This is kind of a strange one... not a rules question, more of a flavor question. I am looking for opinions on paladins who use smite without knowing if their target is evil.
Scenario:
A paladin and his group engage in a battle with an enemy of unknown alignment. When the battle starts the paladins first act is to smite > full attack.
Player mindset: its fine because the drawback is loosing a daily use of smite.
The players mindset is that if they attempt to smite a target that is not evil the smite is simply wasted. Thus instead of using a move action to determine if the enemy is evil he simply smites then says, "if its evil I have a +X and if its not I have a +Y"
DM mindset: Using smite to determine the targets alignment is kind of counter to the intent of the ability and the flavor of a paladin
Using smite on an enemy that is not evil is technically legal, but the smite power is a special power granted by the paladins god for the vanquishing of evil not to waste against anything that moves. The paladin is even given the ability to quickly (move action) determine the alignment of the target, failure to make use of that ability is basically wasteful and abusive.
the following spoiler includes the basic situation that lead to the question I didn't want to add it as a part of the original post because I am trying to determine a general rule of thumb this is only the specific situation that brought the issue up.
The party goes on the attack and the paladin smites and attacks.
The players reasonably assumed that the enemy was evil because of its distasteful reproduction and the fact that it attacked them first. But a paladin is held to a slightly higher standard. I don't believe in lawful stupid paladins. but I also don't believe that they should go around smiting first and asking questions later.
It turns out that the creature is a Moonflower a huge neutral plant creature of minimal intelligence doing what wild creatures do, hunting prey. The creature, while distasteful, is no more evil than a shark, cat, or bacteria.
there is no rule that says the paladin cannot smite first and ask questions later... but after the player has done this sort of thing several times I began to wonder if it was kind of an ethical faux pas. I mean... would a god get somewhat annoyed if his follower regularly spammed, "GOD GRANT ME YOUR MIGHT TO DEFEAT THIS possibly EVIL ENEMY BECAUSE I AM TOO LAZY TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT IT IS TRULY WORTHY OF YOUR WRATH.!"
this of course lead to great debate.
I have no intention of immediately punishing the player. But I am juggling how to judge the issue and if I think that its a problem I will simply provide the character with a dream or something suggesting that he be a little more discerning about his smite targets.
If he goes around town and points the finger at everyone "Smite" and then slaps them to find out which one of them fly across the townsquare from the slap, because of the added smite, then I'd say he's being stupid.
If the paladin has made the reasonable assumption that the enemy is evil, then yes, he should be able to smite him/her/it.
In the example you give, I would say it's fine.
Also remember that creatures below level 5 (I have no idea what level that thing was) don't ping on Detect Evil unless they're a cleric of an evil god or an evil outsider.
Also there's enough ways to fool Detect Evil to not trigger. Undetectable Alignment or Misdirection being just two.
No, it's not abuse. As you say yourself, it's only a move action to detect.
This isn't more abusive than a wizard using a Flaming Sphere to light a campfire when he could've used Spark.
yes.
but isnt it reasonable to assume that the player must make an attempt to determine the evil before calling down gods power.
the characters are level 7+ and this is not an isolated incident. the players preferred method of determining the alignment of any encounter is to smite first and ask later.
the action seems wrong on several levels. it seems more chaotic than lawful for one, but beyond that it seems irreverent.
What is his deity like? What are the specifics of his oath?
blue: Why? Of course you can house rule it but this has been quite common since at least 3.0 and the devs apparently have seen no reason to restrict it - just like a cleric doesn't need to detect if there's any evil creatures adjacent to cast Holy Smite and a druid doesn't need to know if the vines are living wood or just a plastic flower to cast entangle.
This isn't more abusive than a wizard using a Flaming Sphere to light a campfire when he could've used Spark.
its entirely different. in terms of rules the player is doing this in order to not use a move action in combat. the player is a divine hunter, so instead of detecting evil, then smiting and only getting one attack that first round he is simply smiting for full action. its kind of relevant to power level.
its also relevant in terms of role play, a wizard using a spell or a tinder box to start a camp fire is basically using his own power to do a job. But smiting is basically requesting that god lend the paladin extra power against an evil enemy, (actual wording is "a paladin can call out to the powers of good to aid her in her struggle against evil.") this does not seem like something that should be requested trivially (no matter how trivial it may be to the actual god)
What is his deity like? What are the specifics of his oath?
