Paladin with Oath of Vengeance in a party with Diabolist....can we say AWKWARD!!!!

[Rene Alfonso]

I was running a game for some friends of mine the other day and we have a player who is playing a paladin with the oath of vengeance. We also have a player in the party who is running with a diabolist and has an imp animal companion. Well the diabolist did take great precautions to hide the imps true evil nature (non-detection and invisibility just for starters. During a mod that shall not be named the bad guy put up an invisibility purge and the familiar has shifted out of it's animal form for some reason or another. The paladin with the oath of vengeance sees it, makes his Knowledge: Planes check and knows that it is and he makes the conscious decision to follow his oath and attack the imp. As he was about to do this an argument erupted at the table that attacking the imp was the same as attacking the player because the imp was an animal companion. After initially considering letting the paladin PC attack the imp I stepped away from that decision and told the player with the paladn that he could not attack the imp as it was a animla companion HOWEVER because he was put in such an awkward position not of his own choosing that I would not put a strike against him for his working in tandem with the imp seeing as though the over all goals of the paladin and the imps master diabolist in the mod were the same, albeit for different reasons. The player with the diabolist PC clearly took great pleasure in seeing the player with the paladin PC squirm and fume while the player with the paladin PC felt like he had been forced to betray his oaths.

As a DM I really hated it. As a person I understand that the world is not black and white when it comes to morals and ethics. I'm more of a classic hero mentality when it comes to my D&D PCs, hence why I never play Scarzini or Cheliax PCs - one is essentially the Mafia and the other serves the interests of a nation that worships a devil lord/god. The oath of vengeance is pretty clear - it is like a paladins code against evil but on steroids. The paladins code says they can work with evil in extreme situations only and it should not be repetitive. The players involved in this situation play together alot. I really think it is unfair for the paladin because ALL of the ethical burden is on him and from the perspective of his paladin class and his oath of vengeance repeated alliances...albeit awkward ones like these that form during the course of an adventure...it IMHO against the paladins code and would probably have some sort of negative ramifications for him. Meanwhile the diabolist and his imp get to sit back and enjoy...with surely a hint of sadistic gleeful irony the fact that the paladin is helping to keep the diabolist and his evil devil imp alive.

How do the rules adjudicate something like this? Should I have allowed the paladin to follow thru with his oaths and attack the imp? Would it have been considered PVP which is against the rules unless a charm effect is in place and the persons actions are beyond their control. If I can get an official ruling that would be great but I would not mind getting opinions in general about this. I am sure I will run a game for this tandem again and now that the paladin knows that the diabolist has this imp at his side constantly it will no doubt cause friction and conflict in the future.

[Cardinal Chunder]

And that is why I ask players not to make PCs in isolation and make PCs that would work together naturally.

EDIT: Let the Paladin player do what he wants, its his PC. If he wants to smite the cr@p out of the imp and diabolist, so be it.

[Rene Alfonso]

Cardinal Chunder wrote:

And that is why I ask players not to make PCs in isolation and make PCs that would work together naturally.

EDIT: Let the Paladin player do what he wants, its his PC. If he wants to smite the cr@p out of the imp and diabolist, so be it.

Cardinal, if it was up to me I would have let the paladin go righteous ass kicking mode on that imp in a heartbeat. However, what I would allow and what is allowed within the framework of the rules are two different things. My decision would have had profound effects on the mod as well as the relationship with the players outside of the mod. I want to follow the rules but truth be told my gut tells me the paladin PC got screwed over and having him adventure with the diabolist and his imp in the future just does not make sense. However it is not fair to force one player or the other to either not play or use a different PC because the decision to allow this P Class diabolist ( which I think was terrible for reasons like this ) was made.

I just don't feel right about this situation and neither does the player playing the Paladin.

[Cardinal Chunder]

Is this a home game or PFS?

If its a home game, just let the Paladin kick the imp. If the player knew before there was a paladin in the party before rolling a Diabolist then what does he expect?

[Rene Alfonso]

Cardinal Chunder wrote:

Is this a home game or PFS?

If its a home game, just let the Paladin kick the imp. If the player knew before there was a paladin in the party before rolling a Diabolist then what does he expect?

No, this is PFS play which is why I am struggling with it. If it was a home game I would not care and I would have allowed the paladin to go at the imp and whatever happens just happens. But since this is official PFS I have to tread cautiously while still trying to get some fairness for both players in light of the kinds of characters they have.

[Suthainn]

You might get a better response in the PFS forum section, but overall I think yes, you worked within the rules as best you could, no PVP has to include ACs/Familiars I think or else you get exactly this sort of situation with the Paladin killing the Imp, then the Diabolist kills the Paladins mount, etc etc.

[Cardinal Chunder]

ah...confused cos this isn't in the PFS forum section.
Flagging to move.