Hi there folks I am Playing a Inquisitor of Ashava with the Redemption Inquisition. which grants her the following ability.
"At 4th level, any weapon you wield gains the merciful magic weapon special ability. The weapon immediately reverts to its original abilities when you cease to wield it."
And Inquisitors can grant 1 weapon the following bane weapon ability which is this (bane attuned to species of choice):
"A bane weapon excels against certain foes. Against a designated foe, the weapon's enhancement bonus is +2 better than its actual bonus. It also deals an extra 2d6 points of damage against such foes."
Now when i presented this combination to my DM in combat non the less to say my Weapon is Statically always merciful unless its not being wielded or i turn it off that i wanted to bane my weapon to enhance my chances of hitting and non lethally knocking out a enemy (that i wish to interogate), which just stabbed me in the gut as a sneak attack for who knows what reason. My DM started having a ruling feud with me on how bane weapon enhancement is meant to kill and slay that particular creature and thus should not be non lethally capable.
When my argument was that the Bane ability in pathfinder is not meant to be a outright killing enhancement, but meant as a way to excel against that enemy in combat ( to be the bane of their existence per-say? ) and that my intention was to excel in taking down that particular enemy non lethally for those that i think may have information or preferably a capability to be redeemed for their actions vs purging them from this existance.
anyway it became a heated back and forth argument that became really tense. so im trying to get some input on it.