The character is a Divine Hunter Paladin of Iomedae with the oath of vengeance (they should not be used together but that is a different issue) Iomedae is the "goddess of righteous valor, justice, and honor." and the oath of vengeance is generally focused on avenging a specific thing higher purpose not simply vengeance against anything that pisses me off.
I can understand the blind smite in a situation in which the enemy is too far to detect but is still a valid threat, there is reason to suspect that a known evil is hiding his/her alignment or accidentally smiting a target that the paladin has been tricked into believing was evil.
But smiting an enemy because its easier than taking the time to detect evil does not seems honorable, righteous, or justified it just seems frivolous, lazy and abusive.
Ok, so its no isolated incident you say. Is he normally right? I mean are the enemies he hits usually evil?
If they are I see no problem.
If they're mostly non-evil or even good, then he might get a vision from his boss, basicly saying "Hey, stop waking me from my afternoon nap all the time, unless you're sure"
However not after just one or two incidents where it's a reasonable assumption.
Bandits attacking the orphanage? Yes probably evil.
Magical beast wanting a virgin sacrifice? Yes, probably evil.
Outsider with flames coming out of his mouth proclaiming Asmodeus will burn the world? Yes, probably evil.
Pickpocket trying to lift the paladin's purse so he doesn't starve? Here some doubt may be adviced.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This isn't more abusive than a wizard using a Flaming Sphere to light a campfire when he could've used Spark.its entirely different. in terms of rules the player is doing this in order to not use a move action in combat. the player is a divine hunter, so instead of detecting evil, then smiting and only getting one attack that first round he is simply smiting for full action. its kind of relevant to power level.
Yes and he's using up a limited resource instead of the move action. Well make him regret that.
He's 7th level, he can smite exactly 3 times a day.After he's used that trick three times on basicly trash, that probably wasn't even evil, have them face something where it would be needed now, and he doesn't have it anymore.
If you let the party have 15 minute adventuring days, don't be surprised that limited resources aren't viewed as something precious, but as rather unlimited.
@stringburka: I am not saying the player CANNOT do it. from a legal stand point I have not in any way restricted the player from the action... the question is flavor, would the god discourage repeated abuse of the power the god provides.
remember when a divine character is using divine magic they are not casting spells of their own power, they are requesting that the god expend divine power at the characters request. A god, especially a paladins god, should expect a certain standard of use. I dont expect the gods would appreciate being asked to smite a bear protecting its cubs any more than they would appreciate being asked to cure a scraped knee with cure critical wounds.
@quartar: As an oath of vengeance cleric he can burn 2 lay on hands for a smite. giving him at this point 7 or 8 smites a day (which is the primary reason he chose oath of vengeance) also the players are in an over land travel situation and generally know that encounters are more or less once per day thus no need for resource rationing per battle. (yes I can throw a lot at them but it would seem forced and deliberate punishment)
Ah didn't check the oath.
As I said, as long as "they're most likely evil" is a reasonable assumption I don't think his god will have a problem with this approach.
If he throws it arround indiscriminitely, at people and creatures where that's not the case, or even at people were "they're not evil or even good" is the most logical assumption, I would give him that vision after a while.
That's not to say "if he used it 5 times on a non-evil person", but people where "they're evil" is not reasonable.
Bandits can be CN or something maybe, but them being evil is not a far-fetched assumption, so throwing it at them is ok, even if that one turns out to be CN.
They're hunting a pickpocket in a city and find him. That he's evil is not a given, he could just do it to survive. (Yes the bandits could be doing it for that reason too, but they accept they might have to kill innocent merchants or guards to get their loot, the pickpocket just steals and runs). Of course he might be evil but that's not the point.
Edit: Sorry to say this, but are you sure, you're not just looking for a reason to screw the paladin over? He's using a class feature pretty much like its intented, so why are you so set on finding a way to proof to him he's doing it wrong?
