Character planning advice, no spoilers please.


Wrath of the Righteous

1 to 50 of 123 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Ok, so I have been working on this character since the moment I heard Wrath was coming out. Once we confirmed one of our group was going to run it I started getting it all on paper. We are at least a year away from playing but I am getting all of my ducks in a row now as I like to really know my character. I already have 20 some pages of background which includes the background of my friends character. We are writing it together back and forth.

Ok, on to my character and questions.

What I know for sure is I will be playing an Aasimar paladin. He follows Sarenrae, Ragathiel and Apsu (Sarenrae is his main deity when it comes to all mechanical benefits). He will have Oath of Vengeance and Oath against Fiends.

My big question is Warrior of the Holy Light. I really love the thematic feel of this archetype. I have read up and it seems that it is only legal with the Oaths if the DM allows it which is fine. So...

Assuming he does allow it, my question is, in this setting is it worth it? My group will most likely consist of Paladin, Ranger, Oracle. By giving up my spells am I taking to much away from the character or group?

That thought leads me to what Path to choose. As it stands I like Champion/Guardian. Though if I was going to keep spells Hierophant/Champion would become incredibly appealing. Which also means Unsanctioned Knowledge would become very appealing.

I am not looking for complete build advise, only suggestions about the character's effectiveness to help the party if I make a less than optimal choice.

Thank you. Any input is appreciated.

Scarab Sages

Without giving away storyline components, I'd strongly suggest dropping the Oath against Fiends. A large portion of the story of Wrath deals with redemption, up to and including people who you'd normally think had sold their soul, stole it back, only to auction it off again. You don't want the Oath to give you any grief against one of the main AP themes, and it's a fun one.

Have you looked at taking any of the campaign traits, and if so, I'd suggest asking your DM if you have to take the path associated with your campaign trait. All six traits have a very neat resolution later in the story, but I wouldn't want you to have to pick a trait that doesn't work with your choice of path and/or background.

You won't be giving up too much with the spells, as you'll have an Oracle pulling the heavy weight with spells.

The Warrior of Light abilities will prove interesting in the campaign, especially since your mechanical focus is Sarenrae. You could even fluff the abilities with the Touched by Divinity campaign trait, if you can get your GM to let you go a different path than Heirophant (Or take dual path)

Grand Lodge

I'm never big on letting my players grab that many archetypes. Second, Warrior of the Holy Light is a very healing focused character for such angry oaths. But I guess that's a build and a table preference thing.

For classes, you have all divine casters, so giving up spells might not be a big issue. Big issue might be channel energy. I have two groups running though this campaign. One has an Oracle of Life that took channel energy right away, the other group didn't have channel energy until the paladin leveled into it. Group one has had a much easier time dealing with encounters and healing after combat. Group 2 suffered from the lack of channel energy until the paladin got it. At which point, he became the primary healer and secondary tank. As such, before you take an archetype that's going to give up channel energy, think about where the healing in the group is going to come from. Without a cleric, your paladin might be called upon to keep people patched up in a fight.

Spread out the mythic paths as much as possible, and make sure you take the background trait that will tie into your main path. While there is some anticipation for doubling up on paths, resist it. Everyone should have their own. It makes some of the stuff in later books that ties into your backgrounds a bit more fun. As for going the hierophant path if you keep spells, meh. You only ever get up to 4th level spells, and I've never seen those spells sets as big parts of the paladin/ranger classes. Fun, and adds versatility, but not a major part. I'd look at what path abilities they open up to you, and figure out which ones look the most fun.

Oath against fiends, well, it's the power game right choice for the campaign. However, if you are planning on REALLY playing the oath, you might run into some snags in later volumes. Snags that a paladin with that oath in one of my games is struggling with right now. While it's been fun, and he's enjoying the internal struggles of his character to come to grips with it, you might want to drop that oath just for ease of play. Again, if you plan on really playing the oath.


Thank you both for all of the information. I wouldn't shy away from anything that will add to more interesting gaming. If oath of fiends makes things more difficult that is fine, I don't imagine anyone ever played a paladin because it was easy. If it will provide some cool story and struggle I am all for that. Though if it would completely destroy a huge chunk of the game I wouldn't like that at all. It would seem interesting since Sarenrae is all about redemption, that would provide a lot of internal struggle if there did happen to be an evil outsider that was some how going for redemption.

