|
To my fellow players of the magnificent Pathfinder Society,
A new thread has come about, in which a poster has inquired as to the proper protocol for a paladin of the oathbound archetype- who encounters a party member whose companion or familiar is an evil outsider.
I wish to make a solid point before I go further and stress that the OP had a legitimate question and I hope his ideas regarding it are given solid consideration.
Now, following this progressive idea forming about what to do was a storm of posts that nothing short of outright questioned the integrity and intentions of someone who came to the game table with an imp familiar.
I wish to without creating a firestorm in the threads, get a genuine consensus of PFS players and how they feel regarding my characters exotic friend showing up at their table.
Here has been my experience:
Most people playing are completely cool with an imp familiar at their table. If their character is strongly aligned with good, they certainly appreciate the imps presence being reduced.
While they have fun admonishing my infernal binders bad life choices, out of game they have no problem and may even be amused.
Others of less alignment bound characters are warm to the idea of the familiar healing the characters, boosting their ac, scouting, etc.
Your input is appreciated regardless of the stance you take,
May the Open Path be before you always,
Samerandomhero, an "imp-lover" :P
Upon reading my post again, i have decided to make it clear that the intent is to find out if a significant amount of PFS players have a genuine problem with it, and that maybe I should chill on the Chelaxian flavor a bit.
|
If the paladin couldn't handle the presence of an imp or someone who'd bind an imp to his will, he can't handle being a productive member of the in-gameworld Pathfinder Society.
And that means that the player roleplaying his paladin as having intolerable issues with your imp familiar IS inarguably badwrong. Because he can instead choose to roleplay his paladin as NOT having intolerable issues with your imp familiar.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
And that means that the player roleplaying his paladin as having intolerable issues with your imp familiar IS inarguably badwrong. Because he can instead choose to roleplay his paladin as NOT having intolerable issues with your imp familiar.
To be clear, we're not talking about a simple roleplay flavor decision. We're talking about a legal archetype that says "kill every evil outsider you can, or fall".
But still, the paladin has a choice, as does the user of the imp familiar.
Off the top of my head, the only real stinker of an issue I see is if an inexperienced player sees the archetype, thinks "that's so cool!" and makes his first PFS character, then plays a few sessions before the first time he encounters an imp familiar. Puts the poor newbie in a tight spot through no fault of their own, you know? What do we do if we see something like that happen?
Director of Brand Strategy
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The game is full of tough decisions. Having to make a hard moral choice (do I work with my companion and violate my oath, or do I kill this guy's imp and risk the mission?) is a great learning experience for a new player, and accentuates that characters' choices have consequences. In this case, the paladin risks losing his powers or skirting very close to violating the no-PVP rule. I don't see that as a position many would want to be in, but we shouldn't preclude people from experiencing moral quandries when playing a character that's all about morality (like a paladin is by definition).
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
And that means that the player roleplaying his paladin as having intolerable issues with your imp familiar IS inarguably badwrong. Because he can instead choose to roleplay his paladin as NOT having intolerable issues with your imp familiar.To be clear, we're not talking about a simple roleplay flavor decision. We're talking about a legal archetype that says "kill every evil outsider you can, or fall".
We're just hell bent to disagree on everything each other says, it would seem.
Code of Conduct: 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
Bold text=emphasis mine.
Banish what you cannot kill is 'clearly' RAI to be more accurately: Banish fiends that you can banish, but cannot kill.For both in- and out- of game reasons, the PFS paladin MAY not kill the familiar. Important difference from CAN not. I stand by my assessment because either way destroying the imp is 'not within the paladin's power'. He can attempt to persuade the spellcaster from using the imp for the duration of the paladin's presence. He can opt to have nothing to do with the spellcaster. (Passive-aggressive 'PvP' IS still technically legal. "I can't hurt you or your imp, but neither do I have to heal either of you...")
If the paladin can't come to a happy place where he feels he's still in-character while still not trying to kill the imp, he shouldn't be playing the archetype. Perhaps, as you say, thats a 'trap' a new player might fall into. But, the perspective of the OP is 'am I being a jerk by having an Imp familiar'. No, he's not.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bold text=emphasis mine.
Banish what you cannot kill is 'clearly' RAI to be more accurately: Banish fiends that you can banish, but cannot kill.For both in- and out- of game reasons, the PFS paladin MAY not kill the familiar. Important difference from CAN not. I stand by my assessment. He can attempt to persuade the spellcaster from using the imp for the duration of the paladin's presence. He can opt to have nothing to do with the spellcaster. (Passive-aggressive 'PvP' IS still technically legal. "I can't hurt you or your imp, but neither do I have to heal either of you...")
If the paladin can't come to a happy place where he feels he's still in-character while still not trying to kill the imp, he shouldn't be playing the archetype. Perhaps, as you say, thats a 'trap' a new player might fall into. But, the perspective of the OP is 'am I being a jerk by having an Imp familiar'. No, he's not.
I agree with this 100%. Good post!
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
We're just hell bent to disagree on everything each other says, it would seem.
Actually, I just wasn't sure if you were in the other thread, so I thought I'd bring you up to speed on the context.
