Would this Oathbound paladin fall?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

451 to 500 of 527 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>

Gaberlunzie wrote:
Baval wrote:
Gaberlunzie wrote:
Baval wrote:


So youre going to ignore the part where the demon was at deaths door? I suppose its reasonable to believe that a small following of unarmed unarmored and apparently charmed humans would drain 7 or more levels from a succubus.
He couldn't know the demon was at deaths' door. Nothing in the rules even hint at negative levels being visible, and we have specific spells for seeing the rough neighborhood of hit points remaining (deathwatch).
Characters who take negative levels lose HP, skill at arms, non combat skills, spellcasting, resistances, and you seriously think none of that shows on the body?

Changing alignment can also cause you to lose most of those, given the right circumstances. Is that visible?

There is not a single hint at it being visible. It might be. It might not be. It might be in some cases, like being hit by a vampire, but not in others, such as touching an unholy sword. The rules are completely silent on it.

True the rules are silent on this. But, for the purposes of this story, assume the effects are visible and manifests as bodily damage as described in my previous post.


Weirdo wrote:
Baval wrote:
Dimensional Anchor is a 4th level spell, wizards get it at level 7. Coincidentally, a Succubus is a CR 7. So the magic is readily available in the party, and if its not should be readily available nearby.

1) You're assuming there's a party. The OP's situation described a lone paladin.

2) You're assuming the party is actually level 7, and not a level 5 or 6 party facing a succubus. I throw APL+2 challenges against my group all the time.

3) You're assuming the party has a wizard, and that at 7th level the wizard would already have Dimemsional Anchor available despite just being able to cast spells of that level.

4) Dimensional Anchor lasts 1 minute/level, which means if you have to so much as travel to the next town over to find a high level cleric, you're back in the "can't take my eyes off her for a second" situation.

5) If you do have a party, you probably have someone more susceptible to Dominate Person than your average paladin.

Entryhazard wrote:
Oath against fiends paladin s have anchoring aura and other dimensional traps anyways

Yes, but only at level 8. Even if the paladin does have access to that effect, it either allows a will save for every attempt at teleportation (and succubi are fairly strong-willed) or has the same short-duration issue as the dimensional anchor spell, giving you at most about half an hour. And as Gaberlunzie pointed out you're still susceptible to Dominate, Charm, or Suggestion. That's too many potential points of failure for me to feel comfortable requiring that the paladin try to capture a succubus.

Baval wrote:
How exactly does the succubus plan to tell the villagers to attack the paladin without the paladin noticing? Dominate and Charm both require verbally telling your opponent what to do, as does Suggestion. Succubus are not telepathic so thats out. So the only way is to say "Attack the paladin! No dont!" and hope he buys it.
...

Sure, i missed that they were telepathic, i looked for the telepathy spell and forgot to check for any natural telepathy. It doesnt change the fact that shed only have a few villagers dominated at best, who would likely not pose any threat to the paladin to the point where he couldnt try to reason with them or easily knock them unconscious.

You also are taking liberties with the power of Charm. It makes the target friendly to you, not even helpful. Thats one level above indifferent. Thats like "know your name and see you around town" level of friendship.

If the demon teleports away and comes back tomorow the paladin can be there to stop it.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Baval wrote:
Sure, i missed that they were telepathic, i looked for the telepathy spell and forgot to check for any natural telepathy. It doesnt change the fact that shed only have a few villagers dominated at best, who would likely not pose any threat to the paladin to the point where he couldnt try to reason with them or easily knock them unconscious.

That's enough of a distraction for the succubus to escape.

Baval wrote:
You also are taking liberties with the power of Charm. It makes the target friendly to you, not even helpful. Thats one level above indifferent. Thats like "know your name and see you around town" level of friendship.

Charm makes you friendly, which makes you more susceptible to Diplomacy, which a typical succubus has +19 in, which is more than enough to convince a friendly person to give you dangerous aid (DC 20+person's cha).

