If the workings of the class are secret then such things should be stated up front, and in that case the player should be allowed to make a knowledge check assuming he has ranks in the correct area.I think this is extremely clever, and would allow it. However, I would first ask the player how his character knows that handing the druid a metal shield is going to be crippling to him.
I don't think everyone just happens to know everything about other player classes just because. Druid rites are secret, just like their language.
If the player could not provide a reason to do so IN CHARACTER, I would disallow it. His character should never have come to the conclusion that handing a threat something that will provide them more defense will make them weaker. That's my only caveat.
Knowledge (religion) check, then? What DC? Why does [insert any given character] happen to know this one particular tidbit?
Understand that I'm not ragging on the OP, and I have been guilty of making this sort of leap in-game myself, but ultimately it's metagaming.
It does have the grossly wording, but nothing about willingness. A dominated cleric of Sarenrae who enslaves all the men-folk of a town while murdering the women and children still becomes an ex-cleric.
All 3 classes can get back their features through atonement, but all three lose their features if they violate their core code because of a compulsion effect.
+1 on this.
If a holy man or woman were tricked or forced into heresy in any story, movie, book or legend, they would suffer a crisis of faith, and lose favor with their divine source.
Some may think that if a Paladin were tricked or enchanted into killing innocents, burning down a LG temple and putting a demon on the throne, they'd just say "well I was dominated, so it doesn't count. I don't feel guilty at all."
No, buddy... your Will was too weak (you failed your save), and you gave in to the compulsion to be the puppet of evil. You SHOULD feel guilty, and you SHOULD fall from grace.
Then, of course, they have to recover their faith through trials or some such (which is atonement). This is plot, and story, and denying this is denying the epic nature of stories of faith... which is funny for me to say as a card carrying atheist.
The Paladin, Cleric and Druid are all subject to this paradigm.
If a DM prevents this for the sake of game balance or enjoyment of the PCs, that's house-rules. Don't argue to deny it, because you're just ... well, you're in denial.
Houserules aren't bad, but they disagree with the RAW and RAI... though RAW and RAI are not the be-all and end-all to a successful and enjoyable game.
|
Thanks Jiggy (and everyone else)! I haven't actually ever used this gimmic (and I figure I never will get a chance), but I was shairing it with the DM during a lull moment and was surprised at the "feeling" of the response the two judges at the table. They were very strong in their objections - and relations tword me were somewhat for a while afterword. It did require my Bard to sell off her Masterwork wooden shield and replace it with a steel one (Oohf the extra pounds! and this girl is watching her weight!) ;)
A first level spell stopping most of a class powers with one failed save?
No surprise the GM reaction was negative.If I was the GM in a home game the druid would have a bonus to his ST as the action is strongly against his ethics or I would block his powers only as long as the shield is in his hand.
As it was already pointed out he need to use the shield to suffer the negative effect and, as most things done under magical compulsion, the druid should not suffer consequences for the violation of his ethics if he stop to do the prohibited act as soon as he is free from the compulsion.
|
|
that's part of why I posted the question. I needed to see if most Judges would respond the same. Their response was "how would you feel if someone did it to you!" (perhaps not the exact wording - but close), and I blinked and replied "how is this different from handcuffing him?" (which is what I usually do). It made me re-think using the gimmic, as it would leave my character standing next to an upset Druid that still had all his powers.
This is cheese.
You can't give a set of handcuff to someone, cast the spell and get him to handcuff himself.The spell say: "On its next turn, it consumes or dons the object, as appropriate for the item in question."
Now look a cop. Where are his handcuffs? Not on his wrists. They are at his belt, ready for use when needed.
"as appropriate for the item in question" mean that the item is used in a appropriate way, like putting a sword in a scabbard, notching a arrow or putting it away in a quiver and so on.
You can't give out a sword and get the target of the spell to attack someone at random as that is the "appropriate action".
that's part of why I posted the question. I needed to see if most Judges would respond the same. Their response was "how would you feel if someone did it to you!" (perhaps not the exact wording - but close), and I blinked and replied "how is this different from handcuffing him?" (which is what I usually do). It made me re-think using the gimmic, as it would leave my character standing next to an upset Druid that still had all his powers.This is cheese.
You can't give a set of handcuff to someone, cast the spell and get him to handcuff himself.The spell say: "On its next turn, it consumes or dons the object, as appropriate for the item in question."