My story actually fits in the fluff of Champion, guardian and hierophant campaign traits. If I go with my current build I will most likely choose exposed to awfulness as Guardian would be my main choice. Though to be honest with myself I think Guardian has the fewest number of abilities I like. Absorb blow being my favorite along with Shrug it off.

Looking through the paladin spells, the ones I worry about loosing are things like Restoration and Death Ward. Also if I picked up unsanctioned knowledge I would get things like Freedom of Movement.

I am looking to make the character more than the build but I don't want to leave my already small party needing something because of a choice I made.

I am taking the feats to lead me all the way up to metallic wings. I love the visual of the tips of the wings glinting in the light of Sarenrae's radiance at their razor sharp edges. And the sound of each step sounding like the movement of scale mail as the feathers of the wings gently rustle.

Thank you both for the advice! Much to think about.


Paladin spellcasting is pretty meager to begin with. The best thing they can use it for is Litany spells, and all of those allow Spell Resistance which makes it nearly useless against the primary enemies of this campaign. Almost all Demons have spell resistance in one form or another and Paladins are at -3 caster level by defailt, so spellcasting is probably not going to be your strong suit unless you sink a lot of your resources into increasing your caster level.

Regarding Warrior of the Holy Light specifically - I think it's an excellent replacement to spellcasting. It provides defensive and healing utility for you and your allies - far more than standard spellcasting can provide. With the limitations on Paladin spells to begind with, I think it makes a lot of sense to take it. It also easily fits with your choice of deity.

Regarding your character build, can you perhaps give a brief description of what your Paladin intends to do? What sort of build are you looking for? What primary stats do you intend to focus on? What fighting style? Sword and Board? A Two-Hander build? A Dervish Dancer Dex Based build? The more I know how you envision your character the more I can narrow my suggestions.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I would also advise against the oath of fiends. There is a difference between a struggle and incompatible.


@Aldarionn
I agree with you on the spell casting and I am leaning toward WoHL so long as my DM will allow it with the Oath(s).

I see him as the "champion/guardian" mainly.
Stats will look something like this 17,10,13,13,10,17 to start. I hate having a low Int and to take advantage of the few skills I want to be good at, Fly (at level 11), Diplomacy, Knowledge Religion and Planes, and Sense Motive, I need some skill points.

The character will actually have wings at first level but not the ability to fly until he gets the feat.

He will use a sword 2 handed most of the time unless I find a good shield as I do love the sword and board style.

He is Sarenrae's weapon in the fight against evil. He is a hand of judgment and wrath. Though he is also a hand of healing and hope.

@Seannoss
Would that be the general consensus that Oath against Fiends would completely eliminate the chance at any RP value when it comes to redemption? I truly love the concept of this archetype but I don't care for absolutes. Lincoln will gain his power from Sarenrae, her laws would come before any oath would it not? Especially sense she is all about redemption?

Liberty's Edge

Seannoss wrote:
I would also advise against the oath of fiends. There is a difference between a struggle and incompatible.

This.

Warrior of the Holy Light should be fine, though. As should Oath of Vengeance. Personally, I'd go with spells and Unsanctioned Knowledge, though.

Grand Lodge

As much as Oath against Fiends looks like a great fit, it's not. Honestly, I'd drop it. Even the player I have with it kinda wishes he hadn't taken it.

Grand Lodge

Seannoss wrote:
I would also advise against the oath of fiends. There is a difference between a struggle and incompatible.

I'm not sure what I'm going to do with my paladin with this archetype when we get to Midnight Isles in a few weeks.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I don't mind paladins with wiggle room, I don't believe that your code makes you unwavering and unable to make decisions on your own. However oaths seem to use a lot of 'musts' and 'always'. I believe that if you played your oaths correctly you would not be able to finish this AP as written.
No spoilers makes this challenging.


This is very interesting. I had no idea there would be such a conflict with that Oath.

Honestly thought it almost makes me want to use it more to see what will happen. There has to be a contingency for a way to still finish the campaign with that Oath. I love it for the story aspect and the mechanical aspects of it too.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Shrug. You did ask for our advise.

But even better is to ask your GM... he knows all the answers.

Scarab Sages

Lincoln Cross wrote:

This is very interesting. I had no idea there would be such a conflict with that Oath.

Honestly thought it almost makes me want to use it more to see what will happen. There has to be a contingency for a way to still finish the campaign with that Oath. I love it for the story aspect and the mechanical aspects of it too.