Official statement on charm:
Charm person makes a humanoid "friendly" to you, as per the rules found in the Diplomacy skill, but it also allows you to issue orders to the target, making an opposed Charisma check to convince the target to do something that it would not normally do. How does that work?

The charm person spell (and charm monster by extension) makes the target your friend. It will treat you kindly (although maybe not your allies) and will generally help you as long as your interests align. This is mostly in the purview of the GM. If you ask the creature to do something that it would not normally do (in relation to your friendship), that is when the opposed Charisma check comes into play. For example, if you use charm person to befriend an orc, the orc might share his grog with you and talk with you about the upcoming raid on a nearby settlement. If you asked him to help you fight some skeletons, he might very well lend a hand. If you asked him to help you till a field, however, you might need to make that check to convince him to do it.
source

Baval wrote:
If the demon teleports away and comes back tomorow the paladin can be there to stop it.

Can he be everwhere at once? What if the succubus just moves to the next town over - is this still a mission accomplished? What if she kills a few people in the next town over and then comes back to this one again?

Bard-Sader wrote:

This is my fault. I forgot to put something in the First post. In this particular case, the effects are definitely visible. The way I'd run a self-sacrificing feat like Ultimate Mercy is that, given how many times the succubus has done it in a day, she by now is barely able to stand, has blood streaming out of her nose, and is in obvious pain. Even through all this she is still trying to raise people from the dead.

I apologize to everyone for leaving this out before. :(

That actually would change my assessment of the situation as a whole. It's certainly not impossible for a succubus to feign vulnerability like this, but this kind of visible pain is enough to at least raise reasonable doubt about the situation - the kind of doubt that would require a paladin to ask more questions before dispatching the "threat." If I gave that kind of description to a player and they still decided to smite first, I would not feel bad about telling them they fell. Though even then, I'd probably give the "Are you sure you want to attack the succubus who is in obvious and mysterious pain without asking questions?" warning and remind the player that his Oath would not require him to do so.


Heh, subtle sledgehammer hints? ;)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Baval wrote:
Would you "drink the Kool-Aid" if it meant a Doctor could find the cure to cancer? How about the cure to aging? How about if it meant world peace? Youre just being unreasonable to be dismissive. Especially in a roleplaying game, there are plenty of reasons for people to sacrifice their lives for good. Also, again, he brought them all back to life so it was a temporary inconvenience at worst.

Why is it only this 1 person can do it? Why not share his research with colleges who may have good ideas that speed up the process of creating these cures/world peace?


Bard-Sader wrote:

This is my fault. I forgot to put something in the First post. In this particular case, the effects are definitely visible. The way I'd run a self-sacrificing feat like Ultimate Mercy is that, given how many times the succubus has done it in a day, she by now is barely able to stand, has blood streaming out of her nose, and is in obvious pain. Even through all this she is still trying to raise people from the dead.

I apologize to everyone for leaving this out before. :(

Well now we are approaching fall territory.

This updated situation is why my group came up with partial falls. Killing the succubus who was clearly in pain and not an immediate harm to the villagers is still not fully evil in my opinion. The fact that he didn't even ask any questions and that the demon was actually good makes the paladin's actions questionable enough that, in my group, he would lose the use of smite evil(and probably some more stuff) until he redeems himself.


Since Paladins fall with even a single evil act, you are saying that this situation still doesn't count as an Evil act right? Merely impatient/stupid?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Bard-Sader wrote:
Since Paladins fall with even a single evil act, you are saying that this situation still doesn't count as an Evil act right? Merely impatient/stupid?

Yeah, he's still not willfully committing an evil act. For me, the key component to a Paladin's fall is for him to say "I knew it was wrong, but I did it anyway."

Shadow Lodge

Do we really need to make it binary? Shadowkire's group seems to have very intentionally moved away from the idea that we should be able to determine definitively whether an action is evil or not, and that paladins should either suffer no consequences or all the consequences.