Now look a cop. Where are his handcuffs? Not on his wrists. They are at his belt, ready for use when needed.
"as appropriate for the item in question" mean that the item is used in a appropriate way, like putting a sword in a scabbard, notching a arrow or putting it away in a quiver and so on.You can't give out a sword and get the target of the spell to attack someone at random as that is the "appropriate action".
I think you misunderstood his intent. He's saying how is it different from LITERALLY handcuffing the druid, not if he had used this spell to hand them to the druid.
|
|
I'd have to disagree with the comments saying that forced and/or unintentional actions 'do not count' as violations of Cleric/Druid/Paladin codes.
Read the Atonement spell description: both intentional and unintentional violations are clearly indicated to cause loss of powers. However, unintentional violations are much easier to atone for.
On the original question - I'd let it work. On the other hand I wouldn't approve the manacles thing. Rather, in that case I'd probably have the target immediately try to put the manacles on the caster.
|
|
Wow this is a mean trick. It takes the druid out for two days mostlikely. They lose everything right? so their big pet suddenly isn't theirs. Dose the animal become hostile? can they use Handle Animal on it or dose their pet get lunch? The pet is supost to be friendly, but the Druid just messed up big and the pet lost a lot of HP and HD (i assume that when a Druid picks a new pet the old one loses what it gained) and that might make it mad.
It takes a l day to get a new pet, assuming you are already in the area where they are naturaly found.
seems like a really cheep trick to mess with a Druid player. In a pathfinder socity game you hand him a metal sheild and the player can just leave cus he is now worthless to the party and most Mods don't have enough time for the druid to get his/her spells back and a pet. and without the druids abilites... not realy worth playing.
A druid who wears prohibited armor or uses a prohibited shield is unable to cast druid spells or use any of her supernatural or spell-like class abilities while doing so and for 24 hours thereafter....
Nature Bond (Ex)
Nature bond isn't a spell, supernatural or spell-like class ability, so it is not lost.
Even with the most strict interpretation giving a metal shield to a druid do nothing. He need to don it.
He can go around all day with a metal shield in his backpack without consequences.
If you use Beguiling Gift on another player character during society play with the intent of harming him you are in violation of the rules of Society play and the problem is a totally different one.
How do we know the druid won't 5 foot step back and throw the shield at the caster of beguiling gift and use it as an improvised thrown weapon.
Also if carrying a steel shield will make durids loose their powers why don't we buy a fine sized steel shield and sneak it into the druids backpack that would cause them to lose powers without a save if you have slight of hand.
Re: the uses/carries thing...
It does say in the PRD that the same happens when someone even WEARS armor, so just give them armor instead!
Obviously a lot less practical, but for sure undeniably valid from a RAW standpoint :P
I know someone has pointed it out at some point, but based on the last two post I feel it bears repeating. The Druid would use the shield, not "just carry" it. The spell reads: "You offer an object to an adjacent creature, and entice it into using or consuming the proffered item. If the target fails its Will save, it immediately takes the offered object, dropping an already held object if necessary. On its next turn, it consumes or dons the object, as appropriate for the item in question."
Obviously the Druid would not consume the shield (unless....), so he is using it as it was intended, which causes him to lose his spells. If the GM decides to not allow it for any reason, it is 100% a houserules issue. Frankly, I don't even think this is that broken a use of the spell. No worse than giving someone a horribly cursed item. Though I do agree that a bard would not necessarily know that druids can't wear metal, and would have him make a check.
How do we know the druid won't 5 foot step back and throw the shield at the caster of beguiling gift and use it as an improvised thrown weapon.
Also if carrying a steel shield will make durids loose their powers why don't we buy a fine sized steel shield and sneak it into the druids backpack that would cause them to lose powers without a save if you have slight of hand.
Because beguiling gift says you use the item as appropriate for the item. If you give the druid a throwing shield, then you could argue this, but let's say we just gave him a regular steel shield. If it is being used as an improvised weapon, then it is by definition not appropriate. Otherwise, the same beguiling gifted opponent could just as easily toss your potion of poison back on you instead of drinking it, as the feat clearly (EDIT: DOESN'T) intend.
And the druid isn't penalized for CARRYING a metal shield, only for wielding one as a shield.
Ex-Clerics
A cleric who grossly violates the code of conduct required by her god loses all spells and class features, except for armor and shield proficiencies and proficiency with simple weapons. She cannot thereafter gain levels as a cleric of that god until she atones for her deeds (see the atonement spell description).
