A paladins oath against fiends states that they cannot allow a evil outsider to live if they are able to stop it. But what if another player has an evil outsider as a familiar or pet (such as an imp)? The paladins code says they must kill it, but the pfs rules say you can't do any pvp combat such as attacking another player or their pet/familiar. Is the paladin just screwed in this case? And they would therefore lose their paladin powers due to not being able to follow their code, correct?
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Back a while, the topic arose in these forums about paladins who had sworn to fight undead, and some Urgathoa-worshipping schmuck with animate dead who had created servants. What was a paladin to do?
The campaign director at that point counseled that the PvP applies to characters, not minions. The direction was that the paladin could kill the undead, and the undead's owner could not retaliate because that would be PvP.
I assume the analog works in this case: the paladin would be able to attack and kill the pet, because it's a thing from Hell, and the pet's owner would be able to protect it but not retaliate.
|
That was quite some time ago. I think the more modern thought process regarding this subject is:
Your character should not like their imp. However the cooperation rules of the society forbid you from attacking your allies, including sundering their gear, killing their minions etc. Thus you are unable to kill the fiend.
Talk to the other player out of character, if possible develop a cool in character rivalry that does not spill over into OOC at all. If this isn't possible, just go with the flow, characters with moral shticks in PFS sometimes have to set them aside to make things work. They also shouldn't push their imp flavor on you either.
In my opinion cooperation/harmony at the table is more important than upholding a character's principals. Remember the DBAD rule. Don't be a...
One could also argue that if you adventure with the fiend, you should occasionally have atonement cast.
|
|
The OP's hypothetical paladin would absolutely be far over the DBAD line if they tried to kill another player's familiar/pet and at a PFS table as the DM I would certainly step in and inform the player of that fact.
Back a while, the topic arose in these forums about paladins who had sworn to fight undead, and some Urgathoa-worshipping schmuck with animate dead who had created servants. What was a paladin to do?
The campaign director at that point counseled that the PvP applies to characters, not minions. The direction was that the paladin could kill the undead, and the undead's owner could not retaliate because that would be PvP.
I assume the analog works in this case: the paladin would be able to attack and kill the pet, because it's a thing from Hell, and the pet's owner would be able to protect it but not retaliate.
So if this sort of a scenario with one character hell-bent on killing another character's undead/infernal/otherwise unsavory pet happened at your table you would really let the pet die and tell the owner that they could not do anything about it? For obvious reasons of the implications of allowing one player to screw with another's character in such a blatant way, this does not sit well with me at all, especially since even overtly interfering with faction missions seems to be prohibited under the no PvP rule.
As Pirate Rob suggests, isn't the appropriate thing to let the tension feed into roleplaying. The paladin can certainly warn a devil-summoning wizard with an imp familiar about the consequences of their actions and give said wizard the cold shoulder. Of course the wizard would likely say something about how he was a proud citizen of Cheliax and exactly where the paladin could shove it. Now that I think about it, this is what I would expect a mature player of an oathbound paladin to deal with this situation.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
One of the three duites of a member of the Pathfinder Society is cooperation. If a paladin feels it would violate his convictions by adventuring with someone who summons an imp or other such creature, the paladin should choose not to go on the adventure. Playing a paladin is tough and this is one of those decisions you have to make as a paladin. I know because i have a 6th level paladin. Not only have I had to choose a different character to play at least three games I sat down at as a player, I also have about 1/4 of the max prestige because I refused to complete a faction missions because they would violate my paladinhood. Such is the life of a paladin. The same holds true with obstructing others faction missions. In a home game, there a faction missions a paladin would never allow to happen. However, for PFS, it is one of those trying things for a paladin.
I concur with the above posters that this should encourage role playing and lead to interesting situations but should not lead to a beakdown of the game at large.
Attacking a familiar, animal companion, etc... of an adventuring companion is tantamount to PVP and falls under the don't be a jerk rule.
Taken from p. 64 of the Core Rulebook under the associates entry under Paladin:
Associates: While she may adventure with good or neutral allies, a paladin avoids working with evil characters or with anyone who consistently offends her moral code. Under exceptional circumstances, a paladin can ally with evil associates, but only to defeat what she believes to be a greater evil. A paladin should seek an atonement spell periodically during such an unusual alliance, and should end the alliance immediately should she feel it is doing more harm than good.