I get why it bothers you. Not sure what you should do about it though.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
@stringburka: I am not saying the player CANNOT do it. from a legal stand point I have not in any way restricted the player from the action... the question is flavor, would the god discourage repeated abuse of the power the god provides.
You have yet to establish that "wasting" a smite is an abuse of power. The god's opinion probably would vary from god to god. But either way the rules in no way account for this beyond GM fiat.
remember when a divine character is using divine magic they are not casting spells of their own power, they are requesting that the god expend divine power at the characters request. A god, especially a paladins god, should expect a certain standard of use. I dont expect the gods would appreciate being asked to smite a bear protecting its cubs any more than they would appreciate being asked to cure a scraped knee with cure critical wounds.
A bear would be neutral and the smite would fail, so the gods have a build in mechanic to "punish" the paladin for "wasting" a smite. And as for god's reaction, as I said above, your opinion becomes GM fiat and not within the scope of the RAW.
@quartar: As an oath of vengeance cleric he can burn 2 lay on hands for a smite. giving him at this point 7 or 8 smites a day (which is the primary reason he chose oath of vengeance) also the players are in an over land travel situation and generally know that encounters are more or less once per day thus no need for resource rationing per battle. (yes I can throw a lot at them but it would seem forced and deliberate punishment)
You should not restrict players form using their characters bcause your campaign design to not account for their abilities. A Paladin going nova with smites because he knows this is likely his only encounter each day is no different than a Wizard going Nova with his best spells for the same reason. It's kind of a jerk move to restrict one of them simply because a plausible flavor excuse exists.
To sum up: Your problem is not the Paladin, but rather your 15 minute work day. You are focusing on a symptom. Come up with some ways to fix the true problem. Several suggestions have been made for this and many more are available if you request them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think there are three ways to approach this question, and we've only addressed two of them so far. I'd like to take a look at all three.
.
.
.
1 - Rules
Is using Smite Evil on a foe of unknown alignment within the rules?
Yes, the player is obeying the rules of the game; no one disputes that.
2 - Flavor
Is using Smite Evil on a foe of unknown alignment something the god would approve of?
This has been the main point of discussion so far, and is a reasonable discussion to have. It's part of the greater discussion, "Is _____ in the spirit of the game?" Some of these questions have generally agreed upon answers, while others are hotly contested. From the discussion so far, I'd place this one in the "contested" category.
3 - Fun
What is the most fun for the players?
We play Pathfinder to have fun. This is far more important than any other rule of the game. If the player has more fun smiting, then let him smite! (If the player is somehow ruining the game for everyone else, then you need to discuss it among your own group.) However, letting a player play his character according to his own view of that character is a key element in making gaming fun.
I honestly don't see the issue. Once combat has started attempting to smite the opponent and being wrong about it doesn't any paladin oath. Most players tend to assume bad guys are evil unless the dm goes out of their way to have them not be. Which some dm do.
I think the only thing I would add that hasn't been brought up is just how viable this is as a strategy for information gain. Smite doesn't have some kind of display written out in the rules. There's nothing to tell a paladin his smite had an effect.
As a GM, if my players knew a foe was evil, I'd have them add in the extra attack and damage to their rolls. If they didn't know, I'd have them attack as normal... and then apply the attack and damage to the resulting roll in secret. After all, the PCs don't know terms like Armor Class and Hit Points. They just know whether an attack hit or missed, and whether it did damage. They might be able to tell roughly how injured someone is (he's about halfway dead) though that might require a heal check.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the group/paladin doesn't know the creature is evil- should they be fighting it?
Thats really the underlying question you seem to be having. Whether he smites or Detects isn't really an issue at all- but rather should they be in the combat in the first place.
If the combat is legitimate, then whether he detects or not is entirely irrelevant except as resource management.
If he shouldn't be in the combat anyway then he needs to get a vision from his Deity for being in combats he has no business being in.
Keep in mind- evil or the lack thereof has nothing to do with whether or not they have the right to be in combat with them. (i.e. just because you can smite evil doesn't mean its always right to SMITE EVIL!")
You need to determine the underlying reasons for the combat to find out if the guy is in any trouble from his Deity or not.