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 the atonement spell description in Spell Lists), as appropriate.
A druid who wears prohibited armor or uses a prohibited shield is unable to cast druid spells or use any of her supernatural or spell-like class abilities while doing so and for 24 hours thereafter.
Though not explicitly written in the Druid entry, I feel its punishment implies the same requirement ... willfully. Gross violations are also willful, not out of magic compulsion.
Compulsion spells take the willfully right out of the picture, so no, Beguiling Gift wouldn't make a Druid lose his/her spells and abilities. That's just nonsensical in every aspect.
Granted, if compelled (forced) by magic to do something in total opposition to their beliefs, they should have to atone (or even avenge) in their own way, they wouldn't become Ex-Clerics, Ex-Paladins, or powerless Druids.
Ex-Clerics
A cleric who grossly violates the code of conduct required by her god loses all spells and class features, except for armor and shield proficiencies and proficiency with simple weapons. She cannot thereafter gain levels as a cleric of that god until she atones for her deeds (see the atonement spell description).
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 the atonement spell description in Spell Lists), as appropriate.
A druid who wears prohibited armor or uses a prohibited shield is unable to cast druid spells or use any of her supernatural or spell-like class abilities while doing so and for 24 hours thereafter.
Though not explicitly written in the Druid entry, I feel its punishment implies the same requirement ... willfully. Gross violations are also willful, not out of magic compulsion.
Compulsion spells take the willfully right out of the picture, so no, Beguiling Gift wouldn't make a Druid lose his/her spells and abilities. That's just nonsensical in every aspect.
Granted, if compelled (forced) by magic to do something in total opposition to their beliefs, they should have to atone (or even avenge) in their own way, they wouldn't become Ex-Clerics, Ex-Paladins, or powerless Druids.
OK, so two responses to this.
First, the cleric has no mention of willful or not, only gross. A cleric compelled to grossly violate his ethics becomes an ex-cleric. A Paladin only has the willful in the "commit an evil act" phrase. If he unwillfuly ceases to be lawful good or unwillfuly violates his code of conduct, then he also becomes an ex-Paladin.
And second, and this is the big one, A DRUID WHO USES METAL ARMOR OR SHIELDS DOES NOT BECOME AN EX-DRUID AND DOES NOT NEED TO ATONE, SHE JUST LOSES HER SPELLS AND SUPERNATURAL ABILITIES FOR 24 HOURS. Sorry for the yelling, but that was hugely important.
It is exactly the same as a cavalier violating his ethics and losing his challenge for 24 hours. 24 hours, the druid gets her spells back, but for now, they're gone. This is hugely different from a paladin or cleric becoming an ex paladin or ex cleric. In order for a druid to become an ex-druid, she has to cease revering nature, turn to a prohibited alignment, or teach the druidic language. This is on par with the paladin breaking his code of conduct.
|
|
I wouldn't allow it, for the same reason that I don't allow people to dominate clerics into acts of heresy: I don't think the gods are that dumb.
I think if you handed a druid a metal shield and he equipped it (and I agree that beguiling gift would cause him to use it in the sense of equipping it), then it only becomes an issue once he regains free will. If he doesn't drop the shield at the first opportunity, then he's in violation, but I don't think he can be held responsible for choices he was compelled to make by magic.
And for paladins and clerics not losing their class if it is unwillful, the class descriptions and the atonement spell say otherwise. It is, however, much easier for them to get back their abilities if it is unwillful.
This spell removes the burden of misdeeds from the subject. The creature seeking atonement must be truly repentant and desirous of setting right its misdeeds. If the atoning creature committed the evil act unwittingly or under some form of compulsion, atonement operates normally at no cost to you. However, in the case of a creature atoning for deliberate misdeeds, you must intercede with your deity (requiring you to expend 2,500 gp in rare incense and offerings). Atonement may be cast for one of several purposes, depending on the version selected.
In other words, if it was a compulsion affect, they still have to atone, but there is no cost aside from the spell itself. If their church is willing to accept them back (necessary to get the church to cast the spell), then they can get their powers back. If they did it willfully, it takes the action of a god (and corresponding monetary cost) to get their powers back. Either way, though, their powers are gone until the spell is cast.
You don't violate your ethics when you're under the control of someone else ... period.