I looked but I did not see anything in the CRB that said a paladin's oath was to kill all evil outsiders and could not allow them to live. Maybe I missed it. Could someone provide a page number and source book for this info please? If that is the case, I would suggest a paladin never go on a planar adventure.
|
|
It comes from an archetype in the APG, the Oathbound Paladin which adds a rider onto the paladin oath.
Never suffer an evil outsider to live if it is in your power to destroy it. Banish fiends you cannot kill. Purge the evil from those possessed by fiends.
I am actually surprised that this has not come up already in the context of PFS.
|
|
I do vaguely remember a similar thread about undead on the context of everything about undead being [evil], but just upthread someone cited the ruling of that thread to be that the paladin can basically kill the familiar/pet with impunity. I definitely agree with the the ruling from Mike is that it is specifically the Paladin's job to avoid the situation, since it should be the paladin who takes the onus of following the code.
It comes from an archetype in the APG, the Oathbound Paladin which adds a rider onto the paladin oath.
Never suffer an evil outsider to live if it is in your power to destroy it. Banish fiends you cannot kill. Purge the evil from those possessed by fiends.I am actually surprised that this has not come up already in the context of PFS.
Correct, except that the archetype is from ultimate magic, not the advance players guide.
|
|
Thanks for pointing that out Saint Caleth and Some Random Dood. Yes, as LazarX has pointed out, that has been the answer on multiple occassions. Organized Play is a different monster than a home game where this type of thing can be more easily dealt with by the GM. I'm open for suggestions on how to better merge this into organized play if you have any ideas that are better than a player choosing a different character.
|
|
Would it be a bad precedent for a potential boon to be some sort of indulgence from the appropriate church to avoid losing one's divine powers due to once's associates during a mission for the pathfinders? Maybe something purchased for 1 or 2 PP during the introduction to a scenario to forestall having to pay 8 for an atonement afterwards.
Also maybe add language to the Guide to Organized play under the no PvP rule giving switching a character as a concrete example of what to do if a character v. character conflict seems inevitable.
Would it be acceptable to to roleplay a great dislike towards the character with the evil outsider and ignore them/give them the cold shoulder, and afterwards get an normal atonement (2PP) cast on yourself? If that doesn't work then I'd have to switch characters.
|
I was going to say that someone not fully versed in Golarion lore might also mistake the Sarenrae tenant in Faiths of purity "I will seek out and destroy the spawn of the rough beast............."
The question is does the archtype mean anything that detects evil, or things that are actually evil itself, and can a pet's actions change it's alignment? By the time you are adventuring is it possible for the imp to have the [evil] type, but actually be neutral instead of evil? Similar to the being able to cast [evil] type spells when you are not evil questions. If so would it still fall under the archetype's purview, or would the paladin befriend the character who had successfully begun to redeem one of the irredeemable (and of course be ever vigilant in case the imp turned out to be bluffing)
|
|
I'm open for suggestions on how to better merge this into organized play if you have any ideas that are better than a player choosing a different character.
I think a better idea would be to have both players in question change character. You could do that with the stipulation of both needing to change only if they cant decide which one of them should change, but I think youd be more likely to wind up with one player being mad that they had to change while the other person got to keep the character in play. Changing both (Make them play a pregen if they have nothing else tier appropriate, I guess?) could help avoid that. YMMV.
|
Assume that the Paladin is part of the PFS for the Greater Good and that this participation is of paramount importance for the LG Gods.
In such a case, it can be fairly considered that it is not in the power of the Paladin to destroy or banish the Fiend. Because, even though he has the capacity to do it, the consequences of such an act (ie, being expelled from the Society) forbid him from doing so. Of course, he should perodically seek Atonement per the Paladin's Code.
Also, he should strongly remind the Fiend's "owner" of the dreadful fates that await those who truck with the Darkest powers.
|
One of my favorite classes is the pally. I have one for PFS. There is now a "friendship is magic" faction for our Holy Warriors.
That being said however, every Paladin that joined the Society pledged obedience to a tomb raiding, law spurning, multinational secret society of intrigue and shadowy shenanigans.
I have absolutely no patience for demands to acquiesce Dudely Dorights boy scout tenants.
If there is a Paladin in the party, my characters that are morally ambiguous will respect the paladin and not go out of their way to create problems. They will not tip toe around though if it interferes with their present goal. The life of a delectable flesh puppet is a precarious one and I am not down with whatever a certain paracountess deems as acceptable atonement for failure.