His desire, or lackthereof, to use detect evil really has no bearing on the situation.
There is nothing in the class, the mechanics or fluff, that says there is such a thing as 'wasting' smites, or spells, or lay on hands or anything else.. Not for him, not for the clerics, druids, rangers, or any other divine casters.
Now if you as the DM don't like that then you are free to change it. I'd advise against doing so mid campaign, however. "hey I don't like how you are using that ability on your 7th level character so I'm introducing this new mechanic to hose you" usually doesn't go over terribly well with the player base.
-S
Going around attacking people seems to be evil to me. I would hope he at least has very good reasons to attack them besides thinking that they might be evil.
PS:The paladin does not have a license to kill, and if the person is evil, but has never commited a crime he still might get in trouble.
PS2:Do you have an example or two of how this played out in the game?
This is kind of a strange one... not a rules question, more of a flavor question. I am looking for opinions on paladins who use smite without knowing if their target is evil.
Scenario:
A paladin and his group engage in a battle with an enemy of unknown alignment. When the battle starts the paladins first act is to smite > full attack.Player mindset: its fine because the drawback is loosing a daily use of smite.
The players mindset is that if they attempt to smite a target that is not evil the smite is simply wasted. Thus instead of using a move action to determine if the enemy is evil he simply smites then says, "if its evil I have a +X and if its not I have a +Y"DM mindset: Using smite to determine the targets alignment is kind of counter to the intent of the ability and the flavor of a paladin
Using smite on an enemy that is not evil is technically legal, but the smite power is a special power granted by the paladins god for the vanquishing of evil not to waste against anything that moves. The paladin is even given the ability to quickly (move action) determine the alignment of the target, failure to make use of that ability is basically wasteful and abusive.
I hardly see this as abusive at all. From a gamist perspective, all the player is doing is taking a risk as to whether a smite will actually work with the consequence of it being wasted if it does not.
From a RP perspective it would depend on the deity in question. I could see a LN deity getting bogged down in rules and such to the point of being inflexible and jerky to the paladin in question who did not bother to follow proper procedure.
I cannot imagine a LG or NG deity doing likewise, especially in a situation where lives are potentially at stake. To have one of them do so would frankly be bad role playing on the part of the DM.
Den
Look as long as *attacking* it is not a problem, then wasting a Smite on it is not a problem.
I understand the frustration, but as you yourself noted the character's actions have been enabled by a combination of concepts that you should not have allowed to be paired in the first place; you can't blame the character for making use of the resources you as GM granted him. If the character has ample uses of smite available, he would be foolish not to put them to use. Neglecting to utilize the power his god grants him would truly be lawful stupid.
If you find that this is truly disruptive or problematic to your game, speak to the player. Admit that you made a mistake in allowing the class choices, and find a solution.
Don't attempt to impose a fluff-based penalty to halt the ability usage you already approved. That's a vindictive action, the type of thing that spoils the game.
I have no problem with the players entering combat with an opponent that is not evil. I honestly dont even have a problem with the player using smite against a non-evil enemy if its an accident, or they have a reason to believe the target is evil but no way to prove it other than smite.
But when the player is smiting for no other reason than MAYBE its evil then the part of me that is role playing the game world starts to wonder if the god may find the action distasteful.
OK. we can go around in circles about this but the bottom line is I am not asking a rule question, its not even a power question, its a flavor question.
Ignore the paladin for a minute
Look at it from the gods perspective as if your playing the role of the god(which is the role the GM must play or at least interpret) If you as a god grant a follower a special power to use in your name do you or do you not expect them to use that power with a certain amount of respect and caution.
If you noticed a follower using the power basically indiscriminately and expecting you the god to basically waste your gift to the follower purely because the follower refuses to use the tools provided to them to determine the validity of their actions... would you be OK with that?
NOTE: I am in no way trying to lay down some immediate punishment on the paladin. The god will explain his/her beliefs to the paladin and warn them a few times before applying any kind of punishment. I am just trying to determine if this is something a god would have a problem with.
