Not sure how to approach the situation.
Would I be way out of character by NOT attacking on site a summoned daemon by a group member?
I do not think that you would. What are the other party members?
|
Sarenrae only really considers Rovagug to be her enemy, and has attempted to bring most of the Evil gods over to the Good side. You likely wouldn't have to smite it on sight, but you wouldn't be particularly pleased about it.
Of course, it's your character, you have a fairly loose leash to act as how you think your character would.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In addition, is that other party member evil aligned, or just using evil-aligned summoned creatures as tools?
This. If the latter, you can try convincing him to summon up Neutral outsiders instead, and get a cleric/wizard to research which ones so that he can actually have options to look at.
Are you trying to take into account the paladin codes specific to Sarenrae in Faiths of Purity?
This is why I love Oath of Vengeance.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's your duty to attack. Your party member(s) are endangering their very souls by dabbling in forbidden magic. Save your friends, by slaying their ill-gotten minions and in doing so teach that such Evil acts are at best impotent in your presence.
Summoned creatures don't stay around to wreak havoc. Called ones do.
|
It's your duty to attack. Your party member(s) are endangering their very souls by dabbling in forbidden magic. Save your friends, by slaying their ill-gotten minions and in doing so teach that such Evil acts are at best impotent in your presence.
We seem to have wandered into Poe's Law territory here.
Without a smiley to indicate that you're kidding, I have to assume you're serious and just state that I disagree. As others have stated, including a direct quote from the Core Rulebook, most paladins would accept working with someone/thing evil to stop a greater evil, at least in the short term. Long term, they need to talk to the guy doing the summoning.
In the case of Sarenrae, as the goddess of redemption, she's more likely to accept working with evil beings, at least partially hoping to redeem them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As Seranov alluded to, Sarenrae has worked side by side with evil in the past when defeating/sealing Rovagug. She doesn't like evil, and your paladin probably wouldn't either, but if the threat at hand requires a daemon to punch it in the face, the Dawnflower not only approves, she encourages.
Well, that's my interpretation of how a fictional goddess thinks.
|
|
Serenrae worked with Asmodues to seal away Rovagug.Sarenrae only really considers Rovagug to be her enemy, and has attempted to bring most of the Evil gods over to the Good side. You likely wouldn't have to smite it on sight, but you wouldn't be particularly pleased about it.
Of course, it's your character, you have a fairly loose leash to act as how you think your character would.
That she did. She doesn't even consider the Evil gods to be her enemies, just people she's trying to bring over to the side of warmth and fluffy things. Like celestial bunny rabbits.
Just 'cause Sarenrae is NG and okay with this sort of thing doesn't mean a Paladin of hers should be too.
- Paladins are both Lawful and Good - they do not go looking for loopholes in their Code.
- Summoning Evil to fight Evil isn't using Evil to fight for the Greater Good; it's just lazy.
- Summoning a creature with the [Evil] descriptor is an Evil act, and as such not one that a Paladin can condone.
- Redemption is irrelevant here - a summoned Daemon isn't around long enough for that.
Paladins are zealots. Fanatics. Unshakable proponents of an immutable Code. And they should... no, must "cramp the style" of their party members. Don't bring a Paladin along if you're going to summon Daemons.
|
I guess I must refrain from answering the OP in order to ask for more detail, such as:
First, why on Earth is a Cleric of Sarenrae associating with people who would summon Daemons, the most hated, untrustworthy, and straight-up evil outsiders of them all (in my opinion)?
Second, why exactly must your Conjurer stick with Daemons/Devils? Is he/she just doing it to be edgy? There are numerous ultra-powerful Good (Angels, Azatas, Agathions, Archons) and Neutral outsiders (Inevitables and Aeons for example) that could be summoned. Some good outsiders would be far better at combatting this so-called "Greater Evil" because they have spells and abilities at their disposal that are suited to fighting evil creatures (Depending on which you are up against).
The "We need to marshall the forces of evil to fight an even greater evil" argument strikes me as a rather spurious line of reasoning when there is such a plethora of other powerful outsiders to choose from. If evil outsiders were the only outsiders there were, I could see the reason behind it. I guess I am just not understanding why this party is in this position to begin with.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That she did. She doesn't even consider the Evil gods to be her enemies, just people she's trying to bring over to the side of warmth and fluffy things. Like celestial bunny rabbits.Serenrae worked with Asmodues to seal away Rovagug.Sarenrae only really considers Rovagug to be her enemy, and has attempted to bring most of the Evil gods over to the Good side. You likely wouldn't have to smite it on sight, but you wouldn't be particularly pleased about it.