And I don't think I disagree with the rest of your post. I was just curious if anyone had thoughts on handling the "newbie oops" if it came up.
|
|
I was just curious if anyone had thoughts on handling the "newbie oops" if it came up.
Tell him he has the option of having the paladin voluntarily leave the mission (therefore not compromising his beliefs), and he can play a pregen through the scenario, and give it a a new character, in case he runs into this situation again.
[NB: Not playing PFS anymore, so take it with a grain of Lot's wife...]
And, too, I don't play paladins. (Ran one ONCE, she was fun, but not really my cuppa, if y'know what I mean.)
But I DO play wizards, and the Imp is, in my opinion, hands-down the best familiar option around.
There are some options available to the wizard (or sorcerer) with the Imp familiar. First, they DO have the ability to change shape into an inoffensive-looking critter; likewise, they can become invisible at will. So as long as you and your familiar successfully evade the paladin's detect evil, you're golden.
Right, not always possible. But unless the player of the paladin makes a habit of pinging everyone with his evil-dar, it ought to be manageable for the extent of a mission.
And if he does make a habit of pinging everyone, he's kinda being a jerk. (Again, imo.)
With a few elementary precautions, it should be possible for you to insure the paladin never knows your familiar is an imp. (You might look into getting a fiend-friendly cleric or bard to cover with an undetectable alignment spell for the duration; get yourself a wand if this comes up frequently, and they don't even have to prepare/know the spell.)
|
This is no different than the thousands of paladin-based discussions that have been going on for decades. Some feel the paladin must relent and accept the other player's choice. Others will feel it is unfair that the paladin must be be the one compromising his schtick and the "other" guy must give. Still others will say both sides should just ignore it (which breaks verisimilitude for them).
There is no "right" answer. There are only the lesser of multiple "evils," some IC some OOC. In the end, regardless of how "cool" a PC build is, there are some that are just not compatible with OP for many people. If you insist on playing them, and it should be rather obvious the ones that can/will lead to conflict, proceed at your own risk. Remember, one rule that does not change and most players take seriously, is no PvP. You cannot intentionally destroy another character or their equipment. And withholding healing, etc. when you are in an organization who's primary tenets include cooperation is at least a passive/aggressive action not in line with expectations and maybe be a jerk move.
If *you* intend to play a character that lives in a gray-area of the rules, *you* must be prepared to accommodate conflict with other players. Too often, players forget that the society expects cooperation. If you chose a character that cannot offer that, then perhaps said character has no business being a member of the Pathfinder Society in the first place.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
But I DO play wizards, and the Imp is, in my opinion, hands-down the best familiar option around.Oooooh, I bet we could turn this into "the Paladin player needs to accommodate my optimization choices"!
Conversely, "the wizard player needs to accomodate my oathbound paladin optimization choices."
Endstate is that the players have to accomodate each other. Perhaps an OOC discussion of "OK, how do we handle this" would be helpful. The wizard causing the paladin to fall is not an option. The paladin killing the imp is not an option. Either one of them sitting out a scenario due to someone else's character design is an extremely poor option. The best option is to figure out an in-character reason they can work together.
|
|
I'm playing an Inquisitor of Sarenrae in one ongoing PFS game right now, and another player is a Priest of Razmir. Some crazy antics usually happen as a result, but when difficult choices come up one of us usually has to look the other way - while I realize the Oathbound Paladin and Diabolist are more extreme than that, the same principle should apply. The Paladin has taken as much of an oath to the Pathfinders as he has to slaying fiends, so attacking an imp familiar would be breaking one of his oaths anyway. On the counterside, the wizard with the imp can't antagonize the paladin over being unable to kill his imp, since he's bound by the same oath to the Society.
I think that getting an imp familiar is a bit of an unhelpful choice--it makes things harder for any paladins. Of course, one could argue that playing a paladin is unhelpful for the reverse reasons. I do think paladins get the 'Right of Way', since they're a bit more common. That means any caster with an imp or quasit should be prepared to hide that imp or quasit. But if that fails, the paladin's player will have to work out a reason it is not possible to smite the creature immediately.
I disagree with Mark Moreland, though--paladin issues aren't really much fun in a system where you can get kicked out for PvP. It can get really awkward, with the players having to practically abandon their character's personalities to stay in the game. I'm not saying that the PvP ban is flawed or anything, but I just don't think that moral conflicts are very enjoyable.
Rereading your post (or finishing it, whatever.... >_>), I see you weren't actually saying it was fun, just a 'good learning experience'. So yeah. I still think it's not a good thing to have in a game, fun/educational or no.
|
|
I honestly think that there is no problem with either of the character choices.
Paladins always walk a fine line when it comes to good vs evil. So extending that to evil outsiders is not that big of a step.
Wizards love their little back stabbers. Who could pass up on the awesomeness of an imp for a familiar. The little buggers are an NPC for a feat. It's just gravy if you happen to be a chelaxian.