You are now following the ethics of someone else.
@ Bascaria - Nowhere does it say they lose their class features if compelled.
Like Gailbraithe says, "I don't think the gods are that dumb."
I wouldn't allow it, for the same reason that I don't allow people to dominate clerics into acts of heresy: I don't think the gods are that dumb.
I think if you handed a druid a metal shield and he equipped it (and I agree that beguiling gift would cause him to use it in the sense of equipping it), then it only becomes an issue once he regains free will. If he doesn't drop the shield at the first opportunity, then he's in violation, but I don't think he can be held responsible for choices he was compelled to make by magic.
The rules (and common sense) say exactly the opposite.
The rules I quoted above, both in their class descriptions and in the atonement spell.
Common sense has also been argued above. If you are a paladin and somebody dominates you and you fail the save, then they send you to slaughter some orphans, you will still feel guilt for that. You will still feel responsible. Their blood and the stain of the sin are still on your hands. It is easier to be washed clean, but you still must be washed.
Common sense tells me to never play any of the three classes if losing all your features is just that easy.
By your logic, and a cruel GM, you'd be atoning every day, sometimes more than once a day.
Sorry, but that's ridiculous.
You don't violate your ethics when you're under the control of someone else ... period.
You are now following the ethics of someone else.
@ Bascaria - Nowhere does it say they lose their class features if compelled.
Like Gailbraithe says, "I don't think the gods are that dumb."
But you are still doing it. Here is the ex-cleric section again:
A cleric who grossly violates the code of conduct required by her god loses all spells and class features, except for armor and shield proficiencies and proficiency with simple weapons. She cannot thereafter gain levels as a cleric of that god until she atones for her deeds (see the atonement spell description).
You are saying that if it is under compulsion then no atonement is necessary, but if that were the fact, then why does atonement have a specific section of it devoted to how the spell works if it is being used to atone for acts committed under compulsion?
This spell removes the burden of misdeeds from the subject. The creature seeking atonement must be truly repentant and desirous of setting right its misdeeds. If the atoning creature committed the evil act unwittingly or under some form of compulsion, atonement operates normally at no cost to you. However, in the case of a creature atoning for deliberate misdeeds, you must intercede with your deity (requiring you to expend 2,500 gp in rare incense and offerings). Atonement may be cast for one of several purposes, depending on the version selected.
The gods aren't so stupid as to not recognize the difference between the two acts, but the fact remains that your will was too weak to resist the other side (an evil cleric compelled to do good suffers the same penalties) and you must atone.
Common sense tells me to never play any of the three classes if losing all your features is just that easy.
By your logic, and a cruel GM, you'd be atoning every day, sometimes more than once a day.
Sorry, but that's ridiculous.
No, you wouldn't be atoning every day. You would be atoning if your paladin is compelled to slaughter innocents. I also would like to point out that this is a relatively common trope in heroic fiction. Evil has always sought to undermine good by forcing her agents to commit evil. It's an effective strategy.
Luckily Clerics and Paladins have good will saves and good wisdom or divine grace, respectively. So they should be pretty decent at resisting this sort of thing. Also, hopefully the paladin and cleric are with some like-minded buddies who can stop them from slaughtering all those orphans before it gets too out of hand.
Heh.
So, if you take on a gaggle of vampires, are dominated, and do bad things, you lose your class?
Sorry, man, I don't think so.
Again, this could happen 5 or more times in one day! I think it's a big ol' stretch, personally, and would prevent me from playing any of those classes in a group that plays it this way.
Yes, I can still see wanting, heck needing to atone, but losing your class features in the middle of an adventure in the name of your deity? I think not.
Heh.
So, if you take on a gaggle of vampires, are dominated, and do bad things, you lose your class?
Sorry, man, I don't think so.
Again, this could happen 5 or more times in one day! I think it's a big ol' stretch, personally, and would prevent me from playing any of those classes in a group that plays it this way.
Yes, I can still see wanting, heck needing to atone, but losing your class features in the middle of an adventure in the name of your deity? I think not.
Then why does the atonement spell specifically account for this situation?
Heh.
So, if you take on a gaggle of vampires, are dominated, and do bad things, you lose your class?
Sorry, man, I don't think so.
Again, this could happen 5 or more times in one day! I think it's a big ol' stretch, personally, and would prevent me from playing any of those classes in a group that plays it this way.