Of course, it's your character, you have a fairly loose leash to act as how you think your character would.
QFT! Sarenrae is a redeemer. Her goal is to redeem fallen souls. Sarenrae is fearless true, but promotes mercy. Her paladin code in faiths of purity was well written. I would recommend Faiths of Purity to anyone interested in a Glorian campaign
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd probably start by asking them why they are summoning evil outsiders instead of, you know, GOOD ones. Which have, often, much better abilities against evil creatures and would love to fight them, instead of having to be bribed or forced with unholy acts that endanger your own soul.
If I were a paladin of Sarenrae, I'd probably try to convert the fiend. Engage it in conversation. Find out if there's any chance of getting it to switch sides. And if it doesn't, then I can smite it with a perfectly clean conscience.
No.
Huh. I'm glad I looked at those paladin codes, very fluffy. But I think as long as the evil outsiders are summoned with the summon monster spells, and not something like planar binding/ally, the paladin would tolerate it, if not be too happy about it. Those spells only last a few minutes at most and the creatures are fully under the casters control. If they keep summoning those as opposed to other choices I would think the paladin would have too speak out against the acts, but not outright stop them, as no fully evil acts are taking place, just a distasteful summoning choice. I think alot of these type of things leads back to people playing paladins more like overly bossy lawful neutral worshipers of Iomedae, and not the champions of good they're supposed to be. They aren't just codes, they're good people!
Edit: But if they're using Planar binding/ally(especially ally) then the paladin should step in. With those spells you're working with the outsider for a longer amount of time and there's a chance it can get out with binding. A paladin would at the very least repeatedly and forcefully try and talk the caster in to choosing other choices. And if the caster refuses he should either leave the group or if he can't or wont for whatever reason (mission to important, ect) he might smite the creature as soon as it's summoned or interrupt the spell being cast in the first place.
|
First, why on Earth is a Cleric of Sarenrae associating with people who would summon Daemons, the most hated, untrustworthy, and straight-up evil outsiders of them all (in my opinion)?
Like your goddess, you are open and friendly with worshipers of other faiths—even many of the evil ones. Unless someone has shown himself to be irretrievably evil, your faith demands that you treat him with the kindness you would show to anyone who had lost his way ... Only the followers of Rovagug are denied a chance at salvation.
The Paladin Code (p26-27) doesn't specify slaughtering anything except followers of Rovagug.
While the code only specifies the servants of the Rough beast it is unforgiving when dealing with beings that can't be redeemed. Demon's and devils are creatures of pure evil thus they cannot be redeemed. The paladin's code states those that can't be redeemed by words must be redeemed by the sword. So the pally has to kill demon's, devils, or pretty much any evil outsider on sight IMHO. I'm having a similar in game conflict(in a good role playing way) with a neutral summoner. If he summons anything evil we have words and if he won't stop in the future the conflict will grow.
Two other points. If your using the code from Faith and Purities it supersedes the general code in the core rule book. People are mixing the two and that will lead to confusion. Secondly if using the original code they can ally with evil only in exceptional circumstances and they must atone even for doing so. That is not something that any paladin can do on a routine basis as part of ongoing party strategy. Embrace the code and enjoy the role playing challenges don't look for the easy way out.
|
|
I will redeem the ignorant with my words and my actions. If they will not turn toward the light, I will
redeem them by the sword.
From my reading of this, I would be asking the questions - how many rounds is a reasonable amount of time to be spent redeeming with words? How long does a summoning spell last?
Whether the evil outsider is "pure evil" or not is besides the point. The point is whether the paladin sees them as an immediate threat to the innocent. If so, sure, slaughter time. If not, I think it would be reasonable for the paladin to attempt to verbally redeem the outsider ... perhaps this particular paladin is ignorant of the fact that such creatures cannot be redeemed?If I were GMing I think I would accept either course of action as keeping to the Code. While the Code enforces a certain level of uniformity amoung all paladins of a particular deity, there is also a degree of individuality that has to be allowed too. I can easily see two paladins of Sarenrae having a theological argument over this point in-character, while both remain true to the same Code.
|
|
Personally, I'd have a much easier time seeing a Sarenraen tolerating devils(within reason) than daemons.
