|
I play a Paladin who has taken the oath against feinds. If she comes across an evil outsider she can smash into the ground, she will smash it into the ground as per her oath.
Now the problem comes when people summon an evil outsider in play, and those people are on your side. This hasn't happened yet, the only time evil outsiders were summoned was when my gunslinger was around, and while it made her very uncomfortable, she wasn't oath bound to blast them back to where they came from.
Now my question is, what would the the correct thing to do, as her PFS rules and avoiding PvP to act without endangering my paladin abilities if someone decides to summon an evil outsider in my paladin's presence?
Her first instinct would be to kill it or banish it (once she gets to a higher level)
|
|
Oh good god, not this again.
Just like last time, you have to avoid PvP and you should keep in mind that the first rule of the campaign is explore, report,cooperate. It is your job as a player to not engage in PvP, no matter how fanatical your character is.
If if you are playing a character who you don't think can follow that rule, it is probably not an appropriate character concept for PFS.
If you see an opportunity to right a wrong and fail to
take it, you have sinned against Iomedae and must perform a penance that fixes the original situation. If that’s not possible, you must find three others like it and make those right instead.
If you insist on the concept, Iomedae allows threefold penance to make up for a wrong that you cannot right immediately. This was probably specifically included as part of her faith in order to make paladins less disruptive. Even if your paladin is ordered by the Pathfinders to work with someone who summons evil outsiders, you can kill three diabolists between scenarios to make up for it and you don't fall.
|
It is true that there are a small handful of instances in PFS where game mechanics call for PCs to potentially conflict with other PCs. In this particular instance, if it was my table, I would simply have each player observe the no pvp rule, and continue on as if the paladin did not take any action or inaction to violate their oath against fiends. It's just the easiest, least hassle way to carry on with the game.
|
|
Oh good god, not this again.
Just like last time, you have to avoid PvP and you should keep in mind that the first rule of the campaign is explore, report,cooperate.
If if you are playing a character who you don't think can follow that rule, it is probably not an appropriate character concept for PFS.
If you insist on the concept, Iomedae allows threefold penance to make up for a wrong that you cannot right immediately. This was probably specifically included as part of her faith in order to make paladins less disruptive. Even if your paladin is ordered by the Pathfinders to work with someone who summons evil outsiders, you can kill three diabolists between scenarios to make up for it and you don't fall.If you see an opportunity to right a wrong and fail to
take it, you have sinned against Iomedae and must perform a penance that fixes the original situation. If that’s not possible, you must find three others like it and make those right instead.
Mystic_Snowfang is refering to an actual game mechanic, not just an rp choice (though it is that as well). The code of conduct for that particular archetype is as follows:
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.
|
|
Mystic_Snowfang is refering to an actual game mechanic, not just an rp choice (though it is that as well). The code of conduct for that particular archetype is as follows:
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.
I ma aware of the mechanics of the archetype. Hiding behind mechanics is still not an excuse to push the limits of explore, report cooperate. The bit about penance applies in this case and gives the paladin an in game way to avoid being a source of party conflict.
|
Though, this is something he should mention at the start of the game. Ask people who could potentially summon devil outsiders to make other choices. In this case, an ounce of orevention is with an expensive atonement.
Prevent the issue. Ask nicely. With most summons spells there are other choices. Perhaps northern best ones, but both sides should try and cooperate.
This is much like my Paladin asking that the sorcerer not use his wand of "devil's blood" on him. He carries a potion of CLW to help this from happening. He asks NICELY up front. After level seven, the reward will be free raise dead castings with Ultimate Mercy.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I play a Diabolist who has devoted her life to summoning and controlling evil outsiders. If she comes across an evil outsider she can control, she will control it.
Now the problem comes when people take an oath to slay the fiends I specialize in controlling, and those people are on your side.
My question is, what would be the correct thing to do, as her PFS rules and avoiding PvP to act without endangering my Diabolist abilities if someone decides to slay an evil outsider in my presence?
Her entire build would be useless if the party paladin went on killing everything I summoned.
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
This is the thread where dead horses are beaten.No, no no, This is the thread where dead horses are reincarnated, disintegrated,true resurrected, beaten to death, etc etc etc over and over and over again.
No, that's the necromancer vs paladin thread. This is the thread where demonic horses are summoned and then beaten.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hi Mystic_Snowfang,
While your character's decision is your own, the other characters at the table made their own decisions also. Some might bind evil outsiders into their service for a short period of time. As a paladin and PFS player you have to respect others and avoid PvP, but you are already doing that, so what troubles you is the reason for it.