So the real problem is not the characters but the players. As a Paladin, they need to be more tolerant. Especially considering they are in the pathfinder society which takes in all kinds of borderline characters. As a character with an imp they need to lay low and play it cool. Have the imp spend most of its time invisible. Don't antagonize the big bad evil stomp-er wielding a great sword. This problem is 100% player based and has nothing to do with the character choices.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Should the PFS rule about no evil characters extend to familiars and animal companions? Could the imps in question not be neutral versions of the creatures shaped by their master's nature rather than the racial, societal norms? (nature vs. nurture)
If this tweak were implemented, this issue, not all paladin conflicts, should go away.
Now a summoner or caster summoning evil outsiders with Monster Summoning would be another issue all together ...
|
|
I have no problem with your imp familiar, with any PC. It's definitely not griefing. PFS is a neutral campaign, you design PCs with that in mind, PCs that can work with a wide variety of people.
It's the guy with the Paladin who has the problem, because he's got to work with members of the Cheliax faction at one time or another. It's says it right in the guide in black and white.
|
|
do I kill this guy's imp and risk the mission?) is a great learning experience for a new player, and accentuates that characters' choices have consequences. In this case, the paladin risks losing his powers or skirting very close to violating the no-PVP rule. I don't see that as a position many would want to be in, but we shouldn't preclude people from experiencing moral quandries when playing a character that's all about morality (like a paladin is by definition).
Hold on. Killing (or banishing) someone's Imp is definitely PVP. If it's a Wizard's familiar, it costs him 200 gold per level to replace.
Even if you say that the Imp is property, does that make it ok if I sunder someone's items? Or steal their items?
I'd think that kind of (PVP) action wouldn't be allowed at any table.
|
...Don't you dare get rid of that little ball of wonder! He is awesome! And full of win!
I demand that imp be named Charlie Sheen!
To be more constructive however. The debate over morale ethics being forced upon others is a constant and ever changing one. I love the dynamic between my "seperatist" cleric of pharasma and a friends Urgothan Wizard.
We work far to well together in combat, but at the end of the adventure we narrate out who has to dodge which of the other persons spells.
It usually ends up with me trying to counter spell two or three lightning bolts, and him trying to dodge two spiritual weapons in the process.
I am of the opinion that these morale questions that a character has to make is what role playing is about. These events are far more character building and changing then most scenario's written.
As a ST for WoD style gaming for years, anytime I can provide a no win morale question that makes everyone want to answer with grey responses, the happier I am.
Running around with an Imp on the side of "the good guys" gets alot of nasty looks, I am sure...but those who can handle it in character will walk out with some damned good RP and have their character react to the experience.
Ask my kingmaker group what they think about morale questions...no really, do it ;p
|
|
As a ST for WoD style gaming for years, anytime I can provide a no win morale question that makes everyone want to answer with grey responses, the happier I am.
The problem there is that a character looses their powers for gray responses, and 99% of the time the player is then having a bad time.
The paladins power requires you to target something, and no, there's nothing wrong with detecting evil on everyone you meet. The gods gave you the power, you're supposed to use it.
Detect evil isn't a problem on an invisible imp. The paladins version requires that you target a creature, which means you need to see it
Target or Targets: Some spells have a target or targets. You cast these spells on creatures or objects, as defined by the spell itself. You must be able to see or touch the target, and you must specifically choose that target. You do not have to select your target until you finish casting the spell.
Breaking out the Shining Wayfinder Might pose a problem, but the imp should figure out whats going on and start flying around the party in circles to confuse the compass rather than staying on the wizards shoulder.
The wizard: Takes a modicum of effort to hide the imp and not make it tap dance across the bar.
The paladin: Doesn't try too hard to successfully find the imp, bap baps the stupid compass a few times and heads out for the adventure.
The GM: Doesn't smack the paladins powers for not trying to hard to find the imp, and doesn't take control of the imp to make the compass keep pointing to the wizard.
Suppose it wasn't a class feature of another PC that was problematic. Suppose another player character was simply evil, in the sense of sacrificing kittens.
Who should back down- the paladin from his stance of "I kill evil people", the feliomancer from his stance of "I use kitten blood to power my dark magics", or the Pathfinders from "Everyone needs to be able to work together"?
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So ... Here's a rules oddity that I just thought of because of reading this thread. ... And it's a genuine question, so, I'd like to hear opinions on it ...
If a wizards familiar or Druid's companion is considered part and parcel to the character for the "No PvP" rule (and most other considerations), why isn't it considered part if the character for the "No Evil PCs" rule?
So ... Here's a rules oddity that I just thought of because of reading this thread. ... And it's a genuine question, so, I'd like to hear opinions on it ...
If a wizards familiar or Druid's companion is considered part and parcel to the character for the "No PvP" rule (and most other considerations), why isn't it considered part if the character for the "No Evil PCs" rule?
Probably for the same reason that a non-evil cleric can get his powers from an evil deity, so long as he is within one step. I would guess at least some of the reason goes back to the early days of PFS when there was a strict level cap. With that, you could hand-wave the eventual turning to evil that would be unavoidable for any character having that much long-term contact with evil by just saying it happened after the character was retired from play. You could probably get more insight on the reasons if you search for posts by Joshua Frost from then the Season changed from 0 to 1, as I vaguely recall threads about whether evil PC's would be allowed or not.