The Paladin is an awesome class. The oath archetype is neat but it also increases the potential for interparty conflict more than an already potentially problematic code does.
I consider there to be an uneasy but existing truce between those in the Society that wear holy pants and those who had Majestrix Demesslia for their third period Infernal Summoning Workshop.
That truce is this: I have interesting class features and I will work with the party to play nice.
Adding "my character must destroy undead or evil outsiders" with a supplement that came out long after the options to have undead and evil outsiders as pets is setting yourself up. Maybe that works for someone, maybe its like a challenge. whatever. Their roleplaying choice is not any less legitimate than the my cheliaxan devil binder.
I consider myself to be a gamer who respects other gamers, however if someone bent the Pvp rules and snuffed my imp familiar, Sacred, I would be very displeased. I would not break the rules to get back, but I would be highly tempted to get creative right back.
Also, were a Paladin in the group offered the smaller atonement option and the player and I were pretty set on playing our characters that session, I would likely be game to helping out with the costs.
Respect and be respected.
Paladin: Is that a fiend perched on your shoulder, Chelaxian?
*Wizard whispers to imp familiar, Imp goes invisible*
Wizard: What fiend?
*Paladin Fumes*Problem solved, for every fiend familiar I believe (Imps, Quasits, Cacodaemons?).
Just watch out for the persistent paladins, as invisibility does not block detect evil.
|
|
Just watch out for the persistent paladins, as invisibility does not block detect evil.Paladin: Is that a fiend perched on your shoulder, Chelaxian?
*Wizard whispers to imp familiar, Imp goes invisible*
Wizard: What fiend?
*Paladin Fumes*Problem solved, for every fiend familiar I believe (Imps, Quasits, Cacodaemons?).
That's why the now-invisible familiar takes flight and stays right behind the Paladin's head ;-)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry about that. The question still remains, albeit in a more civilised manner.
"What kind of person creates a PC with an imp familiar?"
Why is the paladin the bad guy here?
He just turned up at a table, to play with some random people.
The imp-lover deliberately created a PC who will be assumed to be evil, or sliding that way, with an evil minion.
An evil minion, who is not just evil, but made of evil.
That's pre-meditated griefing.
Why have the responses so far implied that the 'don't be a dick' rule, doesn't apply to the imp-lover, but only to the people he offends?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the key thing is understanding that some people don't consider evil to be, well, bad.
Yes; those people are called Evil.
If only the PFS had a rule against evil PCs.
Oh, wait! They do.
If only we were playing a game where morality was measured in objective terms, not some subjective free-for-all.
Oh, wait!
My next PC will be a murdering, torturing, rapist hillbilly ogre.
He doesn't see anything wrong with what he likes, so the rest of you can suck it up.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why is the paladin the bad guy here?
He just turned up at a table, to play with some random people.
Ignore the alignment of the character. The player turned up at the table and chose to bring a character that says "If you bring an Imp I will attack it." That is not playing nice.
Yes, ignore the alignment of the griefed paladin.
This has nothing to do with paladins, or even LG characters.The same reaction would occur with any PC of mine, made to comply with PFS rules.
For all those jumping on the tedious bandwagon, of "Waaah! Paladins ruin the game!", consider the following;
The Pathfinder Society (in-game) declares itself as an archaelogical, geographical, historical society, dedicated to learning. It has strict rules against allowing any evil applicants, and will remove anyone who taints their public image.
The Pathfinder Society (out of game), has a strict policy of 'no Evil PCs'.
A player, who enjoys playing paladins, or who has often decided not to do so in home games, in the past, to avoid possible party friction, should have the confidence to join a PFS game, with more guarantee that he will not be clashing with other PCs.
He should not have to swap out his PC, or have it disqualified from future games, due to not playing well with diabolists.
Because diabolists shouldn't even be at the table in the first place.
|
|
I find it bizarre that (to pick an example off the top of my head) a woman who reskins her riding dog as a riding pig, with the exact same stats, is accused of cheating, misrepresentation of her character and gear, causing confusion for the other players, who won't know what they're dealing with, etc...
While a player who wants to play a LE diabolist can ignore the 'no Evil PCs' restriction, by misrepresenting his alignment as 'LN', before going on to cavort about with devilkind, rubbing it in the face of every player who actually read the rules in the Guide, and complied with them, by making Good and Neutral PCs that will work well with others (and I include all paladins in this group, since they do work well with others, just not with evil PCs, who they should never meet during the course of a PFS scenario).
