whose maneuvers are unpredictable gifts of divine power. Trusting in the power of her chosen deity, she allows faith and intuition to guide her through battle. Many crusaders receive the call to their cause early in life, but never study formally at a temple or monastery. These warriors are gifted with a natural ability to channel the divine energies of their cause, but in a raw, untamed manner. A crusader has absolute faith in her ability to draw on the source of her power, but she never quite knows how that power will manifest." The emphasized sections suggest that the power for their abilities does not merely come from mental discipline and dedication, it is actually granted by their deity, albeit as a raw pool of power and not as shaped and willed effects. As I interpret that, that pool of power is a gift bestowed upon the Crusader, and one that can be taken away in much the same way that access to clerical and druidic abilities can be restricted in similar circumstances.
I understand that the book was meant to sort of introduce players to a new system in which the severence of divine powers simply doesn't occur with any of the classes. But that really only works when you're playing entirely within that new system, but if you're just using it as a resource for the old system, adjustments do have to be made to bring it in line with how divine access actually works in non-4E systems. And in hindsight, I have no doubt that if the book had been intended to be fully compatible with 3.5, it would have included an ex-members section just like every other divinely empowered class. Yet another reason why I should never have allowed it (or the Magic of Incarnum book) to be used as a resource for my Pathfinder game.
On a side note, I do like scorched by lightning suggestion from the previous post.
Maintain Grapple. To maintain the grapple for later rounds, you must move into the target’s space. (This movement is free and doesn’t count as part of your movement in the round.)Ultimately, though, the quandry comes from this passage from the Crusader section in the Tome of Battle (since the character in question is a Crusader of a holy faith): "A crusader who embraces a religion or holy faith is similar to a paladin in that she commands a number of holy (or...
Ok. I did not know you were keeping certain 3.5 rules. I assumed it was a full switch, but you had not noticed a rules change or two.
I saw that section about the Crusader, and it is fluff. That first section is always fluff for a class. It never has mechanics in it. It was meant to be represented mechanically they would say X happens if the code is violated. Many classes such as the Kensai(from Complete Warrior), which happen to have codes that matter mechanically are very specific about what happens if a code is violated.
Other classes(paragraph, page 11) and more fluff
Your power stems from you devotion to your cause....
Note that while you are devoted to a deity that the deity does not supply the power.
Even in the paragragh you quoted it says, "These warriors are gifted with a natural ability to channel the divine energies of their cause, but in a raw, untamed manner."
It seems to me that natural ability and devotion are the source of the power.
A crusader is not a cleric.
don't treat them as such.
an inquisitor is allowed to violate thier god's teachings if it serves the greater good.
a paladin is allowed to mercilessly execute those who oppose the teachings of his faith in a cold blooded public display
a crusader, who recieves no gifts from thier god at all should not be penalized for using the gifts they have aqcuired
an oracle draws thier divine power, not from the gods themselves but from thier cursed divine lineage
a druid draws thier power from nature, and there is more to nature than plants and animals, there are mountains, seas, volcanoes, weather, alternate planes, and even the elements themselves as well.
i once played a nekogami (homebrew race) druid that drew her power from the abyss itself. representing the her reverence of the natural beauty of death, devastation, desolace, blight and withering. the beauty of wastelands themselves, and she wanted the whole cosmology to be one giant desolate wasteland. she was chaotic evil. but the alignment suited her goals and certain class restrictions were waived. she wore the hides of various endangered species, a robe made from the hide of a great white shark, gloves made from the hide of a bottlenose dolphin, hair ornaments made from the bones of an orca whale, boots made from the hides of anacondas, bloomers made from the hide of a panther, a bandeau made from the hide of a lynx, a slip made from the hide a polar bear, and hair ribbons made from the feathered hide of a bald eagle.
|
4. The efreet's goal is nothing but our deaths. If we die the world goes into darkness and everyone will be enslaved. While they were under duress, the prisoners were still acting against us, by making wishes to harm us. By attacking us, are they truely innocients?
Maybe not "truly, genuinely, 100% extra innocent", but so what? Few are.
However, they were forced to act. Probably with intimidation, which means they were sure that they'd save their lives.
While it might not be the action of a saint, it's not the action of a sinner, either. And it's especially, absolutely, not the action of someone beyond redemption.
Serenrae is no arrogant crusader who will kill evil, defining evil as "anyone who is less than perfectly good", like some are wont to. She is the goddess of redemption, of forgiveness.
That means even evil creatures are to be offered - and granted - quarter unless it's clear that they're beyond redemption. We're talking about simple people who could have had any alignment, killed before anyone asked.
As a devotee of the Dawnflower, you just have to do better.
The good news is: You're not yet beyond redemption, either. But you have to seek it. You have to realise your wrongdoings, your shortcomings, your acts of evil. Killing hostages under duress because it's convenient is not part of a holy warrior's code!
Basically it comes down to Spock's comment, "The needs of the many out weigh the needs ot the few." Is harming one semi-innocient destructive to one's morals when the entire world will be harmed if I did not.
I'll answer this washed-out set phrase with one of my own: "If you cannot rescue one, how do you want to rescue a million?"