Bard-Sader wrote:
Heh, subtle sledgehammer hints? ;)

I've been in enough situations where something that the GM thought was clear wasn't clear to the players. A paladin falling because he wasn't paying enough attention makes a good story, but a paladin falling because a player (or worse, GM) wasn't paying attention doesn't make a good game.


Chengar Qordath wrote:
Bard-Sader wrote:
Since Paladins fall with even a single evil act, you are saying that this situation still doesn't count as an Evil act right? Merely impatient/stupid?
Yeah, he's still not willfully committing an evil act. For me, the key component to a Paladin's fall is for him to say "I knew it was wrong, but I did it anyway."

I don't think that's necessary, or we'd have plenty of evil paladins running around. I think it's an issue of ignorant of alignment vs ignorant of one's actions; doing something without knowing you're doing it (such as in this case, killing an innocent) can be a defense (though it's certainly not waterproof and depends a _lot_ on context, as seen in this thread) but doing something, and knowing you're doing it, and just not knowing/seeing it as evil isn't a defense.


Weirdo wrote:
Baval wrote:
Dimensional Anchor is a 4th level spell, wizards get it at level 7. Coincidentally, a Succubus is a CR 7. So the magic is readily available in the party, and if its not should be readily available nearby.

1) You're assuming there's a party. The OP's situation described a lone paladin.

2) You're assuming the party is actually level 7, and not a level 5 or 6 party facing a succubus. I throw APL+2 challenges against my group all the time.

3) You're assuming the party has a wizard, and that at 7th level the wizard would already have Dimemsional Anchor available despite just being able to cast spells of that level.

4) Dimensional Anchor lasts 1 minute/level, which means if you have to so much as travel to the next town over to find a high level cleric, you're back in the "can't take my eyes off her for a second" situation.

5) If you do have a party, you probably have someone more susceptible to Dominate Person than your average paladin.

I would also like to point out that even if the above were true, this seems to be a social encounter, not an encounter created with combat in mind, so the GM could pull a level 20 character out even with a party of level one characters... the GM doesn't have to cater to murder-hobos(which I am not stating that the character is in this case) CR is being given far too much relevance, CR does not matter if you have no reasonable expectation a party/character won't have a non-combat "out", as a succubus Pally she would be very unlikely to attack even if struck once or twice(as such actions would likely lead to a true fall).


KenderKin wrote:

A redeemed succubus (paladin of Sarenrae.

Detects as good, evil, chaos, and law)......
I do not think this is correct.....never saw a rule about a four letter alignment!

As a paladin the succubus has to be LG! Not LGCE!

Nor do I think the smite would even work.

I believe she pings as all four alignments. L & G for what she is, C & E for what her body is made of.

I do agree smite fails, though.


How do you figure that smite fails? Smite checks for evil and detest it, and deals extra
Damage.


Yeah, by pure RAW smite would work. Though that would probably be a case where I'd be tempted to house-rule it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bard-Sader wrote:

If the paladin were to (temporarily) fall, it'd be for attacking without sufficient investigation beforehand.

As for the exact moment the abilities goes away, there is a lot of leeway in that. Artistic license should reign here. Makes better story for The scene and has more emotional impact for a wrongful smite to murder someone dead.

Can the paladin lose paladin powers even with Abadar approving of his actions?

Yeah, that's how I see it. I would temporarily strip his powers, his atonement is to restore the succubus fully. Requiring him to make things right (at considerable cost) is a better lesson than stripping his powers.


Well you are still stripping his powers to teach him a lesson. I'm a bit confused as to what you're saying.