If 'What You See Is What You Get' (aka WYSIWYG) is going to be the yardstick, then it should be applied across the board.
If players aren't allowed to reskin their gear or animals, into something more aesthetically pleasing, then neither can they reskin their actual alignment to something it isn't, in an attempt to cheat the social contract of the Society, and play an evil PC, while flipping the bird to the other players, the GMs, and the VCs.
Forcing players, many of whom could be young or new to gaming, or simply not like evil games, who've come to a Con for some light-hearted fun, to be sat for four hours with Charles Manson, is far more disruptive than realising the PC next to you has a wierd-looking dog with a snout and trotters.
|
The imps owner should take reasonable precautions to hide the imp or its nature as soon as he hears the clank of shining armor and sees the light of a dentine smile heading his way.
+1. Also, Snorter, diabolists don't belong in play? Please explain to me what the majority of Cheliax PCs are supposed to be if they are divine.
Edit: What would you do if someone playing a Tiefling showed up?
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I find it bizarre that (to pick an example off the top of my head) a woman who reskins her riding dog as a riding pig, with the exact same stats, is accused of cheating, misrepresentation of her character and gear, causing confusion for the other players, who won't know what they're dealing with, etc...
Not quite. So far as I can tell, nobody accused anyone of cheating, etc. I don't find your resurrection of the topic, nor your mischaracterization, helpful.
Snorter, you asked "Why is the paladin the bad guy here? He just turned up at a table, to play with some random people." The answer you're refusing to acknowledge is "Because he's the one picking a fight."
A standard-issue paladin is going to have a lively debate with the diabolist. He'll likely also have a lively debate with an undead lord, or with a cleric of Asmodeus.
But this player decided that, instead of a standard-issue paladin, he wanted to play a character with an absolutist agenda. It's the Vow against Fiends that makes this character a bad guy, not his paladin class. He "just turned up at a table, to play with some random people" knowing ahead of time that there as a chance that some of those people would trigger his vow to attack them,
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A player, who enjoys playing paladins, or who has often decided not to do so in home games, in the past, to avoid possible party friction, should have the confidence to join a PFS game, with more guarantee that he will not be clashing with other PCs.He should not have to swap out his PC, or have it disqualified from future games, due to not playing well with diabolists.
Because diabolists shouldn't even be at the table in the first place.
Two points here. First, consorting with fiends is part of the flavor of Cheliax, a major nation of Golarion and one of the original five factions that players could chose to have their characters belong to. Therefore I think that having diabolically inclined characters in PFS is something that was a given from the beginning, since you can even have LN clerics of Asmodeus perfectly legally in PFS. Second, it is the paladin in this example who would likely be the one to start something and initiate the PvP where he to see the imp. Therefore, yea, he does have to consider that, especially if this player has chosen to make a paladin with a even more restrictive than usual code of conduct. If a player knowingly brought that paladin into one of my games along with the aforementioned Chelaxian wizard and expected to get his way with the OOC excuse that the wizard is "too evil" I would warn that player that he is dangerously close to the DBAD line Then I would probably ask that both players chose another character.
|
|
Please explain to me what the majority of Cheliax PCs are supposed to be if they are divine.
Edit: What would you do if someone playing a Tiefling showed up?
1) They can play a Cleric, just like everyone else.
2) Tieflings arent fiends, so this isnt really relevant.A standard-issue paladin is going to have a lively debate with the diabolist. He'll likely also have a lively debate with an undead lord, or with a cleric of Asmodeus.
But this player decided that, instead of a standard-issue paladin, he wanted to play a character with an absolutist agenda. It's the Vow against Fiends that makes this character a bad guy, not his paladin class. He "just turned up at a table, to play with some random people" knowing ahead of time that there as a chance that some of those people would trigger his vow to attack them,
A standard-issue wizard is going to have a lively debate with the anti-fiend paladin.
But this player decided that, instead of a standard-issue wizard, he wanted to play a character with an fiend for a familiar. It's the taking a fiend as his familiar that makes this character a bad guy, not his wizard class. He "just turned up at a table, to play with some random people" knowing ahead of time that there as a chance he would trigger the vow of some of those people to attack him.The point you make, Chris, is a good one, but it is hardly one-sided.
The point of the matter is this: Both regular groups (Paladins and Casters with familiars) are fine around each other, unless BOTH parties make a change to the base class by making themselves more specialized in such a way that it might infringe on another players fun.