Yes, I can still see wanting, heck needing to atone, but losing your class features in the middle of an adventure in the name of your deity? I think not.
And it's not just "do bad things" but specifically violate her code of conduct. That is:
(1) Respect legitimate authority.(2) Act with honor.
(3) Protect the innocent. and
(4) Punish evil.
Anything else doesn't violate the code of conduct and doesn't trigger the need for atonement. If the vampires dominate the paladin to attack his party, it won't trigger. He also gets new saves every time they try to get him to do something and he gets +2 on those saves. His party members also get sense motive checks (DC 15!!!) to notice something is up. And a simple protection for evil will protect him.
In his right mind, he/she would ...
(1) Respect legitimate authority.
(2) Act with honor.
(3) Protect the innocent. and
(4) Punish evil.
Dominated PC's cannot be held accountable for their actions. They do things they would NEVER normally do, and it's safe to say they, themselves, aren't even doing it! Their gods would not forsake them, that's just absurd.
If its that easy to strip a class of all its features, there's something wrong. Ruling that is does is a gamebreaker, IMO, and makes those classes much less viable to fight evil.
I appreciate the point you're trying to make, but I just don't buy it.
Any highly intelligent evil adversary could neuter those classes in seconds under those conditions.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The rules (and common sense) say exactly the opposite.
The rules I quoted above, both in their class descriptions and in the atonement spell.
Common sense has also been argued above. If you are a paladin and somebody dominates you and you fail the save, then they send you to slaughter some orphans, you will still feel guilt for that. You will still feel responsible. Their blood and the stain of the sin are still on your hands. It is easier to be washed clean, but you still must be washed.
My common sense says that's wrong, so nyah. Sure, the paladin may feel guilt, but that doesn't make him actually guilty.
The paladin might need therapy, but not atonement. His god isn't going to be angry at the paladin, he's going to be angry at whoever dominated the paladin.
I appreciate the point you're trying to make, but I just don't buy it.
Any highly intelligent evil adversary could neuter those classes in seconds under those conditions.
I'm going to be semantic for a moment.
who willfully commits an evil act, or who violates the code of conduct
From the Paladin section you've quoted earlier. These are two separate clauses, denoted by the two nouns.
1. One who willfully commits an evil act, OR
2. One who violates the code of conduct.
Notice that "willfully" is not in both clauses. Therefore, "willfully" plays no part in the section of "violating the code of conduct." If it was intended to be applicable to both, it would read:
"who willfully commits an evil act or violates the code of conduct"
The difference is subtle, but very distinct. If the writers decided to be more clear in the writing, "willfully" would be inserted before "violates." As written, "willfully" does not modify the second clause.
It does have the grossly wording, but nothing about willingness. A dominated cleric of Sarenrae who enslaves all the men-folk of a town while murdering the women and children still becomes an ex-cleric.
All 3 classes can get back their features through atonement, but all three lose their features if they violate their core code because of a compulsion effect.
+1 on this.
If a holy man or woman were tricked or forced into heresy in any story, movie, book or legend, they would suffer a crisis of faith, and lose favor with their divine source.
Some may think that if a Paladin were tricked or enchanted into killing innocents, burning down a LG temple and putting a demon on the throne, they'd just say "well I was dominated, so it doesn't count. I don't feel guilty at all."
No, buddy... your Will was too weak (you failed your save), and you gave in to the compulsion to be the puppet of evil. You SHOULD feel guilty, and you SHOULD fall from grace.Then, of course, they have to recover their faith through trials or some such (which is atonement). This is plot, and story, and denying this is denying the epic nature of stories of faith... which is funny for me to say as a card carrying atheist.
The Paladin, Cleric and Druid are all subject to this paradigm.
If a DM prevents this for the sake of game balance or enjoyment of the PCs, that's house-rules. Don't argue to deny it, because you're just ... well, you're in denial.
Houserules aren't bad, but they disagree with the RAW and RAI... though RAW and RAI are not the be-all and end-all to a successful and enjoyable game.
You should feel guilty, because you are a good person, and the curse of a truly good person is to always wonder if you could have done more. But a god who actually withdraws his blessing from someone who is both genuinely penitent and literally had no control over the evil action he was forced to take is frankly just being a dick, not to mention counterproductive. To my mind, the reason a character with a code still loses powers when he violates the code has nothing to do with their God; rather, their own feeling of guilt blocks them from utilizing their powers. That's why Atonement's cheap as free for those types of situations. Their god isn't saying, "You're on probation, buster." He's saying, "Dude, get over yourself. You are not responsible. Now get back in the game, and take care of the bastards who are."