Oath of Fiends wrote:


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

Fourth book is going to crash and burn against this Oath, played as written. Can't go into more details without spoilers, but the third book will get by on a technicality, but the fourth book you might as well rewrite your alignment as Lawful Suicidal about a third of the way through until the end of it.

Liberty's Edge

Lincoln Cross wrote:

This is very interesting. I had no idea there would be such a conflict with that Oath.

Honestly thought it almost makes me want to use it more to see what will happen. There has to be a contingency for a way to still finish the campaign with that Oath. I love it for the story aspect and the mechanical aspects of it too.

Yeah...as others mention, this isn't just a potential campaign derailment, it's basically suicide. For an analogy, think about taking an archetype that required killing all Drow on sight into Second Darkness, and how that would end. It's like that, and a bad call.


I've also warned my player who has taken an Oathbound Paladin with this Oath that he will find things take a sharp turn away from challenging to nearly incompatible once they hit book 4 (given that we're just finishing book 1 at the moment, there's still plenty of time for Bad Stuff to happen to him should the dice gods call for it). There is a little bit of wiggle room in the phrase "if it is in your power to destroy it", but not a great deal of it.

All in all, for this particular AP I'd also advise against Oath against Fiends. There's plenty of other moral quandaries and role-playing moments for non-Oath against Fiend paladins to enjoy without necessarily sticking that one in there.


I've never played this AP, but there is actually an escape clause in the Oath options stating that you can give up the oath and return to being a regular Paladin under certain circumstances. Namely, if you make the oath for a specific act (e.g. killing a particular demon or something) doing that action discharges the oath. Maybe your GM could suggest a particular goal for your oath so that you get some good roleplaying out of it early on but can get free from it before things become really sticky?

PRD wrote:
Paladins who take up an oath may make a sacred promise to their god or temple to perform some specific and grand action associated with the oath. For example, an oathbound paladin who takes the Oath of Vengeance may be tasked with killing the orc warlord who razed her home city, while a paladin with the Oath against the Wyrm may be asked to secure a nonaggression pact with a family of dragons. When a paladin completes the sacred promise, the oath is fulfilled, and she may abandon the oath if she so chooses; she may then select another oath or become a standard paladin or a different paladin archetype.

Scarab Sages

The problem is, there's only one named demon I can think of before Book 4 that I could honestly tie an Oath against Fiends to, and you don't learn about and kill them until Book 3. Any other demons you learn about that are a good 'named target' either don't get screen time to die or don't do so until Book 5 or later.


Seannoss wrote:

Shrug. You did ask for our advise.

But even better is to ask your GM... he knows all the answers.

I did and I do appreciate it, sorry if I came off Smug.

This is just very interesting to me. It does scare me a little that it could have such a negative affect on the campaign but then again it is sort of exciting too. It could possibly be my character that ends up needing a little redemption from his overly strict oath, maybe?

So none of you think the Warrior of the Holy Light will be overly restrictive with the loss of spells? That is my main concern.

Liberty's Edge

Lincoln Cross wrote:

I did and I do appreciate it, sorry if I came off Smug.

This is just very interesting to me. It does scare me a little that it could have such a negative affect on the campaign but then again it is sort of exciting too. It could possibly be my character that ends up needing a little redemption from his overly strict oath, maybe?

That's theoretically possible...but there are also times when, to avoid spoilers, you need to basically travel through areas with large number of demons that, in short, there are simply too many of to actually fight and survive...but that, individually, you could theoretically take. Given the wording of the Oath...there's a serious risk, almost a certainty in many ways, of 'break your Oath or commit suicide' scenarios. That's the part that makes it a Bad Idea.

Lincoln Cross wrote:
So none of you think the Warrior of the Holy Light will be overly restrictive with the loss of spells? That is my main concern.

Not with an Oracle about, no.


All very interesting! Thank you all for the advice.

To the DM's out there. How would each of you rule on taking warrior of the Holy light along with oaths? Since technically they do alter your spell list.

Liberty's Edge

Lincoln Cross wrote:

All very interesting! Thank you all for the advice.

To the DM's out there. How would each of you rule on taking warrior of the Holy light along with oaths? Since technically they do alter your spell list.

I'd allow it. You're effectively giving up even more than usual via WotHL, since you give up said extra spells, so why not?

RAW it's not kosher though, since, as you say, both do modify the same ability.