Oh, and DeciusBrutus, there are now rules in place to deal with characters who do enough evil acts to become an evil alignment and illegal for play and having to be retired by the player.
|
|
The paladins power requires you to target something, and no, there's nothing wrong with detecting evil on everyone you meet. The gods gave you the power, you're supposed to use it.
Detect evil isn't a problem on an invisible imp. The paladins version requires that you target a creature, which means you need to see it.
You're right about the move-action, one-target, single-round quick-response version.
The paladin also has the option to perform the slower, cone version, as per the spell. Although, that isn't much help, if the target can tell what she's doing, and get out of the way.|
|
If *you* intend to play a character that lives in a gray-area of the rules, *you* must be prepared to accommodate conflict with other players. Too often, players forget that the society expects cooperation. If you chose a character that cannot offer that, then perhaps said character has no business being a member of the Pathfinder Society in the first place.
I chose to go from this post based on the above quote. You are right the Society does promote and even EXPECT the society members be cooperative with each other. With that being said why is it the Paladin is the one that needs to go play the "gray" area all the time so to speak if someone should bring an outsider familiar? The PFS wants us as characters to be a cohesive entity and not have to compromise our character either, hence the individual factions being what they are. There are missions where the chelaxion and shadow lodge missions be covert so they are not "seen" by potential characters that may or may not have a problem with them doing what they are doing such as setting someone up to take a fall for a crime or even setting another faction up to take a fall for a crime. This is part of the society as we know it. Must we compromise should we catch someone all the time doing something they should not be or an evil act?
The GM is fully with in their right to say that the Paladin is going to fall should that familiar be in the group with said Paladin. The player of the paladin is in the "gray" area for sure when it comes to the imp in question but so is the player of the imp itself as a familiar. This goes both ways they both should not be playing the type of character they are if they can not compromise in some way. The player of the paladin could say that he would banish the familiar if it comes to the table. He could say he kills it per the tenants of his archetype and faith so to speak. The player of the imp familiar could choose not to bring it then based on the reaction of said player of the paladin.
"Code of Conduct: 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"
Imps ARE evil. If the paladin wavers from above then said paladin falls from grace. If he can't banish said creature he must kill it. This is unwavering in the rule. The imp is evil. It is a simple matter to have the player of the imp familiar choose not to bring it rather then have the player of the paladin play in said "gray" area.
It just seems to me that the paladin player is getting dumped on for playing in the rules as both RAW and RAI. He is doing both in as far as I can tell but the player of the imp familiar is being more unwavering by bringing the imp with and forcing this to come about and potentially compromise the paladins integrity. How is that fair?
This is a situation where no one player is going to be happy about it. The player of the imp familiar knowing that it was evil could have possibly for see a problem like this because the imp is evil. There are going to be paladins in the group that may or may not have a problem with said creature being in the group... regardless if it is doing inherently "good" acts, as one can say the road to hell is paved with good intentions. the creature is "still" evil and unless it suffers an alignment change of some type then some player's characters might have a problem with it in game.
The player of the paladin might have for seen a player wanting to play an imp or some such and not made a character that was so against this type fo creature being in a group. But lets just say the player is NOT playing the archetype they are and just a normal paladin so to speak. If we take that in to consideration, the paladin itself might have a problem having the evil as being part of the group too. If the player of the paladin should raise an objection as to the character bringing it in to the group as a role playing "objection"
This is a tough situation and one that should be addressed in such a way as to be definitive. There are three aspects to look at this from and all three could be considered valid, the GM's perspective on weighing in and making a ruling on whether one player is right or not, the players of said characters as listed above being both right and wrong in their situations. Personally as a GM and as a player my opinion would be that the player of the imp familiar be the one that would compromise more so then the paladin archetype though, simply based on the rules as RAW and RAI. This is my opinion though.
|
|
I agree and I hope my comment wasn't read to say the paladin is somehow more legitimate than the wizard with the imp friend. My point was that PFS is a cooperative environment. You are expected to tolerate those who are different than yourself and actively work with them towards your primary goal. That includes performing whatever functions your character is build for (healing, combat, etc). Withholding healing, refusing to defend an ally vs. a threat, etc. is a jerk move no matter how you spin it. It might be "in character," but said character has no business being played in PFS in the first place.
In the general case of PFRPG, a paladin would likely have an issue traveling with a wizard/Imp even if he didn't detect any evil. It is clearly an arrangement with an evil outsider. In my home game, I might allow some PvP, but the issue is a PFS specific one. Why would the paladin, or any character for that matter, want to join an organization that will expect her to work closely with others of at least a questionable morality, if not downright offensive? If your character concept has prejudices or restrictions that will create conflict, whether that be a paladin with an oath, a cleric of Zon Kuthon, etc., then perhaps it has no business in Society anyway. And what makes you think the Society would accept said character into their ranks if they suspect their intolerance will lead to internal strife?
|
|
Bob, I agree that they should not be playing a character if they are unable to compromise. But the player of the imp familiar "should" be the one compromising in this particular situation though, because he can take the route that is easiest for both characters involved and avoid the paladin having to make a choice and cause potentially "more" problems because of said choice. All the player of the imp familiar has to do is elect not to bring him or role play in such a way that the imp keeps himself unaware from the paladin.
|
|
As one of the early posters in this thread, and one to post in the defence of paladins, here and in general, I declare I don't have a dog in this race.