So, while the rules call for an Atonement spell, I would allow the substitution of a sock on the jaw, and a bellowed, "GRIT THOSE TEETH, SIMON/ROSSIU!"
The rules (and common sense) say exactly the opposite.
The rules I quoted above, both in their class descriptions and in the atonement spell.
Common sense has also been argued above. If you are a paladin and somebody dominates you and you fail the save, then they send you to slaughter some orphans, you will still feel guilt for that. You will still feel responsible. Their blood and the stain of the sin are still on your hands. It is easier to be washed clean, but you still must be washed.
My common sense says that's wrong, so nyah. Sure, the paladin may feel guilt, but that doesn't make him actually guilty.
The paladin might need therapy, but not atonement. His god isn't going to be angry at the paladin, he's going to be angry at whoever dominated the paladin.
Suppose for a moment that you are Iomedae. Your champion on the material plane proves himself so weak as to not only lose to his adversary, but become a pawn of that adversary.
Would you seriously not be mad at that weakness? Side note, as has repeatedly been said, why would there be a specific bit of text in Atonement to deal with exactly this scenario?
Suppose there were a Paladin archetype which gave up Aura of Righteousness, the thing Paladins get that makes them immune to this whole debate in the first place.
By your logic, any Paladin who took the archetype should more or less fall just for having it.
If I were literally an anthropomorphic personification of Justice, I imagine blaming the victim would be the last thing I would ever do.
Wow, I never thought I'd see people try to argue the difference between equip and use.
Would this fly at your table?
Sorcerer: Ok I cast Magic Missile. He takes 4 points of damage.
GM: Hold on, you're wearing a large steel shield, you need to roll for spell failure.
Sorcerer: oh, no, it's cool. I just have strapped on, I'm not using it this turn, so that rule doesn't apply to me right now. All the wording in spell failure relates to "wearing" armor, but it only talks about "using" a shield, so since I'm not using it, it doesn't apply!
If you're wearing the shield, you're using it.
Also, I cannot recall anyplace it says you have the option to forgo using a shield strapped to your arm.
It works. The druid "dons" the shield, is thus "using" it, and loses their powers. Players should be rewarded for creative use of spells, not punished or ostracized. People saying it doesn't work are treating this like it's GM vs. Players.
Suppose for a moment that you are Iomedae. Your champion on the material plane proves himself so weak as to not only lose to his adversary, but become a pawn of that adversary.Would you seriously not be mad at that weakness? Side note, as has repeatedly been said, why would there be a specific bit of text in Atonement to deal with exactly this scenario?
And by that logic, merely Dominating a Paladin is enough to strip him of his class features?
Quite the stretch.
Edit: @ - Robb Smith
Why couldn't you forgo the shield bonus and be considered not using it? It's not a matter of whether you actually use it that contributes to spell failure, it's the fact that it's there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why couldn't you forgo the shield bonus and be considered not using it? It's not a matter of whether you actually use it that contributes to spell failure, it's the fact that it's there.
Because Pathfinder, like 3.5 before it, is at it's core a permissive ruleset. If the rules do not say you can, it means you can't.
Nothing says humans can't fly and breath fire, the reason that can't is because no rule says they can.
|
|
Suppose for a moment that you are Iomedae. Your champion on the material plane proves himself so weak as to not only lose to his adversary, but become a pawn of that adversary.
Would you seriously not be mad at that weakness?
If I were Iomedae, I would not be mad. If I were Asmodeus, I would be mad.
Side note, as has repeatedly been said, why would there be a specific bit of text in Atonement to deal with exactly this scenario?
Because the rules support the DM being a dick to players? I'm not arguing what the rules say, I'm just saying how I would rule. My table, my rules. Rules As Overwritten.
In my game, the gods know what is in the hearts and minds of their followers, and reward and punish them for that, not for things they were compelled to do. If someone plays a Paladin, I'm not going to have a wizard dominate them and force them to loudly renounce their god and all that god stands for, and then laugh at the player for having failed his will save and losing all his powers. That's just dickishness, and I'm not a dickish DM. Even when the rules give me the right to be.
OK...