@Deadmanwalking

That is what I was thibking too, thank you for the input.

Anyone else?


I'd allow you to take both the oath and the WotHL ACF. The Oath adds spells to your list which is TECHNICALLY modification, but it's so minimal compared to what Warrior of the Holy Light does that I don't see an issue with it.

That said, the oath is still a terrible idea, and I wouldn't allow it at my table in this campaign just due to the disruptive complications it would cause.

To elaborate on what Deadmanwalking said, think about playing an Oathbound Paladin with the Oath Against Undeath in a campaign where the PC's are required to infiltrate and traverse a city ruled over and primarily inhabited by MILLIONS of intelligent undead. You might need to lay low and avoid detection while gathering information (possibly from some of those undead that live there), but you are FORCED by your oath to slay every undead creature you see if it is in your power to kill them.

If I'm any more specific than that I'll have to give spoilers, but I hope you can potentially see why it's a terrible idea to take that oath.


Thank you for your input Aldarionn.

I just keep think about that, 'if it is in your power to' line. Yes in the scenarios that have been mentioned here individually yes it is in your power. But in doing so does that mean your death and the death of your allies as doing so destroys your greater mission?

I do appreciate all of the information and input here. Though I think I am more drawn to the oath now. I am not one that wants to cause undue difficulty in my group, quite the opposite actually. Also, this AP is basically my dream AP so I don't want to do anytbing to hinder it. That said, I want to play my dream character through it as well. The challenge this oath will cause seem incredibly fun to me. Also our DM is good at manipulating the story so I have no doubt he will have plenty of hooks to cause other interesting moments and ways to deal with the potential issue with this oath.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

That's to my GM ears a very selfish way of thinking. "I want it, so screw the campaign, the GM can deal with it, haha!".


magnuskn wrote:
That's to my GM ears a very selfish way of thinking. "I want it, so screw the campaign, the GM can deal with it, haha!".

I'm sorry that is what you took from my statement. We have very different views of the game.

Scarab Sages

No, that's what I took from your statement as well. Multiple people have told you that, as written, Oath against Fiends is going to make you nigh unplayable/likable in Book 4. And you seem to be saying 'Nope, this is what I'm going to do. Someone else can work around it because I'm not going to.'


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Lochar wrote:
No, that's what I took from your statement as well. Multiple people have told you that, as written, Oath against Fiends is going to make you nigh unplayable/likable in Book 4. And you seem to be saying 'Nope, this is what I'm going to do. Someone else can work around it because I'm not going to.'

That. You have a responsibility towards the GM and the other players, too, not only they to you.


magnuskn wrote:
Lochar wrote:
No, that's what I took from your statement as well. Multiple people have told you that, as written, Oath against Fiends is going to make you nigh unplayable/likable in Book 4. And you seem to be saying 'Nope, this is what I'm going to do. Someone else can work around it because I'm not going to.'
That. You have a responsibility towards the GM and the other players, too, not only they to you.

I appreciate your opinions and respectfully disagree.

Changing my character concept because it might get difficult to play half way through the campaign is like saying I cant play a paladin because of its innate potential difficulties.

If I get to a point where I can not keep my Oath and my DM says I have failed at that then my character will suffer the consequences. I will not derail the campaign or do anything to try and hinder anyone's fun.

Magnuskn, you are absolutely right, the players have just as much responsibility to the DM as the DM does to the players, and the players to each other. That said, the game and the DM should not prevent any character from playing what they want within the guidelines of the rules.

Also I dont want to make any decision about my concept that I nor my character would know going into it. Ive always played my characters that way and I dont want to change it now. However, I did ask the original question about WotHL specifically because I was concerned about potentially hurting my already small group.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Well, you got a definite answer from multiple GM's and you still choose to ignore their advice.

<shrug> It's your funeral. Try to not flush the campaign down the toilet for the other players, too, though.


magnuskn wrote:

Well, you got a definite answer from multiple GM's and you still choose to ignore their advice.

<shrug> It's your funeral. Try to not flush the campaign down the toilet for the other players, too, though.

I don't understand the hostility. I have been nothing but respectful. I appreciate everyone that took the time to comment. I just don't like the idea of changing the course of my character via information I nor my character would have. I also will not do anything to intentionally ruin the experience of any of my friends at the table. I have just been waiting a long time to play this very specific character and this is my chance and I don't want to miss it.