I don't see this as a problem. It is still a limited resource, and if the paladin is burning through his lay on hands to smite, what happens when he is in a position that he needs that resource. It will be gone, and if the smites were used against non-evil, it will be wasted.
In the campaign I'm currently in my paladin has had to use his lay on hands to keep himself alive long enough for some of the other healers to step in and take care of things. So burning through those would be seen as a total waste. I have used smite evil without detecting evil a few times, but they were really good reasoning(one after being hit by a flame strike that hurt the 3 good characters more then the neutral ones, and the other on the beautiful woman who we had been told was eating tieflings and had piles of bodies and black candles spread around the room)
As for the people that have said a paladin wouldn't know if the smite worked I disagree. You know how hard you can hit, and what kind of damage you do. So if your sword is causing bigger wounds then normal, you would know it's because of a special power. Just like you can tell sometimes if the enemy has damage reduction, you hit it with all your might and it doesn't seem too concerned, there is something going on.
|
|
a simple fix would be to require the paladin to "know" that the creature was evil before the smite ability would activate. If it is clearly (in the character's mind) evil like undead, a demon, a priest with an evil deity holy symbol, or a murderer crouching over a dead body with a bloody knife, he should be able to auto-smite.
If its a non-descript human, unknown critter, or the like, smite won't activate until he detects evil or makes a knowledge check of some kind. And for the purposes of this exercise, I would explicitly say that the wizard with mass knowledges, isnt allowed to lie and just tell him everything is evil so he can carry on as he is now.
This adds some flavor and logic to the game, and if you explain it to the player offline, he should have no problem with it. If he does, merely explain that he can carry on as it is, but every time he tries to smite someone he does not know is evil and hasnt done anything blatantly evil, it is a misuse of divine power, which could result it that power being rescinded. Basically, the discussion metagame is between you and the player, but in game it would be between him and a messenger of his deity.
tl;dr - With great power given by a god, comes great responsibility, even if RAW doesn't says so :)
As a side note, this is how I run my game, with the tradeoff that the paladin may find from time to time that he has "miscounted" how many smites he has left, and he gets an extra boon from his deity.
But divine casters like clerics and paladins prep spells in advance. They prey and meditate to gain power from their god at the begining of the day.
It makes sense that they are imbued by divine energy, and expend that energy at their own discression, similar to a wizard. smites could work with a similar mechanic. The strength of their faith and ability to contain divine energy (level) is what gives them several smites at the start of the day. So he's not necessarily asking for a boost, but rather spending (wasting) the power he already asked for. That may annoy his god, wasting power, but if he tends to be right, or is reasonable about it, then no reason to annoy the god.
If they weren't given the power in advance, what's the point of preping, and if the god grants smite damage per use, why not give it out whenever the pali asks? Having a resevoir for divine badassery commenserate with the Pali's pali-ness solves these issues nicely, imho
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Note that you also cannot detect a lot of evil creatures, like for example stock goblins, orcs, ogres, many wyrmling dragons and so on.
unfortunately this has nothing to do with low level mooks that cant be detected. thats adding irrelevant information to the question. its purely about indiscriminate smiting regardless of whether the target is evil or not without making any attempt to determine the righteousness of the smite action.
The more I talk about it the more I feel pushed into the belief that a god would dissagree with the wasteful use of its powers mostly because the arguments I am hearing are essentially "why not let him do it"
but my point is that he CAN use smite against a target regardless of the reason... but the god may not like the abuse of power.
Here is another example. A cop has every ability to use their badge, cuffs and other tools of their trade. However since they represent the office of the government and are supposed to present a higher standard it is looked down on if the cop uses his legal powers without justification in many cases even if they are ultimately correct they can be punished in retrospect for th misuse of power.
I cringe from using real world examples because there are so many "what-ifs" that can be applied but if you consider that the paladin is similarly a representative of the god they worship is it not a similar problem if the paladin is wastefully using the powers granted to him?
NOTE: there are always exceptions to every rule. I am asking this question in a general sense based purely on the general story and not how it applies to random what if scenarios.
if the paladin regularly uses his abilities indiscriminately without any valid attept to determine the righteousness of his actions would the god generally be OK with that?
|
This is kind of a strange one... not a rules question, more of a flavor question. I am looking for opinions on paladins who use smite without knowing if their target is evil.