1) As a reward for good and heroic deeds, an NPC gifts your party druid with a beautiful, intricately-carved ironwood shield commissioned and crafted by the very grateful citizens and master craftsmen of the village. Druid accepts it and... oh, sorry, the shield contains hidden metal reinforcement or a metal base. Does the party druid still loose his divine abilities? What if compelled via beguiling gift?
2) As a reward for good and heroic deeds, an NPC gifts your LG party cleric or paladin with a beautiful, intricately-stitched leather vest commissioned and crafted by the very grateful citizens and master craftsmen of the village. Cleric/paladin accepts it and... oh, sorry, the vest is really the tanned skin of human children. Does the party cleric/paladin still loose his divine abilities? What if compelled via beguiling gift?
I also don't understand the Paladin debate, this is laid out crystal clear in the rules.
If you ever willingly commit an evil act or violate the Paladin code of conduct, you lose your paladin abilities. To get them back requires an atonement spell. If it was done unwittingly or under the influence of a compulsion, it's free. If it was done intentionally, then it's 2500 gold.
Oh man, this has all sorts of implications I don't like.
I would probably rule that for the duration of the effect the character loses their class features.
OK...
1) As a reward for good and heroic deeds, an NPC gifts your party druid with a beautiful, intricately-carved ironwood shield commissioned and crafted by the very grateful citizens and master craftsmen of the village. Druid accepts it and... oh, sorry, the shield contains hidden metal reinforcement or a metal base. Does the party druid still loose his divine abilities? What if compelled via beguiling gift?
Yes. For 24 hours. Yes. For 24 hours.
2) As a reward for good and heroic deeds, an NPC gifts your LG party cleric or paladin with a beautiful, intricately-stitched leather vest commissioned and crafted by the very grateful citizens and master craftsmen of the village. Cleric/paladin accepts it and... oh, sorry, the vest is really the tanned skin of human children. Does the party cleric/paladin still loose his divine abilities? What if compelled via beguiling gift?
No, because the paladin did not kill the children or violate the code of conduct by accepting the gift. Whether they lose them after they find out depends on the paladin's reaction. If they immediately (and by immediately I mean "start removing it inside of combat" immediately), and vow to track down the responsible party and bring them to justice, then no. If they continued to use it afterwords, Yes. 2.5k atonement.
Why couldn't you forgo the shield bonus and be considered not using it? It's not a matter of whether you actually use it that contributes to spell failure, it's the fact that it's there.Because Pathfinder, like 3.5 before it, is at it's core a permissive ruleset. If the rules do not say you can, it means you can't.
Nothing says humans can't fly and breath fire, the reason that can't is because no rule says they can.
So, a Druid drinks wine which is drugged, passes out, and awakes with a steel shield on his arm. He's no longer a Druid for the next 24 hours?
Rubbish.
He can choose not to use it.
Yes. For 24 hours. Yes. For 24 hours.OK...
1) As a reward for good and heroic deeds, an NPC gifts your party druid with a beautiful, intricately-carved ironwood shield commissioned and crafted by the very grateful citizens and master craftsmen of the village. Druid accepts it and... oh, sorry, the shield contains hidden metal reinforcement or a metal base. Does the party druid still loose his divine abilities? What if compelled via beguiling gift?
Even more rubbish.
You should feel guilty, because you are a good person, and the curse of a truly good person is to always wonder if you could have done more. But a god who actually withdraws his blessing from someone who is both genuinely penitent and literally had no control over the evil action he was forced to take is frankly just being a dick, not to mention...If a holy man or woman were tricked or forced into heresy in any story, movie, book or legend, they would suffer a crisis of faith, and lose favor with their divine source.
Some may think that if a Paladin were tricked or enchanted into killing innocents, burning down a LG temple and putting a demon on the throne, they'd just say "well I was dominated, so it doesn't count. I don't feel guilty at all."
No, buddy... your Will was too weak (you failed your save), and you gave in to the compulsion to be the puppet of evil. You SHOULD feel guilty, and you SHOULD fall from grace.Then, of course, they have to recover their faith through trials or some such (which is atonement). This is plot, and story, and denying this is denying the epic nature of stories of faith... which is funny for me to say as a card carrying atheist.
The Paladin, Cleric and Druid are all subject to this paradigm.
If a DM prevents this for the sake of game balance or enjoyment of the PCs, that's house-rules. Don't argue to deny it, because you're just ... well, you're in denial.