Scarab Sages

3 people marked this as a favorite.

You're getting hostility because you asked for help and then stuck you fingers in your ears when we're trying to explain why it'll derail the campaign.

If you want to put it another way, you say Sarenrae is your mechanical benefits goddess for your Paladin.

In what way, shape, or form would a Paladin of the Goddess of redemption, honesty, and healing have an Oathbound paladin of Vengence and against fiends? Vengence tends to preclude redemption and self healing, and if anything the damned souls of demons and devils provide the greatest story of redemption.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Lincoln Cross wrote:
magnuskn wrote:

Well, you got a definite answer from multiple GM's and you still choose to ignore their advice.

<shrug> It's your funeral. Try to not flush the campaign down the toilet for the other players, too, though.

I don't understand the hostility. I have been nothing but respectful. I appreciate everyone that took the time to comment. I just don't like the idea of changing the course of my character via information I nor my character would have. I also will not do anything to intentionally ruin the experience of any of my friends at the table. I have just been waiting a long time to play this very specific character and this is my chance and I don't want to miss it.

You are going to ruin at least part of the experience for the other players with this character. At best you are playing a character with a definite expiration date, because of the oath. At worst you are going to get your group killed, too. On the way to that, you have the very likely potential of destroying extremely important parts of the plot.


Lincoln Cross wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
Lochar wrote:
No, that's what I took from your statement as well. Multiple people have told you that, as written, Oath against Fiends is going to make you nigh unplayable/likable in Book 4. And you seem to be saying 'Nope, this is what I'm going to do. Someone else can work around it because I'm not going to.'
That. You have a responsibility towards the GM and the other players, too, not only they to you.

I appreciate your opinions and respectfully disagree.

Changing my character concept because it might get difficult to play half way through the campaign is like saying I cant play a paladin because of its innate potential difficulties.

If I get to a point where I can not keep my Oath and my DM says I have failed at that then my character will suffer the consequences. I will not derail the campaign or do anything to try and hinder anyone's fun.

Magnuskn, you are absolutely right, the players have just as much responsibility to the DM as the DM does to the players, and the players to each other. That said, the game and the DM should not prevent any character from playing what they want within the guidelines of the rules.

Also I dont want to make any decision about my concept that I nor my character would know going into it. Ive always played my characters that way and I dont want to change it now. However, I did ask the original question about WotHL specifically because I was concerned about potentially hurting my already small group.

I play a paladin in the game with the Oath against Fiends. The fourth book should not be a problem. Technically you cannot suffer evil outsiders to live. The operative word is outsider. If you go to a realm in which they are native, the paladin becomes the outsider.

The intent of the oath is to rid your world of evil spiritual influences, to the point where you will risk everything to do so.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Again, in the campaigns most of us run, I would consider that oath to be disruptive to the plot. The non-loophole of being on another plane doesn't change that. Even in book four they are still (evil, outsider) so no gm should rule it that way.
The reason you do come across this way (while you are being polite) is that you did ask for advise, and then are ignoring it. So the reasons behind you asking are unknown. Or, from what you said, this is not the place for this character as you once thought.


Seannoss wrote:

Again, in the campaigns most of us run, I would consider that oath to be disruptive to the plot. The non-loophole of being on another plane doesn't change that. Even in book four they are still (evil, outsider) so no gm should rule it that way.

The reason you do come across this way (while you are being polite) is that you did ask for advise, and then are ignoring it. So the reasons behind you asking are unknown. Or, from what you said, this is not the place for this character as you once thought.

Respectively, Some GMs do. It depends on the intent, and whether agrees with that interpretation of intent. If the OP want to keep the mechanics and does not want to negatively impact the campaign's fun for the other players. He simply needs to bring his concerns to the GM.


Lincoln Cross wrote:
magnuskn wrote:

Well, you got a definite answer from multiple GM's and you still choose to ignore their advice.

<shrug> It's your funeral. Try to not flush the campaign down the toilet for the other players, too, though.

I don't understand the hostility. I have been nothing but respectful. I appreciate everyone that took the time to comment. I just don't like the idea of changing the course of my character via information I nor my character would have. I also will not do anything to intentionally ruin the experience of any of my friends at the table. I have just been waiting a long time to play this very specific character and this is my chance and I don't want to miss it.