Reason why your paladin would tolerate such behavior is your own. Make something up. The priority of being in the service of PFS is to obey the rules of PFS. Perhaps this might give you enough reason to tolerate such characters, which is the lawful nature of PFS.
There is also on thing which I feel I must mention, but it's on border of a personal opinion and I might be wrong so don't take it seriously; "Kill on sight" just because something is evil isn't lawful and it's chaotic way of thinking or at least I believe so. Your paladin might occur alignment shift but it's on your GM to decide that.
Hope this helps a bit,
Adam
|
|
1) I wouldn't attack the player for summoning a fiend
2) I would be saying at the start of a game, I have an oath against fiends, I will not react well if anyone summons them.
3) What I'm getting is that even though I have to act against my oath, and people have summoned a fiend even after I've asked them not to that I have to stand by, then shell out my gold because they decided to be a dick and summon a fiend that by PFS rules I wasn't allowed to do anything about.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1) I wouldn't attack the player for summoning a fiend
2) I would be saying at the start of a game, I have an oath against fiends, I will not react well if anyone summons them.
3) What I'm getting is that even though I have to act against my oath, and people have summoned a fiend even after I've asked them not to that I have to stand by, then shell out my gold because they decided to be a dick and summon a fiend that by PFS rules I wasn't allowed to do anything about.
A paladin who takes an oath against demons, devils, daemons, and other evil outsiders is constantly on the lookout for malicious fiendish insurgence into the world, and faces it with swift and unwavering defiance. Often she works closely with inquisitors, searching for signs of outsider manipulation and possession.
I don't see where in your Oath Against Fiends, by RAW, or your Paladin's oath that you MUST kill any evil outsider who appears in front of you. Challenger the choice? Sure. Try to encourage the caster to take a different route? Of course! But your companion them self is not evil (because PCs cannot be in PFS) and summoning an evil outsider to do your grunt work is not an evil act (per core rules).
Further, any GM who tells you that by sitting a table with someone who utilizes evil outsiders that you have "fallen" and are in need of an atonement is wrong. I don't think you have anything to worry about. If you do not like playing PCs at tables where other PCs utilize evil outsiders, then you should probably be very selective about who you choose to play with by your own choice.
I can tell you right now, as a Summoner who, by religion summons only Devils/Lawful Evil/Neutral Evil/Lawful Neutral/Neutral outsiders...if you attack my Summoned Creatures in the game I consider it PvP. I imagine you'd call it PvP if I killed your Paladin's Mount because I objected to it In Character.
|
As a point of interest, there's a perfectly legitimate workaround for this situation.
As per the code of conduct for Oath Against Fiends.
"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."
In the specific circumstance cited, i.e. the summoning of fiends, there's nothing in the oath that the paladin has to prioritize fiends over any other target. Therefore, the paladin in question would be well within their rights to attack foes who are NOT under player control, and when they are finished off, turn their attention to any fiends that remain.
An imp familiar would be trickier. I'd have to think about it more to come up with a workaround for that.
That said, there's always the option to simply not play the conflicting character at a table. Either ask the other player to play a different character, play a different character yourself, or one or both players could simply play a level appropriate pre-gen and apply the credit for the module to their character afterwards.
Oh, and to those who harp on about flogging dead horses, there's no reason to be rude to a new player who's seeking help with a potential conflict who hasn't been frequenting these forums long enough to know that it has already been covered.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Have they started with the accusations yet?
Five posts above yours.
I am fascinated with debates about good and evil, whether it be in the gaming sphere or the religious sphere.
But here I am more intrigued by how the players of holy crusader types are oblivious to the fact that their characters are usually the problem in these conflicts.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Washington—Pullman
|
Have they started with the accusations yet?
Five posts above yours.
I am fascinated with debates about good and evil, whether it be in the gaming sphere or the religious sphere.
But here I am more intrigued by how the players of holy crusader types are oblivious to the fact that their characters are usually the problem in these conflicts.
Didn't see that one! thanks.
|
|
I ma aware of the mechanics of the archetype. Hiding behind mechanics is still not an excuse to push the limits of explore, report cooperate. The bit about penance applies in this case and gives the paladin an in game way to avoid being a source of party conflict.Mystic_Snowfang is refering to an actual game mechanic, not just an rp choice (though it is that as well). The code of conduct for that particular archetype is as follows:
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.
Very good. I wasn't sure if you were aware of the mechanics or not.
And I agree with you on that. Mechanics shouldn't be a shield for jerkdom. If I am not mistaken however, the penance you wrote is for general, non-code of conduct having worshipers of the deity. Under the Paladins oaths, it states very plainly that if you violate their individual code of conduct you lose the class related abilities from them until you atone (much like the standard paladin code of conduct).
