Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
I would have a very hard time, as a GM, justifying the paladin not falling. About the only situation where I could see it working is where the paladin and demon summoner were working together to go after a bigger demon / bigger demon summoner.
on a meta level, the paladin took an ability that gives benefit, (oath spells, d-anchor, etc.) and which comes with a price (must kill fiends if he can.) By saying, "yeah, you have to pay the price, except when it isn't convenient for the other players" you are kind of negating what being a paladin is all about. I feel like there are just some missions and some groups that paladins shouldn't be on, just as there are some groups that will not be appropriate for necromancers, diabolists, etc.
(I would extend this in general that some characters just need to recognize that they are often going to be in parties where their big shtick doesn't work. Teiflings who rely on darkness with parties without dark vision, characters who rely on Obscuring mist for defense and parties of ranged fighters, etc. Uber broken flying whirlwind barbarians and GMs with no sense of humor... :) If you make one of these characters, *HAVE A BACKUP!!!!*)
|
*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.
I have been at tables where you would be allowed to Trip or Disarm the PC without it being considered violating PvP, but I think it is more common that that would be disallowed. I have never been at a table where you would be allowed to hit a PC for non-lethal damage.
Taking action to interrupt a CdG is likely to antagonize the PC, so it is better to try and talk them out of it. But if you simply *must* interrupt the CdG without running afoul of PvP restrictions my suggestion for how to do that:
Coup de Grace is a Full-Round action, so you will have time to make a response of some kind.
Assuming that you are in movement range of the victim, I would perform a Reposition or a Bull Rush on the helpless villain, to move them into a square that the PC did not threaten and, if possible, cannot threaten after a 5' step. That interrupts the CdG.
|
Maybe PFS needs to write into the core assumption that paladins get some kind of indulgence or seal of approval ahead of time from their chruch when they sign up for Pathfinder Society. The church might make the command decision that involvement in the Pathfinders is worth bending the rules for a few select individuals. As long as the deity and/or their mouthpieces sign off, the paladin in question should be kosher.
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This requires a bit of cooperation and trust between everyone at the table.
Allow me to make broad claims for a moment, and fix all our problems with my blanket statements.
I think that Pathfinder, and table top gaming in general, requires cooperation and trust between everyone at the table.
When everyone (GM included) is on the same team working towards the same goal (a fun, fair table experience that everyone loves), issues like this become transparent. The correct answer always boils down to the same thing.
"Hash this out at the table, with the people there. Speak to one another as adults and find a solution that works for everyone."
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
The GM can making a ruling such that it can't work out for everyone, however. These vows are fairly specific. That's why I think paladins should be addressed in the PFS rules specifically.
This is the exact opposite of what I suggested people do, by the way.
The GM and players need to work together to find a solution that works for everyone.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Trying to make every table you sit at, as a GM or player, "sunshine and flowers" is something worth striving towards, imo.
But I'm just an idealist.
In practice, if a ruling needs to be made because everyone can't work together to find a solution, there's plenty of solid advice already posted here.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why would a paladin with an oath against fiends, actually be in the Pathfinder Society poking around in lost tombs to begin with? Get up to the Worldwound where you're needed! The Society is only fighting demons this year because the place we want to explore happens to be surrounded by them...
But ignoring that... if a GM ever tells you your choices are PvP or lose your paladinhood, you need to report them to the local Venture Officer.
Player conflict should be driven by (and limited to) players RPing.
I have been at tables where you would be allowed to Trip or Disarm the PC without it being considered violating PvP, but I think it is more common that that would be disallowed. I have never been at a table where you would be allowed to hit a PC for non-lethal damage.
Taking action to interrupt a CdG is likely to antagonize the PC, so it is better to try and talk them out of it. But if you simply *must* interrupt the CdG without running afoul of PvP restrictions my suggestion for how to do that:
Coup de Grace is a Full-Round action, so you will have time to make a response of some kind.