In the paladin's case, he's taking the vow against fiends. In the wizard's case, he is taking the feat that lets him take a fiend as his familiar.
This situation is the fault of BOTH players, not one. The Paladin is at fault for purposefully taking his vow which might provoke him to attack. The wizard is at fault for purposefully choosing a fiend as their familiar (despite the feat giving them access to other things) which might cause another player to be provoked into attacking.
That said, if this pair showed up at my table and were unwilling to cooperate, I too would ask both players to change characters.
|
|
It has been my expece that people tthly CN characters are trying to get the Play no evil rule in PFS.{eople who Play CN seeem tho think they can act evil w/o consequences. Run into a player playing a real paladin that is plaing a paladin corectly that paldin is going to take out the Imp if he sees it as the in is an evil out sider then the paladin will try to reason with the person that had bonded the IMP ande try to get him to repent for his actionsin bonding the IMP if he does not the Paladin will either choose not to adventure with him or if the CN PC is a obnoxis bore smite him him some paladins can smite chaos too.
|
|
It's the Vow against Fiends that makes this character a bad guy.
I'm sorry. I don't see how this can be so. Paladins, by definition, aren't the bad guy. They are upholding the good guy stereotype. I'm not talking about a bad palyer just outright violating DBAD, I'm talking about the inherent nature of the character. They're taking the oath to be a good guy. Implying that a paladin is being evil for perscuting "innocent" evil characters seems backwards to me somehow.
Alright ... maybe I'm confused here. Maybe I'm missing the point.
Isn't it correct that casting a summonoing spell to summon a creature with a subtype makes that spell also have the subtype? which is to say, Casting Summon Monster to get an [evil] creature is an [evil] act, in and of istelf? Even if one says they don't use Summon Monster to get a familiar, I don't understand how gaining an imp familiar is not an inherently [evil] act.
Why is it that this thread is assuming it's okay to summon or associate with evil outsiders? It would seem to me that if a character were consistently commiting evil acts that they would be removed from the campaign. I'm not taking a snide tone here, I honestly, genuinely don't understand why imp familiars are allowed. The imp cannot be good, cannot change it's nature, and no matter how much good a [evil] creature does, it doesn't change the nature of that creature. There's a popular trope in contemporary scifi and fantasy that an [evil] creature can still be an alright guy. (Thanks, Buffy and Angel.) But that's not the case in our game.
We are "playing a game where morality [is] measured in objective terms". [evil] is Evil. Period.
As has come in several other threads recently, it is not the character or the build that is in the wrong, it is the player. A player who just wants to cause grief and annoy people can do it with virtually any build or character in the game, and with any alignment as well. Two players who are willing to cooperate and be mature about it would have no problem going through a scenario as a paladin and a diabolist. Both are legal and a diabolist does not have to be an evil alignment, nor does he have to be played as evil. Sure, maybe the character will eventually cross the line and become evil, but that does not have to be played out within the limitations of PFS play unless the player, again, it doing it intentionally. Besides, what happened to all about "working with evil to defeat a greater evil" stuff in the paladin's description? Ignore the imp and the non-evil character controlling it, and if the player asks like a jerk, then have either the GM or Event Coordinator do something about it.
|
The imps owner should take reasonable precautions to hide the imp or its nature as soon as he hears the clank of shining armor and sees the light of a dentine smile heading his way.+1. Also, Snorter, diabolists don't belong in play? Please explain to me what the majority of Cheliax PCs are supposed to be if they are divine.
Edit: What would you do if someone playing a Tiefling showed up?
Hello. Its nice to meet you *detect evil*
If evil, try to convince them that their way is wrong, with words if necessary. They're part mortal, that gives them the ability and responsibility to change their ways and not be evil. Killing them now would only condemn their soul to eternal damnation, so you need them alive.
|
|
The imps owner should take reasonable precautions to hide the imp or its nature as soon as he hears the clank of shining armor and sees the light of a dentine smile heading his way.+1. Also, Snorter, diabolists don't belong in play? Please explain to me what the majority of Cheliax PCs are supposed to be if they are divine.
Edit: What would you do if someone playing a Tiefling showed up?
Hello. Its nice to meet you *detect evil*
If evil, try to convince them that their way is wrong, with words if necessary. They're part mortal, that gives them the ability and responsibility to change their ways and not be evil. Killing them now would only condemn their soul to eternal damnation, so you need them alive.