There is nothing wrong with metagaming if it means picking a character that is correct for the AP. For example, playing a Paladin in Skull and Shackles. You either fall right off the bat because piracy is an evil act, or you instigate a riot that could leave you and your party dead. That is a TREMENDOUSLY bad idea, and a selfish one on the part of the player who chooses to go that route.

The problem with Oathbound Paladins is that their oath becomes part of their code, and not upholding it results in the loss of Paladin powers which could hurt your self-proclaimed small group VERY badly. This particular oath specifically requires that you NEVER under ANY circumstances suffer an Evil Outsider to live if it is in your power to end their life. That means that if you are capable of killing them, you MUST kill them. If you cannot kill them, you must try to banish them. If you find that you cannot do either you can, in good conscience leave and plot their demise later when you gain enough power to do what your oath says you must. That's assuming they don't just kill you and your party because you attacked them.

For example, take an encounter where in order to progress the story you must collect information from an Evil Outsider, and the only way you are getting it is dealing with them peacefully. You cannot pretend you won't kill them then do it anyway. That's false representation and against the Paladin Code to begin with. You are required by your code to kill this important source of information, and your actions cost the party the ability to further progress in the campaign. At best you made it VASTLY more difficult to accomplish the goals that were put in front of the party, and at worst you have torpedoed their only chance to move forward.

Your alternative is breaking your code, which results in the loss of your Paladin powers until you can gain atonement, and who knows when you might be able to do that? Now what if this happens on multiple occasions? How many times does your GM allow you to ignore your code until they sink your alignment into neutrality and you fall permanently?

Spoiler:
That will be your struggle in the 4th book of this campaign. So if you plan on taking that oath, just know that you will be a MASSIVE liability to the success of the mission you are set to. And make no mistake, without resorting to outright spoilers, you WILL either fall or torpedo the parties chances of completing the mission in that module. It's 100% guaranteed just by the very nature of what you need to do in that book.

Seems like a poor choice for someone who agonized over hurting their party by scrapping their spellcasting abilities, don't you think?


Tavis wrote:


I play a paladin in the game with the Oath against Fiends. The fourth book should not be a problem. Technically you cannot suffer evil outsiders to live. The operative word is outsider. If you go to a realm in which they are native, the paladin becomes the outsider.

The intent of the oath is to rid your world of evil spiritual influences, to the point where you will risk everything to do so.

That is an incorrect interpretation and one I would throw out immediately. First of all, the plane you are on does not change your type and subtype. A Balor is still an Outsider (Evil) on an Abyssal realm. A Bane (Evil Outsider) weapon would not function any less against him on an abyssal realm than on the material plane. At worst he might gain the Native subtype on an abyssal realm.

You cannot dodge your Paladin's oath by classifying the creatures you are sworn to kill differently depending on the plane they are on.


Aldarionn wrote:
Tavis wrote:


I play a paladin in the game with the Oath against Fiends. The fourth book should not be a problem. Technically you cannot suffer evil outsiders to live. The operative word is outsider. If you go to a realm in which they are native, the paladin becomes the outsider.

The intent of the oath is to rid your world of evil spiritual influences, to the point where you will risk everything to do so.

That is an incorrect interpretation and one I would throw out immediately. First of all, the plane you are on does not change your type and subtype. A Balor is still an Outsider (Evil) on an Abyssal realm. A Bane (Evil Outsider) weapon would not function any less against him on an abyssal realm than on the material plane. At worst he might gain the Native subtype on an abyssal realm.

You cannot dodge your Paladin's oath by classifying the creatures you are sworn to kill differently depending on the plane they are on.

A question... does Banishment work on a Balor in the Abyssal realm?

Liberty's Edge

Nope, they lose the extraplanar subtype on their native plane.

If the Balor were for some reason native to a different plane, sure.


Hold on. First guys, I did not ask for advice in regards to Oath against Fiends. I do appreciate it but WotHL was what my question was about.

Next, I still do not understand hostility for simply not automatically drinking the koolaid of other's opinions.

I refuse to believe that the AP is so stringent that no amount of imagination could possible make this combination work.

Regarding Oath of Vengeance and Oath against Fiends while following Sarenrae. I see no issue with either of these oaths when you read the Paladin code associated with Sarenrae. Oath Against Fiends is also specifically listed as one of Sarenrae's favored oaths.

Sarenrae
The paladins of the Dawnflower are fierce warriors, like
their goddess. They provide hope to the weak and support
to the righteous. Their tenets include:

• I will protect my allies with my life. They are my light
and my strength, as I am their light and their strength.
We rise together.