Houserules aren't bad, but they disagree with the RAW and RAI... though RAW and RAI are not the be-all and end-all to a successful and enjoyable game.
He wasn't genuinely penitent when he did the evil deeds, because his weak will let him submit to the power of evil. This is what the failed saving throw represents.
This is also why, when casting Atonement, the divine character doesn't have to jump through all those hoops.READ HERE
Do a search on the words "intent" and "compulsion" in there. It repeatedly distinguishes intentional transgressions from non-intentional, and has different procedures for either case.
Now, let me ask you: Which board are we in?
Are we in the "Suggestions/House Rules/Homebrew" board?
Are we in the "Rules Questions" board?
However valid your opinion, or houseruling may be, the rules support that Atonement is a valid spell for those who are forced, tricked or enchanted into performing acts against their class-ability-granting doctrine. Ergo, characters can be forced, tricked or enchanted into performing acts against their class-ability-granting doctrine, requiring Atonement to recover their faith.
So, a Druid drinks wine which is drugged, passes out, and awakes with a steel shield on his arm. He's no longer a Druid for the next 24 hours?Rubbish.
He can choose not to use it.
Same druid wakes up with metal armor on.
It doesn't work one way cause it's a shield and one way cause it's armor. People are trying to argue semantics of "use" versus "wear". They mean the same thing. The linguistic choice of the writer was to use "wear" for armor and "use" for shield, both have the same meaning and intrinsic purpose inside the rules. If you are "wearing" a shield, or "donning" a shield, it means the end result is you are using the shield.
So, a Druid drinks wine which is drugged, passes out, and awakes with a steel shield on his arm. He's no longer a Druid for the next 24 hours?Rubbish.
He can choose not to use it.
Same druid wakes up with metal armor on.
It doesn't work one way cause it's a shield and one way cause it's armor. People are trying to argue semantics of "use" versus "wear". They mean the same thing. The linguistic choice of the writer was to use "wear" for armor and "use" for shield, both have the same meaning and intrinsic purpose inside the rules. If you are "wearing" a shield, or "donning" a shield, it means the end result is you are using the shield.
I think you're missing the point. He's not wearing it, it happens to have been put on him. Wearing something is a voluntary act.
If you passed out at a party and woke up in panties, are you wearing them, or did someone put them on you?
And by that logic, merely Dominating a Paladin is enough to strip him of his class features?
Not merely. He gets a second save for being forced to do something against his ethos.
But if he fails that too? Then, yes, until he atones, he does.
I understand you don't like that, but the rules aren't ambiguous about it.
I think you're missing the point. He's not wearing it, it happens to have been put on him. Wearing something is a voluntary act.
If you passed out at a party and woke up in panties, are you wearing them, or did someone put them on you?
Of course you're wearing them. Really? That's where you're going to try to take this?
1. To carry or bear upon the person; to bear upon one's self,
as an article of clothing, decoration, warfare, bondage,
etc.; to have appendant to one's body; to have on; as, to
wear a coat; to wear a shackle.
[1913 Webster]
Seriously, you're going to argue that because you didn't, yourself, put the armor on, that you are not wearing it? That honestly has to be the farthest logical stretch I have ever seen someone try to make in a semantics debate.
Sorcerer: Ok I cast Magic Missile. He takes 4 points of damage.
GM: Hold on, you're wearing a large steel shield, you need to roll for spell failure.
Sorcerer: oh, no, it's cool. I just have strapped on, I'm not using it this turn, so that rule doesn't apply to me right now. All the wording in spell failure relates to "wearing" armor, but it only talks about "using" a shield, so since I'm not using it, it doesn't apply!
This is perfectly acceptable at your table, correct?
OK... so everyone who thinks that a first-level spell can strip a divinely-empowered PC of his/her abilities... then you will happily congratulate a GM when he/she uses the same -- or another -- unintended RAW loophole on your PC. 'Cause the GM isn't being an a**h*le, just "clever and resourceful."
OK... so everyone who thinks that a first-level spell can strip a divinely-empowered PC of his/her abilities... then you will happily congratulate a GM when he/she uses the same or similar unintended RAW loophole on your PC. 'Cause the GM isn't being an a**h*le, just "clever and resourceful."
A first level spell, cast against a character who has the save type as a good stat, and should have at least a +4 bonus from stats, who should be able to see this coming from a mile away?
I'll take my chances.