Assuming that you are in movement range of the victim, I would perform a Reposition or a Bull Rush on the helpless villain, to move them into a square that the PC did not threaten and, if possible, cannot threaten after a 5' step. That interrupts the CdG.
Ha! I like that idea, pH unbalanced. You can't CdG the bad guy if I have him strapped to my back.
|
|
Unfortunately for interrupting, a Coup de Grace is a full round action, which is not the same as casting a spell with a 1-round casting time. The Coup is complete in the acting character's turn.
Unfortunately for seating, a player may not play a pre-generated character if that player has a suitable character for the tier of the scenario.
Now, to the meat of the matter: The paladin might know that a summoned creature is not the real creature, but is only around for a few rounds. Killing it is not slaying a real fiend that could come again and do more damage. This, with the above post about about the summoned creature not being an incursion of the plane might make it something a paladin would not have to end immediately.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
Maybe PFS needs to write into the core assumption that paladins get some kind of indulgence or seal of approval ahead of time from their chruch when they sign up for Pathfinder Society. The church might make the command decision that involvement in the Pathfinders is worth bending the rules for a few select individuals. As long as the deity and/or their mouthpieces sign off, the paladin in question should be kosher.
Technically they would need to get an indulgence from their deity, not their church, which would be basically the deity offering to suspend the oath. Assuming that is even possible, I would assume that would mean they would lose the benefit of the oath as well as the restrictions.
At best, the church could offer the paladin free atonement after each mission. Which again really seems to defeat the whole point of playing a paladin. Besides, it wouldn't help the paladin when he falls during the adventure.
I think really the answer is to build paladins that can cooperate with pathfinders, or else accept that some missions your paladin won't be willing to take.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Great idea. I can't play well with other characters, so everyone else has to adapt to my Special Snowflake.
|
|
Maybe PFS needs to write into the core assumption that paladins get some kind of indulgence or seal of approval ahead of time from their chruch when they sign up for Pathfinder Society.
No, no they dont.
Paladin is a very strong class which is supposed to be kept in line by having a strict code of conduct. You break that code, BAM, no benefits for you.
There is no reason that Paladins who choose to become Pathfinders should get special benefits beyond those of non-PFS Paladins (Im talking about in game) just so its convenient to the player (out of game).
Play it by the rules, live with the consequences of breaking them, or dont play it at all.
That said, Im not above granting the Oathbound guy a tiny bit of leeway if he and the demon-summoning character can find some way in-charcter or out, of working out their differences. If they cant, though, both of them should pick something else to play.
|
|
Maybe PFS needs to write into the core assumption that paladins get some kind of indulgence or seal of approval ahead of time from their chruch when they sign up for Pathfinder Society.No, no they dont.
Paladin is a very strong class which is supposed to be kept in line by having a strict code of conduct. You break that code, BAM, no benefits for you.
There is no reason that Paladins who choose to become Pathfinders should get special benefits beyond those of non-PFS Paladins (Im talking about in game) just so its convenient to the player (out of game).
Play it by the rules, live with the consequences of breaking them, or dont play it at all.
That said, Im not above granting the Oathbound guy a tiny bit of leeway if he and the demon-summoning character can find some way in-charcter or out, of working out their differences. If they cant, though, both of them should pick something else to play.
I disagree. The paladin is strong, but not so strong as to justify these kinds of handcuffs. The paladin went from practically unplayable in previous editions to being very good, but they still suffer badly against non-evil foes. They still are not the top dog by any stretch, and they completely fall off the map against non-evil foes, as I just mentioned.
Basically, if a paladin is willing to roleplay out pvp, but is restricted from doing so by the magic PFS barrier, then said paladin shouldn't be penalized because he/she is physically prevented from doing something that they normally otherwise would be able to do.
I'm not sure you actually are allowed to bar the demon summoner from the table as it is a legal build. All you can really do is refuse to run the table.