• I will seek out and destroy the spawn of the Rough
Beast. If I cannot defeat them, I will give my life trying.
If my life would be wasted in the attempt, I will find
allies. If any fall because of my inaction, their deaths
lie upon my soul, and I will atone for each.

• I am fair to others. I expect nothing for myself but that
which I need to survive.

• The best battle is a battle I win. If I die, I can no longer
fight. I will fight fairly when the fight is fair, and I will
strike quickly and without mercy when it is not.

• 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.

• I will not abide evil, and will combat it with steel when
words are not enough. I do not flinch from my faith,
and do not fear embarrassment. My soul cannot be
bought for all the stars in the sky.

• I will show the less fortunate the light of the
Dawnflower. I will live my life as her mortal blade,
shining with the light of truth.

• Each day is another step toward perfection. I
will not turn back into the dark.

So, what part of that says you can not swear vengeance or slay evil outsiders? How does it break your oath to redeem an evil outsider rather than destroy it? It specifically says you will not do things to get your allies slain nor fight a battle you know you can not win. I am gonna go ahead and assume fighting every demon in the abyss is a little out of any PC's league.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Oath against Fiends, 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.

You cannot wish away the oaths components.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lincoln Cross wrote:

• I will protect my allies with my life. They are my light
and my strength, as I am their light and their strength.
We rise together.

I will seek out and destroy the spawn of the Rough
Beast. If I cannot defeat them, I will give my life trying.
If my life would be wasted in the attempt, I will find
allies. If any fall because of my inaction, their deaths
lie upon my soul, and I will atone for each.

I am fair to others. I expect nothing for myself but that
which I need to survive.

The best battle is a battle I win. If I die, I can no longer
fight.
I will fight fairly when the fight is fair, and I will
strike quickly and without mercy when it is not.

• 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.

• I will not abide evil, and will combat it with steel when
words are not enough. I do not flinch from my faith,
and do not fear embarrassment. My soul cannot be
bought for all the stars in the sky.

• I will show the less fortunate the light of the
Dawnflower. I will live my life as her mortal blade,
shining with the light of truth.

• Each day is another step toward perfection. I
willturn back into the dark.

So, what part of that says you can not swear vengeance or slay evil outsiders? How does it break your oath to redeem an evil outsider rather than destroy it? It specifically says you will not do things to get your allies slain nor fight a battle you know you can not win. I am gonna go ahead and assume fighting every demon in the abyss is a little out of any PC's league.

Emphasis Mine.

The Oath Against Fiends leaves no middle ground for Evil Outsiders. You kill them. You do not redeem them. That is the oath, and doing otherwise is outright banned by that oath. It's not banned for normal Paladins, but an Oathbound Paladin has a further oath added to his code that requires specific actions under specific circumstances. There's a Demon, and it's one I can kill. I must kill it. I can't kill it? I must find allies to help me kill it. We can't do it? Can I try to banish it? Nope, OK run away.....wait why is it murdering everyone?!

By taking the Oath Against Fiends you put your allies lives in grave danger if you ever travel to an Abyssal Realm. You are not fair to others. You and your allies do not rise together, you more than likely fall together. That's not a battle you win. You likely die and cannot fight on.

Let me clarify here that I am not being hostile toward you. I simply intend to point out why the oath is a bad idea, which isn't something you seem to fully grasp. You seem to have the idea that it will be challenging and fun to run a character with the oath, despite multiple GM's (some of whom are running the campaign with such a Paladin) telling you that it's not challenging, it's almost completely unplayable.

When the subject matter of book 4 involves traversing abyssal realms with cities of evil outsiders and working with them to complete your assigned tasks and destroy a greater evil, a Paladin with the Oath Against Fiends makes those tasks absolutely impossible. It's not just a matter of your GM being creative in order to circumvent the issues. It's a matter of your GM having to completely re-write entire sections of the campaign specifically to accommodate one PC which is not fair to him or everyone else who wants to hear the story as written. Also, depending on how you play the character you may torpedo an important roleplay encounter earlier in the campaign and deny your party a VERY powerful ally.

You can do what you want, but don't expect to make friends doing it when it's a mistake of the magnitude you are about to knowingly make.

You were warned.

Regarding the other ACF, you have my answer. It works fine with the oath and I would allow a player at my table to take both.