I'm not playing a paladin in PFS, nor am I likely to, and especially not one with such a strict oath.
That's for two reasons; first, I'd consider it a waste, since I don't expect to face that many fiends during PFS scenarios; second, it's out of character for such a person to join the PFS, rather than go off to Mendev and join a crusade.
My purpose in posting was to counterbalance the inevitable, and rather tiresome chorus that turns up, whenever a paladin is mentioned in any thread, who declare that he is at automatically the one at fault in every situation.
And, like Jiggy, to defend the choices made by a player, who has avoided playing a paladin in home games, precisely because he wants to avoid conflict, and sees PFS, with its 'no Evil PCs' as the first chance he's ever had to play such a character, in the, maybe naive, belief that he has finally found a campaign in which such a character might fit.
If it is the belief of the VCs and campaign coordinator, that these oaths are far too strict to avoid inevitable PvP, then let's write something to that effect in the Guide, and not have them as playable options?
|
|
You're right about the move-action, one-target, single-round quick-response version.
The paladin also has the option to perform the slower, cone version, as per the spell. Although, that isn't much help, if the target can tell what she's doing, and get out of the way.
Drat, you're right. Still problematic. The imp should probably get a 60 foot restraining order...
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
So the Paladin has to pay for atonement spells or the wizard has to pay to replace their imp.
I have to say, I'm on the side of the Paladin on this one.
The defense of the Imp is that its so uberly powerful that its the very bestest familiar there is. Oh goodie.
The Defense of the Paladin is that its .. well, what paladin do. They go killing and smiting evil. I'd hazard a guess that a paladin *without* this special oath is going to want to play whackamole with the imp anyway.
Why is the Paladin the source of this issue? The Wizard knows at character creation that unless it's a home and private game that he *is going to* come across a paladin. Probably several. Most likely quite a few. Yet he chooses this E V I L familiar anyway. He is the guy who needs to be made to swap characters. Every. Single. Time. Bar none.
Why? Because his mere presence is griefing the paladin.
It looks like I'm in the minority here, and i'm fine with that. But it really does just boggle me how folks are falling in with Sir Evil Pet here and not with Sir Good Guy. Are there that many neutral pathfinders who really just don't care about imps? cuz really- every Good aligned person should be very much against Sir Evil Pet even being in their group.
Imps are enemies. They are to be killed and looted or banished.
Two people made a choice.
One made a choice for more power, knowing it would 100% create a conflict down the line.
The other made a choice to combat evil in the most effective way possible.
Why are we siding with the evil guy?
I am confused.
-S
|
|
Better PR.
Seriously though, I am with the wizard on this, it is the good path of the paladin that is harder to walk. Evil is the easy road to possibly self-destructive power, the paladin oath should be harder to follow. I also have had worse experiances with players of paladins expecting to get their way because they were "Good" and the other side was not. I have never had that problem with people pushing the envelope of evil.
So any paladin that takes umbridge to my Chelaxian Inquisitor, or tires to shove around a fellow vassal of the Cheliax in his presence will get told exactly where they can shove it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My problem is that we have this meta-game construct (the PFS rules) that prevent the Paladin from following his oath while those same rules (No EVil PC's) seem to have been waived for the wizard and his familiar.
Thats just.. wrong. Completely.
*ingame* the Paladin would squish that imp like a roach under his boot and tell the wizard he was a moron for trying to drag it along. And he'd be right.
But because OOC he's not allowed to attack him the Wizard can just stand there and the paladin is forced to swap characters or lose his powers.
I mean we're not talking about "ooh awesome RP!" we're talking about
option 1) become a warrior
option 2) swap characters.
Its not a hard road, its a meta-game construct causing a conflict inside the game. Imps should have never been allowed in at all since PC's can't be Evil.
All you have is someone using an Imp to get around the "not evil" part and then using that to harass Paladin. No matter how the PC RP's it, its harrassment by its very presence at the table.
It is a PR problem :P
but its one the Paladin, the smiter of evil, the savior of virgins, the bastion of yummy goodness of Humanity and Demi-Humans should win, rather than the evil slime sucking wizard who chose power over virtue.
As it stands now, the Paladin as a class is a trap for the newbie. If your first class is a paladin you stand to get seriously screwed if a wizard comes along with an Imp and you don't have another character leveled up. At best, you are made to use pre-made if not just having to get up and leave altogether.
I know we're not here arguing for rules changes atm, but really.. this needs to be fixed.
The imp needs to be removed (my preferential rule change)
or the Oath needs to be adjusted in PFS to allow them to co-exist with Imps. (since the Meta-game requirement requires it.)
Until then, it looks like evil does triumph in PFS.
-S
|
|
I would argue that evil triumphs in PFS as long as Cheliax is so awesome. ;)
I would sincerely hope that if this were to ever happen at a table that I Dm'd, both players would be able to handle this in a mature fashion.