I don't see any reason to pick out the paladin in PFS and shaft them in these kinds of situations. They're just not THAT good.
|
|
For one thing, the only thing the Paladin really loses out on against non-evil enemies is Smite. It still progressively gets to be immune to more and more things as it gains levels. It still gets to swift-action heal itself in combat. It still gets some spells. And a horse. And full BAB. And good armor profs. And give off auras to their allies. And big bonuses to their saves.
Im not saying they are the bet class in the game, but they do get considerably more bonuses than other characters of the same types.
Their restrictions are put into place becauseotherwise there would no reason NOT to play a Paladin if you wanted to go melee.
What you are asking for is that Mike and/or John overwrite a fundamental element of the class specifically for the campaign. That is bigger than changing a regular rule of PFRPG (such as banning crafting), and they really try not to do things like that if at all possible, as it makes the entry to PFS even more difficult, as there are then even more specific rules that separate PFRPG and PFS specifically.
Secondly, Im not talking about barring anyone who is being reasonable. If the Oathbound Paladin and the Demon-Summoner can come up with some kind of arrangement to allow the summoning to happen, and the Paladin to keep his Oath (short of 'I'll just ignore it, but I dont want you to penalize me for it'), then Im likely to be fine with it. If they, the players and/or characters, cannot come up with some agreement, then obviously there is an issue. At least one person is being unwilling to compromise and help the table out. That, to me, counts as them being a jerk. From there, I ask them (could be one, could be both) to work it out, and if they cant, then both need to pick new characters that arent going to provideparty conflict if they wish to play at the table.
Lastly, PFS is not picking on the Paladin. The Paladin chose to join a group that may or may not align directly with their deity's ideals and commandments. The player needs to deal with that fact, since they created the character.
|
Paladin is a very strong class which is supposed to be kept in line by having a strict code of conduct. You break that code, BAM, no benefits for you.
Paladin is a good, solid core class, but there are certainly stronger in my opinion. I believe that is beside the point, however.
This is a game. Everyone is sitting down to have a good time. One player's character shouldn't take priority over another's, especially when it comes to "just RPing my character" issues.
Unfortunately, there are defined and legal game mechanics which can greatly penalize a character when they do not make certain choices. This is fine and awesome in a home setting, where the players and GM typically know eachother, know the needs of their specific group, and can tailor the story and make decisions to further those things. In PFS, we (mostly rightfully for ease of preventing endless headaches) do not have that luxury.
In light of that, if we have an oath bound paladin who politely (or zealously - he is a paladin after all) requests a member of his party to not summon or employ fiends, and the party member elects to do so anyhow, I have a hard time penalizing the paladin for that given the regulations for PFS (I have no interest in letting them duke it out at the table either). Much as I would not allow the paladin to attack the summoners creatures of otherwise interfere with that player's fun.
Given that PCs cannot pvp, and most of us don't want them too either, it seems the only fair solution. Frequent stern lectures from the Paladin would be a fine substitute at my table for this situation. Not repeated lectures from the player necessarily, as that could get old - but a simple "Tristan the Holy continues to lecture you about the perils of fiends and the state of your soul through out the evening" is perfectly fine.
|
|
What you are asking for is that Mike and/or John overwrite a fundamental element of the class specifically for the campaign. That is bigger than changing a regular rule of PFRPG (such as banning crafting), and they really try not to do things like that if at all possible, as it makes the entry to PFS even more difficult, as there are then even more specific rules that separate PFRPG and PFS specifically.
I think the campaign is and has to be a little loser on the paladins than a home campaign would be, since the player can't work with the DM and other players in advance to fit in. You can't use a restriction on the player to either stay home or not play their character to limit the power of paladins, it just ruins everyone's fun.
|
|
I only put for that idea because I've been seeing more and more PCs based around concepts that paladins would be uncomfortable with, like negative channelers and devil binders.
As I said, even a lawful good cleric, *who is a direct mouthpiece for a deity* does not have the restrictions of the paladin. It just seems very much like a throwback to Gygaxian play. It's a mechanism that certain kinds of GMs can just hang over the paladin player's head the whole session. Seems very un-PFS to me.