Hell, I'd have an easier time seeing one tolerating non-Rovagugi demons(within reason) than daemons.
If the caster is having daemons eating souls(and yes, this includes evil souls) or making it possible for them to do so by summoning them, the Sarenraen should be fighting to stop that.
Whether the evil outsider is "pure evil" or not is besides the point.
Must disagree with you on that point. The rough beast minions are denied redemption because they are so debased and evil that there is no hope for them. The same is true of all evil outsiders. They are scions of evil incapable of any form of good. A creature must wish to be redeemed in order to be redeemed. A demon, devil, or Daemon lacks the capacity to be good and thus cannot be redeemed by words or actions so out comes the scimitar.
perhaps this particular paladin is ignorant of the fact that such creatures cannot be redeemed?
This is an easy fix because if there ignorant of the nature of the outsider they won't have any obligation or non-metagaming reason to destroy the creature short of their actions. If you don't know the creature can't be redeemed your honor bound to give it a shot.
As far as how long you have to give the creature to redeem. I am currently playing just such a pally. What I do is make either a diplomacy or intimidate check against any opponent at the beginning of combat to give them a chance to redeem rather then use violence. This doesn't always work but I give them a chance to choose a nonviolent path so that they can begin to down the path to redemption. if they attack me and my allies after that they are redemeed with the sword. I do go out of my way to try to end combat short of their death if possible (using nonlethal damage, grapple, and intimidate when practicable) but I see that as sufficient. Otherwise it drags the role playing out and some others get a little board.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The same is true of all evil outsiders. They are scions of evil incapable of any form of good. A creature must wish to be redeemed in order to be redeemed. A demon, devil, or Daemon lacks the capacity to be good and thus cannot be redeemed by words or actions so out comes the scimitar.
This has actually proven to not be the case. Risen fiends happen, some fiends are made from souls unjustly claimed by the evil planes, it's been said that some demons have the capacity for love and redemption, peri exist, Ragathiel turned out alright, demons and devils and angels regularly work together to keep the flow of souls safe from the predation of daemons, and if one extends this to all evil outsiders: redeemed efreeti are apparently a thing.
It may be hard to find, but there is a hope in hell. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Greater Good in this instance is showing that Good does not need to resort to the tools of Evil to triumph.
1) If this summoner is Neutral, he is attempting to manipulate the paladin's code by 'allying with evil against a greater evil'. This is not a situation of being forced to ally...it is CHOOSING to do evil, and trying to get the paladin to allow it.
No.
2) Allowing someone to summon Evil creatures to do battle against Evil is saying "Only with the weapons and tools of Evil can you triumph...and see, even this paladin knows it!"
No.
3) THe paladin should be VERY proactive against someone attempting to manipulate their code to do Evil's work. Tacit approval of the tactic is approval of using Evil Means...in other words, the ends justify the means, which is NOT what paladins stand for.
4) Anyone doing this is at best Neutral, and paladins don't form long-term partnerships with Neutrals, i.e. adventure with them. So this is basically attempting to force the paladin to accept Neutral solutions to problems as well, and the party to choose whether to stay pure or use unwholesome methods to acheive their ends.
No, the paladin will keep to the high road, and issue the ultimatum henceforth. Who would you rather stay with...a paladin, or a daemon summoner?
Now, the fact is, Evil Outsiders are VERY powerful against other Evil creatures...because they have DR/Good, NOT DR/EVil. A barbed devil will last longer against a demon then an Astral Deva, because of the DR. They will not, in turn, do as much damage...but if they are fighting something that doesn't have DR/Evil in turn, they will likely be as effective as the holy creature, and last longer.
But that doesn't mean a paladin should stand for it. If the other party member wants to keep doing this, then they are trying to cause party conflict out of misplaced sense of 'fun', and there should be a frank discussion on whether the party wants to be good guy heroes or anti-heroes, because that is where this is heading.
===Aelryinth
|
|
If a regular paladin is 'obliged' to strike down evil outsiders, then the idea of an Oathbound Paladin (Ultimate Magic p60-63) makes no sense.
A paladin who has taken an Oath against Fiends is required to strike down evil outsiders on sight. A paladin who hasn't taken an Oath against Fiends has the freedom to apply their own discretion. This oath is listed as being an option for paladins of Sarenrae.
|
|
Not sure how to approach the situation.
Would I be way out of character by NOT attacking on site a summoned daemon by a group member?