Scenario:
A paladin and his group engage in a battle with an enemy of unknown alignment. When the battle starts the paladins first act is to smite > full attack.Player mindset: its fine because the drawback is loosing a daily use of smite.
The players mindset is that if they attempt to smite a target that is not evil the smite is simply wasted. Thus instead of using a move action to determine if the enemy is evil he simply smites then says, "if its evil I have a +X and if its not I have a +Y"DM mindset: Using smite to determine the targets alignment is kind of counter to the intent of the ability and the flavor of a paladin
Using smite on an enemy that is not evil is technically legal, but the smite power is a special power granted by the paladins god for the vanquishing of evil not to waste against anything that moves. The paladin is even given the ability to quickly (move action) determine the alignment of the target, failure to make use of that ability is basically wasteful and abusive.
Is it an abuse? No. Is it stupid and wasteful? Absolutely.
|
The point I'm making about low-level, is that the paladin literally cannot find out using detect evil whether he should smite or not. It's built into his mechanics. All of a sudden, at higher level, he needs to change his tactics? He's already being forced to fight whatever got him put into combat in the first place, he should be allowed to choose to take the risk of it not working.
You're saying that smite evil can only be used if the paladin has used detect evil first to make sure the target is evil. If the ability was meant to work that way, it would say it in the description.
What's next? Are you going to have the LG cleric's god take his powers away because he started continuously preparing and then casting Holy Smite on characters he doesn't know are evil? Flame Strike? Inflict Wounds?
IS this smite abuse?
......is GOD wrong??
hey say he made only one mistake, and you saw what happen then....
Detect Evil is incredibly unreliable. Saying the paladin has to get a ping on their evildar before they can smite someone is essentially selling immunity to Smite Evil for the low, low price of a 50gp potion of undetectable alignment.
Asking your paladin to not use his full powers against the face of an oncoming attacker until he wastes time trying to determine it's alignment when his compatriots are in mortal danger is rarely going to go over well.
What if his inaction causes the death of an innocent? Would he fall?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the Deities cared, surely somewhere in one of the books it would be mentioned.. somewhere? anywhere?
Folks have talked about using Create Water to solve anything from irrigation problems to dry and itchy scalps but no mention of abusing or wasting the divine power given to them.
There's no mention in *any place* in any book that I know of that talks about or mentions or even hints about "wasting" anything. You are simply tired of your PC not blowing a move action and so you are trying to figure out a way to put the thumb screws to him to force him to play how You want the paladin to play.
Stop.
Its that simple. Just stop. Next campaign, you play- and pick a paladin.. then play it the way you want. But don't come in now at 7th level and invent a brand spanking new rule to the game that has absolutely *no goal* in mind escept to screw with someone who's only sin is to not play the way you want.
Detect Evil isn't a requirement or prerequisite to smite evil. It hasn't been, isn't now, and that shouldn't be changed in the middle of an on-going campaign.
I get that you don't like what he's doing but he's not doing anything incorrect with the mechanics or fluff or even the theme of the class. As long as he's not breaking his vow, code, or alignment to be in the combat in the first place there's not *one thing* that stops him from using smite. Heck, he could smite the same guy over and over and over again and blow them all on a neutral opponent and the rules perfectly support that decision.
(it'd be a stupid decision- to be sure, but not one actionable by his deity.)
If it gets on your goat that much change it for the next campaign.. but I really do strongly advise hosing the guy in This campaign because halfway through you think he's playing a Paladin the wrong way.
-S
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, the god cares. If the target is not evil, the god gives no power! If you call upon the power a lot even when targets are not evil, the god might not give you aid when you really need it (you're out of daily smites).
See, it's already in the mechanics! :)
The more I talk about it the more I feel pushed into the belief that a god would dissagree with the wasteful use of its powers mostly because the arguments I am hearing are essentially "why not let him do it"...
if the paladin regularly uses his abilities indiscriminately without any valid attept to determine the righteousness of his actions would the god generally be OK with that?