Scarab Sages

My new rule.

All players who wish to play in this campaign as an Oath Against Fiends paladin must take the Chance Encounter campaign trait and weave it into their backstory.


Lochar wrote:

My new rule.

All players who wish to play in this campaign as an Oath Against Fiends paladin must take the Chance Encounter campaign trait and weave it into their backstory.

HA! OK that's pretty good.


Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

@Lincoln

As it stands now, you seem intent on torpedoing your group's campaign with this oath. Make no mistake - there is ZERO wiggle room when it comes to an oath. Secret Service swear an oath to always protect the president. There is no wiggle room there.

However, I do believe there is something you can do to where you can still mostly achieve what you are wanting.

Make the killing of fiends/demons part of your character's background. Make it something he believes in. Make it part of who he is. But, do not take the oath.

And take the Chance Encounter campaign trait.


To expand on Mogloth's suggestions, perhaps build a Falchion wielding 2-hander Paladin with the appropriate feats and the Legendary Item Property. Give it Evil Outsider Bane, Holy and Axiomatic as it gains power, and perhaps take Worldwound Walker as a feat.

Alternatively you could do the same thing with a Scimitar and a Buckler, so you can 2-hand your sword sometimes if you want, or if you need more AC you can use the Buckler for protection. Make your character a champion of Sarenrae, and take her teaching to heart.

Be a redeemer and a slayer of evil. If you can't do one, you try the other. It will still let you play a harshly anti-fiend personality but you won't have to be Lawful Stupid if the opportunity to redeem one, or gather information from one comes up. Make fiend-fighting your characters primary focus, but don't take the oath and prevent your party from advancing past book 4.

Seems like a win-win if you ask me.

Also, I second the Chance Encounter trait, then dual-pathing into Champion.


Ok, a couple DMs have said they are currently running this and have paladins in their group who have this Oath. How are you handling it?

It begs the question how did the Devs over look such a thing? I mean this AP is custom made for Paladins and that Oath is an obvious choice. It must have been thought about and discussed during the writing of this AP.

My opinion is if I get to a point where I have to forgo my Oath then I will do it for the sake of my companions lives and the campaign. My DM will have to say I am not following my oath and strip my oath abilities until I can atone. This only hurts me and no one else and requires no rewrite or extra effort on part of anyone but me.

I may also propose adding a line to the Oath for the sake of the campaign which says something like "Never suffer an evil outsider to live if it is in your power to destroy it or redeem it." If my DM would allow that redemption line, especially following Sarenrae then all of the fears listed in this thread would seem to be covered.


Lincoln Cross wrote:
It begs the question how did the Devs over look such a thing? I mean this AP is custom made for Paladins and that Oath is an obvious choice. It must have been thought about and discussed during the writing of this AP.

The Devs have repeatedly states that they write the AP for a baseline, and they do not expect people to use anything other than the main source book to be successful. They cannot exclude a highly compelling portion of the story because a Paladin might choose an ACF in a specific book.

Lincoln Cross wrote:
My opinion is if I get to a point where I have to forgo my Oath then I will do it for the sake of my companions lives and the campaign. My DM will have to say I am not following my oath and strip my oath abilities until I can atone. This only hurts me and no one else and requires no rewrite or extra effort on part of anyone but me.

Forsaking your oath doesn't just hurt you. It hurts your entire party. Breaking an oath is against the Paladin code, sure as it's against the Oathbound ACF code. You would lose your Paladin powers until you atone for it, and repeated offenses would lead to a permanent fall, or at least a lengthy redemption. Your character basically becomes a Warrior, with feats possibly pertaining to class features it no longer has.

Seems like that would hurt more than just you if you cannot pull your weight in combat.

Lincoln Cross wrote:
I may also propose adding a line to the Oath for the sake of the campaign which says something like "Never suffer an evil outsider to live if it is in your power to destroy it or redeem it." If my DM would allow that redemption line, especially following Sarenrae then all of the fears listed in this thread would seem to be covered.

That would solve some issues, but not all of them. It's only slightly less of a problem for you to attempt to redeem every evil outsider you come across than it is to try and kill them. You'd basically become a Mormon Missionary going door to door in The Abyss, and you'd be equally as annoying (no offense Mormons).

1 to 50 of 123 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Adventure Path / Wrath of the Righteous / Character planning advice, no spoilers please. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.