But even in the case where the Cheliaxian was able to convince my cleric of Torag that binding a devil into service was a good idea, I'm not sure this paladin sub-type would even be allowed to be convinced it that make sense. I don't know. I've never had what I consider to be solid answers when it comes to the paladin.
|
|
What you are asking for is that Mike and/or John overwrite a fundamental element of the class specifically for the campaign. That is bigger than changing a regular rule of PFRPG (such as banning crafting), and they really try not to do things like that if at all possible, as it makes the entry to PFS even more difficult, as there are then even more specific rules that separate PFRPG and PFS specifically.I think the campaign is and has to be a little loser on the paladins than a home campaign would be, since the player can't work with the DM and other players in advance to fit in. You can't use a restriction on the player to either stay home or not play their character to limit the power of paladins, it just ruins everyone's fun.
I guess this was what I was getting at. This is also why I summon lots of archons, azatas, and elementals. But I guess evil is just cooler. I'm not that picky and don't ever want to get into this kind of mess.
|
|
What you are asking for is that Mike and/or John overwrite a fundamental element of the class specifically for the campaign. That is bigger than changing a regular rule of PFRPG (such as banning crafting), and they really try not to do things like that if at all possible, as it makes the entry to PFS even more difficult, as there are then even more specific rules that separate PFRPG and PFS specifically.I think the campaign is and has to be a little loser on the paladins than a home campaign would be, since the player can't work with the DM and other players in advance to fit in. You can't use a restriction on the player to either stay home or not play their character to limit the power of paladins, it just ruins everyone's fun.
I may or may not agree with you here. I dont know to what extent you are talking about, but most GMs I know (myself included) are likely lax enough for you, assuming you arent intentionally going out of your way to break the vows.
For example, Im sure there are GMs who would see a Paladin who knows the truth to be breaking his truth vow if he allows another party member to lie to an NPC, but most (if not all) people I know dont see if that way.
Personally, I see it as more of a challenge to the player, though it is far from something that cant be overcome. If you want that powerful class, find some way to contribute without breaking your vows. :)
|
|
I understand what you mean, but your problem with the restriction is how the class is written in the regular Pathfinder rules, not PFS. Mike and John try to make as few changes as possible between PFRPG and PFS, so I doubt this would ever be considered for a change.
If you really want to pursue this, I suggest taking it up elsewhere on the boards to have it changed in PFRPG in general.
|
I will always hold paladins to their code.
It is not like they suddenly get a code and they have to get used to it, they have it since character creation, level 1. They have it before they even thought about making a character. It is a core concept of the paladin. They are "knightly champions" of their deities.
|
|
I will always hold paladins to their code.
It is not like they suddenly get a code and they have to get used to it, they have it since character creation, level 1. They have it before they even thought about making a character. It is a core concept of the paladin. They are "knightly champions" of their deities.
That's true, but PFS sometimes makes it impossible to really carry out their code. It's just not a good situation I think.
|
|
I will always hold paladins to their code.
It is not like they suddenly get a code and they have to get used to it, they have it since character creation, level 1. They have it before they even thought about making a character. It is a core concept of the paladin. They are "knightly champions" of their deities.
That's totally fair. That said, let's take a moment to examine a potential situation.
You've got your 10-11 table all set to go. The players introduce PCs, everyone is relatively friendly, and the fiend summoning wizard PC and player agrees to not summon fiend for the oath bound paladin.
Game moves along well until a tough opponent and some bad rolls on the part of the players leaves only the paladin and wizard standing. The wizard turns to the paladin, says sorry but my other summons just won't cut it to get us out of this alive and I have to prioritize my friends lives over your oath. He summons a devil to help them get out of the mess, and/or instructs the fiend he planar bound earlier to reveal itself and attack, and/or has his imp familiar assist him, ect ect - pick one.