Ultimately, you are role-playing the deity in question. A deity of redemption, like Sarenrae, might be quite displeased with a smite-happy Paladin using it as a backhanded detect evil. A deity like Iomedae, more of the 'punish the wrongdoer' sort, might be less displeased. But that's all up to you and how you interpret the deity's portfolio and personality.
|
|
Asking your paladin to not use his full powers against the face of an oncoming attacker until he wastes time trying to determine it's alignment when his compatriots are in mortal danger is rarely going to go over well.
What if his inaction causes the death of an innocent? Would he fall?
I would argue that discerning between whether an opponent is evil (or doing evil) or not is the main difference between them and any other martial class. And we aren't talking about defending his compatriots or innocents or not, it is assumed that the paladin isnt stupid. We are talking about proactive smiting in the process of defense.
As far as game balance or metagaming, only the original OP would know if the PC is abusing this power. If he smites and gets nada, then stops the next round and tries to negotiate, then yes, thats rather metagamish and possibly not in the spirit of the class intent. There is no question that RAW the player is doing nothing wrong.
Are we talking about playing a bunch of numbers on paper or a character who follows a LG alignment and the tenets of his god? If his god(dess) is a zealot, then sure smite away, he is following his belief structure. To my knowledge there aren't really any of those in Golarion, unless its a heresy or splinter branch of something like Iomedae. Most good god(dess)s support using temperance, wisdom, and discretion before killing things.
I would argue that the fact smite does more damage against innately and unrepentantly evil things (evil priests, outsiders, dragons, etc) would suggest it is meant to use as a tool to cleanse true evil, not as a bigger broom in a dungeon crawl. In particular, if the paladin were a worshipper of Sarenrae, he should be careful smiting people, as she is a strong believer in conversion of evil and repentance.
However, I would encourage any GMs who are using a lot of roleplay/character development to guide the mechanics of the game to consider rewarding the character for wise use of smite, perhaps with additional uses, spontaneous buffs or heals when needed to defend the righteous and those of his faith, etc. If the god(dess) cares enough to bother the paladin about it, they should care enough to reinforce their will. :)
Ultimately, you are role-playing the deity in question. A deity of redemption, like Sarenrae, might be quite displeased with a smite-happy Paladin using it as a backhanded detect evil. A deity like Iomedae, more of the 'punish the wrongdoer' sort, might be less displeased. But that's all up to you and how you interpret the deity's portfolio and personality.
Aye. I can understand why this bothers you. It is a bit of a tough spot, and it all depends on the flow of the game and its intent.
Everyone will play differently.
Chocolate is often remembered before vinegar, so you might suggest that the god prefers to be invoked before smiting his or her enemies. Doing so correctly permits a chance for a minor fear effect as the enemies are given a chance to recognize who they're facing.
Continually invoking incorrectly--say that the smite has a physical, real-world effect (shining blade, holy aura, etc.)...might gain the character as having something of a sloppy reputation, and that could play out in the reactions of potential employers, or other members of the PC's faith.
I suppose what I'm suggesting is:
- Possibly offer a minor ingame reward that the player will want, in order to encourage better behavior
- More importantly, as this is a roleplay issue, handle it in a roleplay appropriate manner
- Communicate with the player your expectations either way
I think one can interpret the fluff of the ability in two different ways.
Way 1 (how OP is interpreting it as far as I've understood): The ability is calling upon the god to give you the power to kill evil more efficiently. The god gives you the power, the power only works on evil.
Way 2 (how the "issue" may be solved): The ability is calling upon the god to give you the power to kill more efficiently, and if the target is evil, the call is answered. The god only gives you the power if the target is evil.
Fair enough.
Lots of great input here and I am happy to see that the thread did not degrade into madness.
I still feel the players use of 'detect evil by smite' is distasteful. Either its a mild abuse of power or a slightly chaotic leaning tendency but either way I am willing to accept that by itself the act is not a problem even when used regularly.