...I take it they wouldn't take my Chelaxian, Sarenrae-worshipping tiefling Magus' story that his imp familiar was sent by his mom to keep an eye on him?
|
|
It's the Vow against Fiends that makes this character a bad guy.I'm sorry. I don't see how this can be so. Paladins, by definition, aren't the bad guy. They are upholding the good guy stereotype. I'm not talking about a bad palyer just outright violating DBAD, I'm talking about the inherent nature of the character. They're taking the oath to be a good guy. Implying that a paladin is being evil for perscuting "innocent" evil characters seems backwards to me somehow.
I think that by "bad guy" he means antagonist, rather than actually an evil character. I think that it is completely reasonable to see a paladin as the antagonist, especially if you are, for example, a wizard from Cheliax and the paladin comes along spewing his religion and morality all over the place. Paladins absolutely do persecute people, namely evil-doers, which is fine in the context of the game, however, IRL that sort of behavior is highly frowned upon in the modern world.
For another example of antagonist paladins, look at the Church of the Silver Flame in Eberron. It is a Lawful religion with lots of LG paladins working fr them, and they are committed to a borderline genocide of shifters and lycanthropes. While paladins cannot be "bad guys" they can be and often are antagonists, like in this situation expecting that they can just murder someone's familiar and get away with it "because...evil".
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ya know, I would love to see a link posted to where the Pathfinder Society (in-game) has any prohibition against evil alignments. Good luck in finding that.
Yes, Pathfinder Society Organized Play includes a rule against no evil PCs, but that is for PCs, not Pathfinder Society members.
As to that Paladin, or that Cleric of Sarenrae, and that spellcaster with an imp or an Undead Lord with his undead companion, all that needs to be done is remember that one of the primary rules of the Society OP is "Don't be a Jerk".
Play nice. And that includes the GM. The GM shouldn't be penalizing any of the 4 PCs listed, or any others, for working together for one scenario without griefing.
|
|
Guide 4.2 should include a warning to paladins (and lawful clerics?) about how difficult it will be to be paladins *and* Pathfinders. The Society is neutral, but many of its members and certainly many of the factions are not - there's even one faction that is outright evil. As a Pathfinder agent, you will sometimes have to stand by while one of your colleagues kills a prisoner or steals something. There are even main missions which require lawbreaking. Either you do as Mike suggests and decline some missions (playing another character instead), or you atone afterwards for working with such unsavory colleagues.
Choosing an oath that can make you hate your colleagues is fine for a fanatic crusading warrior, but that guy would never make it through basic training in Absalom before he washed out. That guy would never even get into basic training, since it would divert him from his "real" quest of killing fiends.
If you really have a higher calling such as "do not suffer a fiend to live", you shouldn't be wasting your time picking up trinkets for the Decemvirate, you should be up at the Worldwound kick @ss. Some characters, while legal, just aren't well-suited for PFS.
|
|
Some characters, while legal, just aren't well-suited for PFS.
Were one so inclined, one could say the same of demon-worshipping Chelaxians. But for some reason, players (at least in this thread) seem to think that the player choosing to be a paladin is in the wrong, and the guy commiting evil acts every game is totally within his rights to do so.
I can't imagine a Good character at any table being okay with summoning fiends. Even were I playing a Nuetral- or Chaotic Good ranger/wizard/cleric/whatever, I think that my character would say something if denizens of from the nether depths of the Abyss (or the Nine Hells, you pick) started showing up in fiery puffs of smoke and brimstone. If they were one the other side of the adventure, I'd sure use it as reason to kill them. NPCs are always called evil if they consort with demons.I can't imagine any Good character, played with any real believability, wouldn't have problem with it.
|
|
For ways to deal with doing dishonorable things with a paladin in the party, I recommend watching the gamers II: dorkness rising.
Try NOT to get to the point where you need to whipe his memory though.
It has to go both ways between the paladin players and the others. The paladin has to work with the less scrupulous goals, and the others should make some modicum of effort not to torture people right in front of the paladin.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It has to go both ways between the paladin players and the others. The paladin has to work with the less scrupulous goals, and the others should make some modicum of effort not to torture people right in front of the paladin.
As a GM, if it got to the level of torturing others, the Paladin wouldn't need to worry about it. That character would get Eviled out at the end of the session. I would be much more willing to handle a Paladin's roleplay than a character who is riding the bleeding edge of being Evil. Seeing as, ya know, the Campaign is "No Evil PC's".