As someone pointed out in this thread, two factors come into play, first, as someone pointed out in this thread, the tenants of Iomedae at least, include the clause that if an evil is not able to be righted at a particular moment, it must be righted threefold in the future, allowing the paladin to go medieval on the asses of as many fiends as they desire in the infinite downtime between scenarios. Secondly, the tenants of the in game pathfinders preclude them from attacking the imp, and the code does say that they only have to kill fiends that they are able to. Paladins are Lawful too, and the Law says that they have to cooperate even with those who leave a sour taste in their mouth. Therefore there are plenty of reasons that it is not an automatic fall to be in the party with a fiend-friendly wizard.
They should probably just ban the oaths, since the Oathbound paladin is the only class with this magnitude of a problem alongside the imp. Likewise for anti-undead-oath paladins and any sort of undead-themed cleric. I think that part of my dislike of most of the oaths comes from the fact that I once saw a paladin with the Oath against the Wyrm withhold healing from a sorcerer and claim "RP". Had it been my table that player would have had a stern talking to at the very least.
|
|
But that's the quandary for a paladin, and a person who decides to play a paladin. That means a paladin for the most part is going to have to take it on the chin with a ton of atonement spells, or they are going to have to bow out of missions.Its a tough road for a character, and a tougher road to be articulately and accurately role-played by the player. Its much easier to be evil, chaotic neutral, etc it's god darn quantum physics hard to be legitimately lawful good.
This is what I don't get, why is that the player of a paladin HAS to take it on the chin and not the player that is causing the problem in the first place? Or even as a player having to bow out of a mission? Just because someone wants to bring in an imp means that a paladin now can't play because he might have to kill said imp because of the archetype he may have. So the player with the imp forces the situation and here we go the player of the paladin can't come in because it might cause a PvP situation now.
This does not make sense. A Paladin is a core class and there is A LOT of them in PFS as we know. We should be making more amendments for them then players with imps or some such. While yes this IS PFS and there is gray areas.. Paladins do not HAVE to know about them per se because most of the missions with the "gray" areas in them are covert for a reason. If the paladin has to take it on the chin for an atonement spell because another player forces something down his throat said player should be paying for it and not the player of the paladin then!!
|
|
Better PR.
Seriously though, I am with the wizard on this, it is the good path of the paladin that is harder to walk. Evil is the easy road to possibly self-destructive power, the paladin oath should be harder to follow. I also have had worse experiances with players of paladins expecting to get their way because they were "Good" and the other side was not. I have never had that problem with people pushing the envelope of evil.
So any paladin that takes umbridge to my Chelaxian Inquisitor, or tires to shove around a fellow vassal of the Cheliax in his presence will get told exactly where they can shove it.
So you are right it is a harder path for good.. but in this case it would be REALLY simple. Imp dies by said smite evil power of paladin. Not real difficult. Unless said wizard chooses not to bring said imp then. If you as a wizard bring an evil imp in front of a paladin.. then expect said paladin to deal with it summarily in kind and show you how to shove it then.
|
|
The problem is not that the wizard can bring an imp to the table, the problem is that the paladin is the only class that is mechanically bound to have a problem with it. Like it or not, the imp is a completely legal familiar and was legal for far longer than the paladin archetype that we are arguing about, and is well-backed up in Golarion lore by the entire nation of Cheliax.
Now, a lot of the people on the paladin's side in this thread seem positively gleeful at the prospect of being able to screw the wizard out of the cost of a new familiar and hide behind the shield of their code and "RP". Granted it is very hard to discern tone, especially on a board like this but I hope that the paladin player base more mature about it at an actual table. I would expect two adults to be able to resolve things by at worst, having both characters sit out.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well "the problem" is that players are allowed an evil companion when they themselves can't be evil. And when players exploit this to get da uber Familiar, then they expect the Paladin to just "grow up" and "be a mature player" with the very real expectation that since they are legal then its the paladin's problem.
It shouldn't be. The guy who brought E V I L to the table? yeah, its his problem.
The Paladin shouldn't be made to leave or swap characters, the dude with the E V I L familiar should be. or to leave it at home, or whatever. You design a character knowing that every good aligned PC will have an issue with it and *knowing* that one of the classes already has rules leading them to have serious issues about what you are doing built in- even disregarding this oath- and quite frankly its you who should swap character or walk if someone has an issue with it.
"but the rule say". The rules say don't be a jerk. The rules say get along with others. Forcing someone else to leave because you just have to have the bestest familiar? Yeah. Being a jerk. Not getting along with others.
If you bring an Imp to the table, be prepared to leave the table. Don't go expecting to have others leave the table because you decided to have an EVIL OUTSIDER follow you around.
Clearly this is my opinion, and is not rule or law or binding on anyone, nor am I attempting to bind it on anyone. It is and shall remain my opinion, however.
I Know I probably come across as a jerk and vehement, but in reality I have no dog in the hunt. I'd play neither a paladin (much less one with that oath) or a wizard with an imp. It just seems that in an RPG that stresses folks are the good guys and heroes going out to thrwart evil and do good, right wrongs, save kingdoms, and be heroes, that the single most Goody Good Guy is being expected by nigh on everyone to take a bench so some twit in a pointy hat with an imp can go and further his vile and evil ways. That just strikes a bad chord with me.