My rule number one is that 'it's my character, I'll decide whether it's appropriate to attack X or Y.'
And, even if I feel that it would be in-character to attack the daemon, I'd wait until the primary threat is dealt with.
Depending on the nature of the spell (summoning vs. calling) attacking the daemon might be irrelevant. If it's going to vanish in five rounds, and isn't doing anything I feel compelled to stop right now (like attacking innocents or whatever), and my 'killing' it is only going to make it leave this plane a round or two ahead of schedule and not actually cause the daemon a single hit point of 'real damage' back on its home plane, attacking it becomes nothing more than a point of pride, and doesn't actually accomplish anything 'good.'
'Killing' a summoned creature is like flipping out and smashing a mirror that is showing a reflection of something evil. The evil thing casting the reflection basically laughs it off, unharmed by the act.
If it's called, on the other hand, then yeah, killing it is 'for reals' and totally worth doing, particularly if its a soul-devouring daemon. Unlike devils and demons, some of whom are fallen celestials, or ascended from mortal souls, there's no 'redeeming' a daemon. They've got nothing good (or even neutral) to 'go back to.'
Out of game, I'd talk to the player of the character doing the summoning, and ask that they try to find stuff on the summoning lists that isn't quite so evil, and offer up some suggestions. It's not *their* class restrictions that are causing you distress, after all, it's the Paladin's restrictions, so the Paladin player should be the one offering up possible solutions.
There don't happen to be any daemons on the summon monster lists, so that's a plus, but there are probably specific spells that summon specific daemons, I imagine, in one of the Lords of Darkness books. Unlike the summon monster spells, which have a palette of options, a spell that only summons a specific daemon is pretty much a wasted page in a spellbook if not used to summon that daemon, so you might even want to encourage that PC to replace that spell with something less offensive to your character, by offering to buy a replacement spell of that level (and make sure that the offending daemon-summoning spell gets magically erased to make room for the new spell you've spent cash on!).
If the summoner player isn't cooperative, you are left gritting your teeth and bearing it, or waiting until after primary opponents are down and spitefully attacking the summoned daemon anyway (even if it doesn't really accomplish anything in the end, since the daemon doesn't suffer any lasting harm from being 'killed' in this world, it might serve to leave the summoner player feeling like his choices are slowing down the game and making it less fun for everyone else if every other fight ends up with a fifteen minute solo combat between your paladin and whatever daemon he called up...).
Or, if you don't want to deal with it, you could always role-play your Paladin's code and refuse to associate with his character any longer. If that means leaving the party and returning with a character who doesn't have a 'doesn't associate with X' code, then so be it.
Paladins aren't for every group, after all, and have always been at the mercy of every other player in the group, in this manner, as it only takes one other player deciding to start using evil tactics to force a decision like this. It's poor class design, IMO, like the old Unearthed Arcana Barbarian and Cavalier classes, which also seemed 'balanced' around promoting interparty conflict by restricting the actions and choices of *other players,* but that's the way it goes.
|
the real answer is simple. Do you like your other players and do you want to be a jerk?
If you like your other players, then yes, you would tolerate summoned evil creatures.
If you want to be a jerk, then no, you would raise a fuss, slaughter the summoned creature, accuse the summoner of heresy and probably slaughter him too. Then look for a new gaming group.
|
|
the real answer is simple. Do you like your other players and do you want to be a jerk?
If you like your other players, then yes, you would tolerate summoned evil creatures.
If you want to be a jerk, then no, you would raise a fuss, slaughter the summoned creature, accuse the summoner of heresy and probably slaughter him too. Then look for a new gaming group.
Without any background explanation from the OP telling us why his fellow PCs felt it necessary to summon an evil outsider, I would have to disagree.
Summoning destructive evil outsiders right in front of the Paladin seems more like the jerk/provocative action than the Paladin reacting to such a summoning. Again, I would have to see the justification the OP's party member had for doing this.
If your party has a Paladin in it (and we are assuming they are not being poorly role-played) there are really only a few things they generally do not tolerate:
(1) Raising undead
(2) Summoning evil outsiders
Again, perhaps the OP would be kind enough to explain why the other PC decided to summon an evil outsider rather than a Neutral Outsider.
|
|
the real answer is simple. Do you like your other players and do you want to be a jerk?
If you like your other players, then yes, you would tolerate summoned evil creatures.