The paladin is now bound by code of conduct to destroy or banish the devil - which the player cannot do because of appropriate campaign rulings. The player of the wizard was very courteous in dealing with the paladin to this point, and can't be faulted for making a desperation move to save his party from a wipe.
How would you rule for the paladin's interaction with his oath in such an instance?
|
|
He gets smacked for breaking whatever penalty he gets for breaking his oath.
Oaths Paladins choose and the Code they take upon taking a level in class do not have a 'But only until the situation is inconvenient, then forget about it' clause. He breaks it knowingly, he gets smacked.
In the situation that you put forward, hopefully:
1. The Paladin player is reasonable enough to realize itll be better for him to need to fix his Oath than to have a party wipe.
2. The Wizard (or the party in general) are willing to pitch in a bit of gold to help the Paladin get his Oath fixed.
Also, just for clarification, the Gude specifically uses the word 'kill' in regards to what counts as PVP, and it means for another character, not their summons.
|
|
He gets smacked for breaking whatever penalty he gets for breaking his oath.
Oaths Paladins choose and the Code they take upon taking a level in class do not have a 'But only until the situation is inconvenient, then forget about it' clause. He breaks it knowingly, he gets smacked.
In the situation that you put forward, hopefully:
1. The Paladin player is reasonable enough to realize itll be better for him to need to fix his Oath than to have a party wipe.2. The Wizard (or the party in general) are willing to pitch in a bit of gold to help the Paladin get his Oath fixed.
Also, just for clarification, the Gude specifically uses the word 'kill' in regards to what counts as PVP, and it means for another character, not their summons.
Bolding mine. I'm not convinced that's true, but even so, killing summons and shutting down another player's class abilities, imo, is a clear violation of "don't be a jerk," particularly when the player is using said class abilities to save the party from a wipe.
|
|
Bolding mine. I'm not convinced that's true, but even so, killing summons and shutting down another player's class abilities, imo, is a clear violation of "don't be a jerk," particularly when the player is using said class abilities to save the party from a wipe.He gets smacked for breaking whatever penalty he gets for breaking his oath.
Oaths Paladins choose and the Code they take upon taking a level in class do not have a 'But only until the situation is inconvenient, then forget about it' clause. He breaks it knowingly, he gets smacked.
In the situation that you put forward, hopefully:
1. The Paladin player is reasonable enough to realize itll be better for him to need to fix his Oath than to have a party wipe.2. The Wizard (or the party in general) are willing to pitch in a bit of gold to help the Paladin get his Oath fixed.
Also, just for clarification, the Gude specifically uses the word 'kill' in regards to what counts as PVP, and it means for another character, not their summons.
Player-versus-player conflict only sours a session. While
killing another character might seem like fun to you, it
certainly won’t be for the other character’s player. Even if
you feel that killing another PC is in character for your
PC at this particular moment, just figure out some other
way for your character to express herself. In short, you
can never voluntarily use your character to kill another
character—ever. Note that this does not apply to situations
where your character is mind-controlled by an NPC and is
forced by that NPC to attack a fellow Pathfinder.
Convinced? ;)
Im not disagreeing that it doesnt violate the Dont be a Jerk rule, but that isnt what was being discussed. :P
|
|
He gets smacked for breaking whatever penalty he gets for breaking his oath.
Oaths Paladins choose and the Code they take upon taking a level in class do not have a 'But only until the situation is inconvenient, then forget about it' clause. He breaks it knowingly, he gets smacked.
In the situation that you put forward, hopefully:
1. The Paladin player is reasonable enough to realize itll be better for him to need to fix his Oath than to have a party wipe.2. The Wizard (or the party in general) are willing to pitch in a bit of gold to help the Paladin get his Oath fixed.
Also, just for clarification, the Gude specifically uses the word 'kill' in regards to what counts as PVP, and it means for another character, not their summons.
Would you allow the paladin to attack the wizard's summoned creatures/familiar/ect at a table you ran?
Note that I personally do not advocate this, I am simply making sure I fully understand your position before commenting further.