No moral shortcuts for you, crusader. Not saving those who rely on you for their protection because it is less convenient, or because your chance of winning decreases slightly, will not pass without comment. Only if you're absolutely certain that it is necessary to abandon that one life for the many should you think about it.
Rules wise: It does not specifically state that a Crusader looses class abilities if they vear from their tenants, unlike 3 other classes that specifically state so.
Using technicalities are more for the Archfiend and his hellish minions, not for the servants of an archangel!
You put your life into our mistress's hands, and if she thinks that you must do penance, you will do penance. If she thinks that stripping you of some or all of your powers will help you get a proper perspective on things, you will be stripped of power. Doesn't matter if the lore says that your power stems not from a direct divine influence. Serenrae could lame a mere fighter's sword arm if he was part of the clergy.
Plus, if your devotion to your goddess, and not the goddess herself, is the source of your power, then your powers will still wane. It just means that it was all you. Your devotion vanes, and the power will wane right alongside.
And again, arguing about this seems more fitting to the worshippers of Asmodeus.
Show remorse! Do penance! Beseech your divine patron to let you do so by fulfilling your quest, by the genuine wish to make amends.
That way, I'm sure Serenrae in her infinite benignity will realise that it was a honest mistake, a moment's weakness, and a source for consternation for you, and thus make your sentence a light one.
A crusader is not a cleric.
don't treat them as such.
A crusader is a priest, a member of the church. He shall be treated as such.
an inquisitor is allowed to violate thier god's teachings if it serves the greater good.
They're a very special case, are inquisitors.
a paladin is allowed to mercilessly execute those who oppose the teachings of his faith in a cold blooded public display
No, they're not.
Especially not paladins of Serenrae.
Yes, you forget that this is not the follower of a neutral god.
a crusader, who recieves no gifts from thier god at all should not be penalized for using the gifts they have aqcuired
That crusador should, however, be penalised for abusing these gifts.
an oracle draws thier divine power, not from the gods themselves but from thier cursed divine lineage
Not necessarily: They are chosen by the gods (often without getting a word in their choosing). This is usually not a hereditary matter. In fact, they're often not even chosen by the gods themselves, but rather by primeval cosmic forces like "life"
a druid draws thier power from nature, and there is more to nature than plants and animals, there are mountains, seas, volcanoes, weather, alternate planes, and even the elements themselves as well.
I'm sorry, why are we talking about druids? Or oracles?
This is about crusaders, holy warriors devoted to a deity's cause.
i once played a nekogami (homebrew race) druid that drew her power from the abyss itself. representing the her reverence of the natural beauty of death, devastation, desolace, blight and withering. the beauty of wastelands themselves, and she wanted the whole cosmology to be one giant desolate wasteland. she was chaotic evil.
Again I have to ask: Why are we talking about druids? Druids that aren't even following the game's rules? For CE is not a valid alignment for druids (they have to be at least partially neutral). And the Abyss is as far removed from nature than could ever be possible.
Plus, if that "druid" had been walking around, quenching fires, healing the sick and wounded, rebuilding the ruined, purifying incursions from demonic realms into the material dimensions, I'm sure the powers would have disappeared, too.
Leaving out "end of the world" information is pretty important.
As is not exaggerating.
a paladin is allowed to mercilessly execute those who oppose the teachings of his faith in a cold blooded public display
I don't know about that. Being cold blooded is a good way to become a warrior, and get thrown in jail.
Leaving out "end of the world" information is pretty important.As is not exaggerating.
True. If this was not the last fight to save the world then it was more like a lie than an exaggeration.
a lot of strawmen and red herrings in there somewhere.
|
|
True. If this was not the last fight to save the world then it was more like a lie than an exaggeration.Leaving out "end of the world" information is pretty important.As is not exaggerating.
In his defense, it is true that they are kind of under the gun. We're in the last chapter of Legacy of Fire, for those who are familiar with that AP.
In his defense, it is true that they are kind of under the gun. We're in the last chapter of Legacy of Fire, for those who are familiar with that AP. ***spoiler omitted***True. If this was not the last fight to save the world then it was more like a lie than an exaggeration.Leaving out "end of the world" information is pretty important.As is not exaggerating.
The old profiling bug. It gets the best of us from time to time. My players just sent through a similar thing with an ally, turned vampire who made no violent advances against them. He had important information, but now they might have to do things the harder way.
when i was talking about the chaotic evil druid, that was a character from a long time ago with some guy named Tony (3.5 edition was fairly new at the time) and Tony (DM of that game) ignored a whole bunch of rules and created a whole bunch of seemingly overpowered boons for everyone. the chaotic evil druid was the least broken pc.
the most overpowered guy of that game was a member of a homebrewed ninja class who was given a special uber katana, and tony was fairly new to DMing at the time. the ninja had full access to the 'best' damage boosting abilities of a monk, fighter, and rogue. without the drawbacks. and all sorts of overpowered things were given to the other pcs, ranging from free overpowered variant abilities to overpowered equipment.
a paladin is allowed to mercilessly execute those who oppose the teachings of his faith in a cold blooded public display
No, they're not.