I think however that I will add some story effect as suggested by others,
for example, when the player activates smite I may add the effect that the weapon begins to glow with the holy might of their god.
and when the attack hits instead of saying "yea its evil roll damage" I may say something like "your arrow pierces the enemy in a burst of powerful holy energy" if its an evil outsider or dragon or something.
if its just normal evil I will say something simpler like "the added might of your gods blessing cuts deeper than any normal attack"
But if its not evil i will say something like "The righteous energy winks out just before piercing your target and the resulting impact of your weapon is disappointingly average."
Or possibly I will not explain it at all and add smite damage to attack s behind the scenes so that the player is not immediately aware of the effectiveness (though I dislike this idea)
ultimately I may add a bit of chastisement from NPCs that begin to call the Paladin the Great and Powerful Fizzler or something for constantly using smites that seem to fizzle, not so much a nerf but a bit of RP peer pressure.
Actually, the god cares. If the target is not evil, the god gives no power! If you call upon the power a lot even when targets are not evil, the god might not give you aid when you really need it (you're out of daily smites).
See, it's already in the mechanics! :)
^ This. These are wise words.
If an exorcist-themed character always starts combat by splashing opponents with holy water just in case they're evil outsiders in disguise, is that character "disrespecting" the holy water? No.
I had a character who drank holy water. That might qualify as disrespecting it, but he was a dwarf and holy water of Cayden Cailean is alcohol, so maybe not. :P
Ultimately, you are role-playing the deity in question. A deity of redemption, like Sarenrae, might be quite displeased with a smite-happy Paladin using it as a backhanded detect evil.
HAH! Yeah, right. Sarenrae's the most martially-minded god that calls paladins. She'd have no problem with auto-smite.
Or possibly I will not explain it at all and add smite damage to attack s behind the scenes so that the player is not immediately aware of the effectiveness (though I dislike this idea)
I would shy away from this as well. Let's face it, calculating damage is part of the fun for many players running combatant characters. Probably not a good idea to take this away from them. That said, the fluff responses you describe, and the chastisement, seem like good choices; the functionality of the ability is unaltered, yet at the same time the effects of the character's actions become readily apparent.
My only caution is to be careful not to single out the paladin in this: If you are going to start using thematic elements of this nature for one member of the party, you need to do so for all of the group.
Hmm, I'm thinking of an analogue.
Let's say you see a homeless person, and feeling a surge of pity, you give them $20. You say, "Here, go buy some food for yourself." Later, you find out they spent $2 on food and the other $18 on booze. Understandably, you are pissed and refuse to give them more money. You gave them the money with clear conditions, and they broke them.
But let's say instead, you say, "Here, I trust you to use this responsibly." You might be annoyed later, but you might be willing to explain that buying alcohol isn't responsible use for the money. You gave the money with vague conditions, and while they broke them, you can't be sure it was intentional or due to misunderstanding.
Finally, let's imagine you said, "Here, use this however you want." Later you have no right to be pissed, because you gave them the money with no conditions.
SO... in the case of our paladin, I guess I'd ask whether the god gives the power with clear conditions (which obviously doesn't seem to be the case), vague conditions (which might require some clarification), or no conditions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
HAH! Yeah, right. Sarenrae's the most martially-minded god that calls paladins. She'd have no problem with auto-smite.
Iomedae's way more militaristic than Sarenrae - Sarenrae's philosophy is, "Offer redemption, and if they say no, give them the sword." Iomedae's is, "Give them the sword, and if they surrender, offer them redemption."
Edit: Note which of them offers the War domain.
Ultimately, you are role-playing the deity in question. A deity of redemption, like Sarenrae, might be quite displeased with a smite-happy Paladin using it as a backhanded detect evil.HAH! Yeah, right. Sarenrae's the most martially-minded god that calls paladins. She'd have no problem with auto-smite.
Are we reading the same sources?
Granted, there's much more detail in the Golarion sources, but the Gods and Magic write up and the longer one from Legacy of Fire make it crystal clear that mercy and forgiveness are expected first, and violence is saved for when those fail. A variant, almost heretical, sect in Katapesh and Osirion takes a more hard-line stance, but that has been acknowledged by the developers as a deliberate schism in the faith, and that hard-line sect *is* on the edge of heresy.
Of course, we do not know what world this campaign is set in, so Golarion materials may or may not be appropriate sources.