That is a pretty harsh penalty for simply observing the "play nice with others" rule (which you should be observing). One way to look at the situation is to consider such things as evil outsider that are outside of the PCs power to confront, kill, or banish (which is technically true ), and let the show go on without penalizing the paladin player.
|
|
There is also on thing which I feel I must mention, but it's on border of a personal opinion and I might be wrong so don't take it seriously; "Kill on sight" just because something is evil isn't lawful and it's chaotic way of thinking or at least I believe so. Your paladin might occur alignment shift but it's on your GM to decide that.
In general, I very much agree with you. I would, however, make an exception for beings of pure, primal evil such as evil outsiders. In a fantasy setting where forces of true good and evil exist, I think it is valid to say the sword is the only option for some truly vile beings.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Didn't see that one! thanks.
Have they started with the accusations yet?
Five posts above yours.
I am fascinated with debates about good and evil, whether it be in the gaming sphere or the religious sphere.
But here I am more intrigued by how the players of holy crusader types are oblivious to the fact that their characters are usually the problem in these conflicts.
I think it is about to get very, very interesting very soon. All this thread is missing now is someone to come along and bash us because we are VO's and we should act better than this.
|
I think it is about to get very, very interesting very soon. All this thread is missing now is someone to come along and bash us because we are VO's and we should act better than this.
Oh hey, do VO's get box seating? Do you have another soul coke? I am absolutely parched.
The debates between good and evil in the society are always the most interesting.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Washington—Pullman
|
For a fellow VO of course!
Indeed they are interesting... I believe we are close to the stage where people begin imposing their moral view on others in hopes it will convince others they are right only to be rebuffed and then chastised by those they wanted to impress.
|
|
Sorry Zach no special seating for VO's just the nice comfy floor, and sorry I don't give out my souls for non gingers, or non leviathans, I bet Steven would he is much more charitable. I agree though that the debates between good and evil are sometimes the most interesting, they are also the most volatile and usually end in threads getting locked. We area already heading down that path.
|
|
~sips deliciously thirst quenching Soul Coke~
I am simply glad to see a different debate than that of Necromancy vs. Good Alignments. I personally never thought of the much more strict moral conundrum of Oath Against Fiend Paladins and that of Diabolists.
It would have to be much more rare than the necromancy problem though.
|
|
*enters the room with a soapbox* *mounts high horse* Seriously! All you VO's who insist on antagonizing an obvious valid moral debate should be SHUNNED for trivializing this matter! I mean obviously everyone is overlooking "malicious fiendish insurgence", which, if the evil outsider in question is bound to service of a pathfinder... it would not be considered insurgent..... *steps off soap box* *gets off high horse* Namaste.
*sits besides Chris*
.........may i have a soul coke?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am not sure how rare evil outsider summoning would be when there is a whole faction quite literally in bed with Hell. Oath against Fiends Paladins may be fairly uncommon as Oath of Vengeance always seemed like the stronger option, what with its very tasty extra smites.
I believe this moral conundrum comes up in miniature within
Would the paladin not be the one in the wrong for taking far too strong a side in a validly neutral organization? What place does a paladin with an oath against fiends be doing in the society, what could he possibly gain by exploring when there is the world wound and the Crusade, and so many other places he would be needed to smite evil?
~passes some of his soul coke over to Aaron~
|
|
Lets beat this horse again.....
As per the Oath entry: A paladin who takes an oath against demons, devils, daemons, and other evil outsiders is constantly on the lookout for malicious fiendish insurgence into the world, and faces it with swift and unwavering defiance. Often she works closely with inquisitors, searching for signs of outsider manipulation and possession.
It specifically states (as everyone seems to skim over and NOT read) "malicious fiendish insurgence"... a familiar or summoned creature bound to be an ally is not considered to be insurgent.... FFS if you're going to chose something and RP to the max. Make sure *YOU* pay attention to the verbiage.
*sips some soul coke*
This past tuesday, i was adventuring along side my Andoran pathfinder friend Remy Merlotte, (see our exploits on twitter @Meku_Okami and @RemyMerlotte) we were in an Orc town where slavery was legal... now while the proprietor of this one establishment promised us the freedom of a said individual, if we accomplished a task, then reneged on the terms after we accomplished said tast, referring to this individual as his "property". Remy was very unsettled, sternly voiced his opinions and was poised for action.Even I, in all my Cheliaxan glory, was OK with that... le sigh, but the orc attacked us and then beaten unconscious by my faithful companion Kura Okami. but when Remy starting talking about ending his life for being a slave owner, i had to quickly remind him that in some places it was legal...*cough*... and that it was local law and there was nothing we could do at this time... mission priority. and he calmed down... thank god too... that man is a beast.
but enough of my exploits...wait...what were we talking about?