If you want to be a jerk, then no, you would raise a fuss, slaughter the summoned creature, accuse the summoner of heresy and probably slaughter him too. Then look for a new gaming group.
Without any background explanation from the OP telling us why his fellow PCs felt it necessary to summon an evil outsider, I would have to disagree.
Summoning destructive evil outsiders right in front of the Paladin seems more like the jerk/provocative action than the Paladin reacting to such a summoning. Again, I would have to see the justification the OP's party member had for doing this.
If your party has a Paladin in it (and we are assuming they are not being poorly role-played) there are really only a few things they generally do not tolerate:
(1) Raising undead
(2) Summoning evil outsidersAgain, perhaps the OP would be kind enough to explain why the other PC decided to summon an evil outsider rather than a Neutral Outsider.
So once again the rest of the party must change their characters in order to not threaten the poor misunderstood paladin. The very class of paladin is provocation in many games.
|
|
So once again the rest of the party must change their characters in order to not threaten the poor misunderstood paladin. The very class of paladin is provocation in many games.
If the Paladin is being poorly role-played by the player(i.e. as the stereotypical humorless holy book-thumping crusader with a stick up his rectum and no tolerance for anything slightly off-color or immoral), obviously not. I would say that someone who goes to that extreme is doing a poor job of role-playing the Lawful Good nature of the Paladin, just as someone who sets the orphanage on fire for yucks and hides behind the Chaotic Neutral shield is doing a poor job of role-playing. It's just being disruptive, only in different manners, and ruining everyone else's fun.
But the person who purposefully tweaks the nose of the Paladin by raising dead and calling/summoning Daemons? I would have to say that person is just as disruptive.
Again, I look at every situation on a case-by-case basis, and I would not be so quick to judge the guy role-playing the paladin as being the one at fault, nor necessarily the guy summoning Daemons. I do not know the full situation. But generally, I would say the Paladin has the right to be miffed when one summons a creature whose ultimate goal is the extermination of all life and souls in the multiverse.
Yes it is. the presence of a Paladin will inspire some folks to do things they otherwise might not do, just to honk the Paladin player's horn. But that's a discussion that's been done to death elsewhere.
This. I have seen many players try to take advantage and get under the skin of Paladin player characters just for the laughs, and then hide behind the "Hey, you're lawful good. You can't do anything!"
It's up to individual DM's to ban the class if they desire, as despite the desire of some of the Paizo staff, the class itself is not leaving the published game.
And I for one could not be happier, since I have a soft spot in my heart for the the self-righteous buggers.
|
|
It also seems too many forget Redemption is part of Saranae's portfolio.
Darn, if scimitar wasn't done to death I'd play a Heretic Inquisitor of Saranae who is called 'heretic' because she doesn't go all smite happy.
Indeed. They are the more forgiving and rehabilatory paladins of the lot. But just because paladins of Sarenrae might not be as quick as others to cut down evil-doers and give them a chance to see the error of their ways, that does not make them blind or stupid. Especially when dealing with soul-snuffing daemons and those who think it is a good idea to summon them.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Saranrae did Asmodeus' biding back in the day. Its a bit much for her followers to start getting all uppity now.
Correct, but let us give the Devil his due. Asmodeus is bad. But he is nowhere near as bad as the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse and their Daemons.
And second, any theologian of Sarenrae worth his or her salt would harrumph and say that their Goddess saw the error of her ways and rose up against Asmodeus when the chips were down. She is a forgiving goddess as a result (because she is essentially a "Super Peri"), and would probably give a Daemon a chance at redemption. But in the case of Daemons, I would say that she and her followers would only give the Daemon ONE chance.
Sarenrae doing asmodeus's bidding is new to me, what's the story behind that?
|
|
Sarenrae doing asmodeus's bidding is new to me, what's the story behind that?
I believe that it is explained in the Sarenrae entry in the "Legacy of Fire" Adventure Path. Someone please correct me if I am wrong.
Sarenrae was apparently one of Asmodeus's servants (or was she his daughter)? I don't own the book, so someone will have to expound on that a bit.
They - at the very least - worked together to chain Rovagug.
So, a lawful good Goddess of Paladins working with the Arch-Devil when the stakes were high enough.
Iomedae is the lawful good Goddess paladins. Sarenrae is the neutral good Goddess of redemption, healing, the sun, and burning evil things to a nice crisp.
Edit: I'm not even sure if Iomedae was around at the time Rovagug tried to eat everything. She's one of the relatively new gods.