Especially not paladins of Serenrae.
Yes, you forget that this is not the follower of a neutral god.
Thank you for that. My cleric's cohort is a paladin of Sarenrae. There was a situation I got myself in where I went into a foreign country with a few adepts and he and I wiped out a huge outbreak of plague in three weeks (removed disease on 770+ people). We were treated to a tour of Pitax as a reward for our service, at which point Irovetti himself called upon the noble rescuers of the people to stand and identify themselves. My CG cleric had been in "disguise" the entire time, so as not to appear to be working with the scumbag if he turned against us, and I told my paladin to tell the king that the High Priestess could not be present, but she thanks you. The paladin immediately turned around and glared at me for even that slight a transgression against Sarenrae's portfolio.
Compared to the majority of the party, my cohort is pretty laid back. He is a true believer in redemption. He defends bad guys from the party if my cleric wishes, so strong is his faith in her, and their goddess. The only creature I know he wishes to "mercilessly execute" is the CE half fiend satyr that has been tormenting us for years.
A paladin CAN mercilessly slaughter:
- Evil outsiders, as these are the physical incarnation of irredeemable evil.
- Undead, as these are evil perversions of life.
- Evil dragons, as these are monsters that he is more or less put on the earth to vanquish.
- Evil clerics, as they are the sick twisted will of their gods made flesh.
- Anti-paladins, nuff said.
- Mindless constructs, as they aren't alive, but might lead to reimbursement cases if the construct is not a threat.
They can NOT mercilessly slaughter:
- Nonbelievers
- Regular evil folk who plead for mercy (extreme cases might negate this)
- Lawbreakers (evil law should be overturned, not heeded, as laws exists to serve people, not rule over them, and certainly not to harm them)
- Pretty much anything that doesn't fall into the categories mentioned above.
Personally I would advocate the player to be dedicated to the Desert Wind style - which is very dervish-like and appropriate for Sarenrae. (I know, rather off-topic, but that's how it is.)
when i was talking about the chaotic evil druid, that was a character from a long time ago with some guy named Tony (3.5 edition was fairly new at the time) and Tony (DM of that game) ignored a whole bunch of rules and created a whole bunch of seemingly overpowered boons for everyone. the chaotic evil druid was the least broken pc.
the most overpowered guy of that game was a member of a homebrewed ninja class who was given a special uber katana, and tony was fairly new to DMing at the time. the ninja had full access to the 'best' damage boosting abilities of a monk, fighter, and rogue. without the drawbacks. and all sorts of overpowered things were given to the other pcs, ranging from free overpowered variant abilities to overpowered equipment.
Wow! I mean, when I talk about ninjas that get d12, double level as BAB, their level to all saves, full spell progression (like sorcerer, but knows all spells in any book, at the lowest possible level), gets 1d6 sneak attack per level and 1d6 sudden strike per level, and 2 feats every level, and katanas that do 2d20 (2-20/x10), I'm always jokingly exaggerating things.
People really do things like that?
A paladin CAN mercilessly slaughter:
- Evil outsiders, as these are the physical incarnation of irredeemable evil.
- Undead, as these are evil perversions of life.
- Evil dragons, as these are monsters that he is more or less put on the earth to vanquish.
- Evil clerics, as they are the sick twisted will of their gods made flesh.
- Anti-paladins, nuff said.
- Mindless constructs, as they aren't alive, but might lead to reimbursement cases if the construct is not a threat.
I'll give you evil outsiders and undead. He can't slaughter constructs, since they're unslaughterable. They're not living things. He can destroy them, of course, when they threaten anyone. Life is always more precious than mere material.
But evil priests and dragons are not always beyond redemption.
In the case of a paladin of Serenrae, I'd say they need to do the same "Surrender and repent your sins or I shall smite you down!" they do for everyone else.
I added a spoiler tag.
Ye of little faith! You are not beyond redemption yet.a lot of strawmen and red herrings in there somewhere.
LoL. I will come back and elaborate on that later. :)
|
|
I'll give you evil outsiders and undead. He can't slaughter constructs, since they're unslaughterable. They're not living things. He can destroy them, of course, when they threaten anyone. Life is always more precious than mere material.
But evil priests and dragons are not always beyond redemption.
Personally, I'd even include evil outsiders and undead in the latter. Although evil outsiders will always retain the evil subtype, it doesn't mean they must always retain an evil alignment. I've never been fond of the idea that an intelligent creature is irredeemably slave to the circumstances of its birth. By the same token, it is also possible to have a neutral good red dragon or a chaotic evil gold dragon. It all depends on how they were raised and the circumstances of their pasts. I just finished running a module that was created as a vehicle for the winner of a WotC most interesting NPC contest, a succubus paladin. And there are countless stories of undead, particularly vampires and ghosts, turning good. To me, requiring that undead and outsiders can only have the alignments of their bestiary entries allows far too much for metagaming. If the characters never know from one encounter to the next whether the creature they're meeting is good or evil, it gives them pause and forces a lot more role-playing, versus merely roll-playing.