The bad guy shouldn't be the one who wins this. It should be the good guy. And the guy claiming he's neutral while tugging around an evil outsider, is very much the bad guy.
-S
edit:
PS. Also please don't take anything I say personally.. I'm honestly just enjoying the discussion about it all. I'm definately not pointing fingers at anyone and calling them jerks or such. At least, I don't mean it that way. :)
Selgard,
You keep bringing up this evil thing, but a character does not have to be of an evil alignment in order to have an imp familiar or to be an Undead Lord cleric or to be a Diabolist or to be a cleric of an evil deity. None of these situations require playing the character in an evil way, but if the PLAYER is being the jerk by playing his character as evil in all but name, then the player is the problem and not the character. It all comes down to how the PLAYER plays the character whether there will be problems and conflicts with how other PLAYERS play their characters. If someone needs to buy an atonement at the end of a scenario in order for the characters to work together, then so be it. Maybe the party can split the cost evenly for the atonement if it means the adventure will go more smoothly and have a higher chance of success.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is what I don't get, why is that the player of a paladin HAS to take it on the chin and not the player that is causing the problem in the first place?
To answer THIS specific question, it is because the player of the Paladin is NOT playing a Paladin, but an Oath against Fiends Paladin.
A Paladin, while he wouldn't be happy with the arcane caster with an imp familiar, or divine caster with an undead companion, would recognize that he CANNOT go to town on an ally, and is NOT subject to the additional restrictions of the Oath.
The Paladin with the Oath against Fiends, however, should recognize that having to live with his more morally questionable companions is something that he HAS to do, and has already agreed to abide by the Cooperate, Explore, Report tenets of the Pathfinder Society.
If he cannot abide by those rules, he has deeper issues, and should not have joined the Society to begin with.
I am sorry, but, given the overall population of the Pathfinder Society, the "griefer", in this instance, would be the Oath against Fiends Paladin, NOT, emphatically, NOT, the caster, in either instance.
Indeed, during a game while I was playing my Dhampir Undead Lord, I had no trouble working with the Paladin in our party. In addition, I even figured out a way to be able to heal him once or twice with my Channel Energy ability.
However, neither of us had any difficulty working together, within the Pathfinder Society mission, to complete our goals. Then again, maybe it is because my Cleric is LN, and his companion, when he has one, will be True Neutral...
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As a GM, I would counsel any player who decided to take an Oath Against Fiends or an Oath Against Undeath that she's setting herself up for a collision if she sits down at a table with anybody playing certain dark-and-edgy character concepts. Her character's already agreed to be a Pathfinder, and that involves cooperation with a vast assortment of Golarion's adventuring population. I'd let her PC take that oath, but I'd want her to walk into thing open-eyed, that she may need to invest in an atonement to make up for the fact that she wouldn't be able to carry out her oath under certain circumstances.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Imps are enemies. They are to be killed and looted or banished.
Wrong. Imps and devils aren't enemies, as a matter of fact Pathfinders are expected to work with (and I quote from the Pathfinder Organized Guide on page 8) "fiend-summoning Chelaxians".
Why is the Paladin the source of this issue?
1) The Wizard can work with anyone, it's the Paladin that has trouble working with several individuals (as a matter of fact an entire faction). It doesn't get much more exclusionary than that.
2) Since the Paladin agreed to be a Pathfinder, he has agreed to work and cooperate with other Pathfinders, which includes "a fiend-summoning Chelaxian ". If that's not agreeable, you can't become a Pathfinder, it's one of grounds for removal from the PFS. I'm not sure how this can be more clear.
Cooperate: The Society places no moral obligations upon its members, so agents span all races, creeds, and motivations. At any given time, a Pathfinder lodge might house a fiend-summoning Chelaxian, a Silver Crusade paladin, an antiquities-obsessed Osirian necromancer, a watchdog Shadow Lodge member, and a friendly Taldan raconteur.
The Paladin should be removed from the PFS because he can't even agree to one of the basic tenets of the PFS, cooperate (which includes working with Pathfinders who use devils). These are grounds for removal, stated plainly.
If we wanted to be really realistic about it, that would include abandoning missions because the PC can't work with certain other PCs. He'd get the boot, if we were being realistic. (But in OP, we're nice).
If you want to argue with that, you're just arguing with the Organized Play Guide, the rules to being a Pathfinder are stated very clearly and concisely.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Alright ... yes. The in-game fluff for the IC PFS says to cooperate, be nice, play together, respect each other's factions, etc.
*BUT* that doesn't preclude other tenets of the PFS. "The Society" doesn't pass on moral obligations to it's members ... but, PFS-OP does. (But, thanks for trying to make fluff into rules. Nice try.) PFS-OP makes it painfully clear that there's to be no [evil] PCs.
All else being equal, the Chelaxian Summoner is no less legal or valid a character choice.
*EACH* is making a choice to use a mechanic that is problematic. Each is class-based. One upholds an oath, the other chooses to have a familiar. Your class mechanic is not more important than mine.