*sips some more soul coke, and noms on synders mustard pretzels*
|
Can I just say that, despite all the popcorn and Coke of Souls being passed around, that I thought the OPs questions was legitimate and respectfully stated. No one has actually suggested PvP, the request was for a way to resolve the contradiction without going there. Good suggestions have been made, and for the most part, no dead horses have been beaten.
I think we all agree that as long as no PFS GMs are insisting on making the Paladin fall or pay for atonements for not engaging in PvP with PC summoned outsiders that it's all good. (And if they are, then that's the real problem.) Roleplay your dislike for the situation, and carry on.
(If I personally were in the OPs situation, I might try and work out with the summoner character ahead of time that I be allowed to 'slay' his summons at the end of the fight rather than it merely being banished, but only if he were good with that.)
Not every character concept is appropriate for PFS. If you are intent on playing something like an Oath Against Fiends Paladin, first figure out why such a stringent character would join the Pathfinder Society.
Season 5. It was very clearly communicated that the Year of the Demon was going to be one where evil outsiders were going to be the main opponents this year. I know a *lot* of people (including myself) who went into Season 5 by with the intent of making the best anti-demon build they possibly could.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
(If I personally were in the OPs situation, I might try and work out with the summoner character ahead of time that I be allowed to 'slay' his summons at the end of the fight rather than it merely being banished, but only if he were good with that.)
Can I just say that I really hate this justification. It's the sort of deal I can see a demon proposing to a paladin to tempt him into a fall. "It's okay, I know you hate me, you can beat the crap out of me when we are done working together, then your god won't mind. Meanwhile just let me do what needs to be done..."
IF you are going to play a paladin with an oath against X, have another character you are prepared to play if you have to, and try to work out with the other players before game if the caster is willing to forgo summoning evil creatures. If they just can't do that, play your backup character. Likewise, if you are playing someone who summons evil creatures, ask if anyone has objections, and work with them. If you just can't, have a backup character. (And remember that some *players* are not going to be comfortable playing with a fellow PC that is a demon summoner.)
I am still of the personal opinion that anyone summoning demons and devils on a regular basis who thinks they will not eventually be lured into evil is a fool, and any GM who is not having summoned demons and devils take every chance to pervert their instructions to cause as much harm, chaos, and evil as possible, is not doing their job. Turning summoned demons into compliant robots that do whatever the player makes them does a serious disservice to the setting.
|
|
Can I just say that I really hate this justification. It's the sort of deal I can see a demon proposing to a paladin to tempt him into a fall. "It's okay, I know you hate me, you can beat the crap out of me when we are done working together, then your god won't mind. Meanwhile just let me do what needs to be done..."
(If I personally were in the OPs situation, I might try and work out with the summoner character ahead of time that I be allowed to 'slay' his summons at the end of the fight rather than it merely being banished, but only if he were good with that.)
Fair enough. I should say, though, that I *meant* to say that I would work that out ahead of time with the summoner *player*. It would be a totally meta, out-of-game arrangement.
*Using detect soul coke, I found this conversation*
Last week a player delivered a coup de grâce on a helpless villain. This action didn't violate our mission, but my little paladin wanted to stay my companion's hand from committing murder. My paladin didn't stop the coup via PvP rules, but I wonder how I should have played this.
It went by too fast for her to scream something virtuous like, "by Shelyn's love I beseech you to stop." Next time I will have that little line readied.
Anyway, I know this is something of a noob question, but my innocent paladin wanted to know:
is it OK to take a non-lethal AoO to stop the coup de grâce? My paladin is as kind as a warm smile, so mercy means a lot to her.
And yes, I always ask magic makers to not summon the blood-dripping-soul-eating-baddies at the start of the game, but if they did anyway I would just instruct them kindly at the end of the encounter.
Thanks.
PS: what is VO?
|
|
You can always get out a different PC or not sit at the table as well. Although I must say that I just played my cleric of Torag with a Chelaxian devil master who bound devils to his service at the beginning of the scenario. Said devil master was able to convince my cleric of the tactical and strategic value of binding the devil, an argument that resonates with followers of Torag. Unfortunately, the paladin in this case has much more concrete vows than a cleric of Torag.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This requires a bit of cooperation and trust between everyone at the table.
The DM has to let the paladin know that he's not going to make the paladin fall.
The paladin has to not insist on killing the thing
And the necromancer/demon summoner/whatever needs to avoid having the demon twerk the paladin