*BOTH* face having so pay money to reinstate their ability. One might have to pay for dozens and dozens of Atonement, the other might have to replace a familiar (if *they* choose not to simply hide the familiar).
*BUT* let's be clear ... I'm talking about a run-of-the-mill paladin, and not just the guy who chose the Vow.
But, the OOC rules for PFS clearly state that there can be no [evil] characters. If this were an NPC, there would be no discussion. It would be almost universally accepted that the fiend-summoning opponent at the end of the adventure is the BBEG. He would be smited and slain. PCs and NPCs alike to not bide by fiend-summonging [evil].
If a player commits an [evil] act, there are rules for warning him and making clear what he's doing. If he becomes "wantonly evil" there are rules for removing him from the game. How on earth can it be asserted that summoning an evil fiend and associating with it every single day is not an evil act. Don't give me that crap about how they might become evil later in life, after the character is retired. BS. They're commiting evil acts right here, right now, every day.
The only person that would get a boot (if we were being realistic) would be the jerk touting his imp and flaunting it around town. The PFS is tolerant because it's an OOC issue. That's why it was written that way. But the general populace of anywhere other than Cheliax would string him up, and let the flies feast on him. There's not a person out there that should be able to tell me with a straight face that if a devil showed up in your living room, that you'd consider makig a pact with it. At the very leasat, your Mom and your girlfriend would say you weren't being a nice guy, if you did. And I would agree with her. And certainly, not being good-aligned.
And that's why allowing an imp servitor is simply fan-service.
What it boils down to is that there's too many angst-ridden teens who want to be vampires, there's too many men who think it's cool to be in a biker gang, there's too many gamers who want power over roleplaying (and if you tell me that you didn't choose the imp because it's more powerful, I'll likely scoff at you). There's too many people who think the succubus is hot and they'd have sex with her (did I mention soul-sucking? yeah, no one does that.) There's too many people who think it's fun to be evil.
There's way to many people that are like the fella at the end of the panel ... See if you agree.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The wizard can't work with anyone, when he has an evil familiar. He can't work with the Paladin. He's set himself up to become a conflict for another character by his very design. And he knows it, and has done so strictly to gain more power. Its already been stated that the imp is the best familiar on the block. (which I disagree with, but thats irrelevant to the current discussion)
Guy a: plays a paladin.
Guy b: selects a feat to gain an evil companion.
Guy A needs to be banned? Not in my opinion. The guy who selected the option to turn his character into the problem is in fact the problem.
I would also say that in my opinion there is a difference between someone summoning a fiend briefly in battle and someone who has one sitting at the dinner table hangin around chatting it up (and proably harrassing the Paladin.. it is *evil* afterall and probably couldn't help pick on the bright shiny guy. but that's just an assumption not a rule or anything).
Paladin are against evil. Its right in the book. The oath does nothing more than make them a lil more strict about it and a lil more useful in doing so. When the PC's find Imps along the path of their adventures they destroy them. No one but the wizard thinks "oh look, a new friend!".
They think "oh )(@#)$*( a EVIL creature!" and they go and they (try to) slay the heck out of it. Along with any and all other evil outsiders they should come across.
The Society makes its people get along with each other, not with every evil outsider in existence and the Pathfinder Code doesn't mean that they can't go killing Evil Outsiders when they are encountered. They are still very much the bad guys.
Folks are nice in OP. They have the no PVP rule which has been extended to mean "no killing people's evil familiars". The Paladin is expected to get along with folks and folks are expected to not make their characters such that they can't get along well with others.
So again I ask: Why is the Paladin the one who is expected to change characters or leave the table or eat an atonement instead of the evil wizard? It should be the evil wizard changing characters or leaving the Imp at home or whatever. He is the one who created a character knowing he would have issues with the Paladin- not to mention any generally Good aligned group. (which hopefully is most of them- but thats my preference and not the rules.)
Devil: imp
Demon: Quasit
When a quasit's master dies, the quasit can attempt to follow the master's soul into the Great Beyond by making a DC 15 Will save. This functions as plane shift, but affects only the quasit and transports it into the Abyss and places its master's soul in the quasit's possession as a writhing larvae rather than using the evil master's soul to create new demonic life. In this manner, a quasit can use its newly captured soul to bargain with more powerful denizens of the lower planes, and perhaps secure a vile transformative “promotion” to a more powerful form of life in the process.
These aren't just wand toating winged animals who dutifully follow their masters around like little constructs. *they are evil* and they have unspeakably evil goals in mind.
I understand the folks who want to be able to use Imps, they are powerful. But they need to make that decision to use one, with the knowledge that their presence at the table is griefing to some other legal and legit players at the table. Namely paladin, and especially fiend oathed paladin.
This is clearly my opinion- but the guy who has chosen to be better at killing the evil bad guys of the universe should not be the one penalized if he comes to a table where another PC has chosen to have one of the evil bad guys of the universe sitting on his shoulder.
You chose evil. That has a price. If you choose evil, be willing to take the hit. The Paladin should never have to worry about having to pay for an atonement because of something some other player has done with their character creation selections.
-S