Gaberlunzie wrote:
Chengar Qordath wrote:
Bard-Sader wrote:
Since Paladins fall with even a single evil act, you are saying that this situation still doesn't count as an Evil act right? Merely impatient/stupid?
Yeah, he's still not willfully committing an evil act. For me, the key component to a Paladin's fall is for him to say "I knew it was wrong, but I did it anyway."
I don't think that's necessary, or we'd have plenty of evil paladins running around. I think it's an issue of ignorant of alignment vs ignorant of one's actions; doing something without knowing you're doing it (such as in this case, killing an innocent) can be a defense (though it's certainly not waterproof and depends a _lot_ on context, as seen in this thread) but doing something, and knowing you're doing it, and just not knowing/seeing it as evil isn't a defense.

Yeah, obviously we can't have deluded paladins who are really Evil, but believe they're the good guys. Fortunately, Pathfinder already accounts for that by requiring paladins to be lawful good.

There's more than one way for Paladin to fall, after all. Willfully committing an evil act would require a Paladin who knows what he's doing is wrong, but choosing to do so anyway. Meanwhile, a Paladin who's blind to their own failings gets it when they do something drastic enough to merit an alignment shift.


Loren Pechtel wrote:
KenderKin wrote:

A redeemed succubus (paladin of Sarenrae.

Detects as good, evil, chaos, and law)......
I do not think this is correct.....never saw a rule about a four letter alignment!

As a paladin the succubus has to be LG! Not LGCE!

Nor do I think the smite would even work.

I believe she pings as all four alignments. L & G for what she is, C & E for what her body is made of.

I do agree smite fails, though.

I made this argument before. But the evil subtype does say that a creature with it counts as evil for all effects depending on alignment.

So RAW smite works.


HeHateMe wrote:
Bard-Sader wrote:
So basically smite first and ask questions later is generally fine against evil outsiders in your opinion? Even against one offering no violence?

Arguments like this are why I never play Paladins unless I have absolute trust in the GM. You're a holy warrior crusading against demons and devils and you walk into a building and see a devil in the middle of a group of innocent people. Are you telling me you're actually going to stop and have a conversation with the freaking devil?? Absolutely not. You act aggressively and immediately to protect those innocents from the fiend who's undoubtedly there to prey on them.

This scenario is a prime example of those tedious "HA! Gotcha!" tricks that adversarial GMs pull to take down paladin PCs cause they think it's dramatic or whatever.

If there was no reason to think something was strange about the situation then an immediate attack on a demon is reasonable.

However, that's not the situation here. She's got a LG holy symbol--not something a demon normally does. Also, if he saw her form flicker because of level drain from raising someone he also saw that raising--and demons don't normally go around raising the dead.

The inconsistencies don't prove she's not evil but they're certainly enough to say the situation warrants a second look before attacking, or else using non-lethal attacks. A paladin who dump-stats Wisdom is asking for a fall.


Chengar Qordath wrote:
Gaberlunzie wrote:
Chengar Qordath wrote:
Bard-Sader wrote:
Since Paladins fall with even a single evil act, you are saying that this situation still doesn't count as an Evil act right? Merely impatient/stupid?
Yeah, he's still not willfully committing an evil act. For me, the key component to a Paladin's fall is for him to say "I knew it was wrong, but I did it anyway."
I don't think that's necessary, or we'd have plenty of evil paladins running around. I think it's an issue of ignorant of alignment vs ignorant of one's actions; doing something without knowing you're doing it (such as in this case, killing an innocent) can be a defense (though it's certainly not waterproof and depends a _lot_ on context, as seen in this thread) but doing something, and knowing you're doing it, and just not knowing/seeing it as evil isn't a defense.

Yeah, obviously we can't have deluded paladins who are really Evil, but believe they're the good guys. Fortunately, Pathfinder already accounts for that by requiring paladins to be lawful good.

There's more than one way for Paladin to fall, after all. Willfully committing an evil act would require a Paladin who knows what he's doing is wrong, but choosing to do so anyway. Meanwhile, a Paladin who's blind to their own failings gets it when they do something drastic enough to merit an alignment shift.

So...like when Arthas betrayed his mercenaries and burned his ships?


Weirdo wrote:
Do we really need to make it binary? Shadowkire's group seems to have very intentionally moved away from the idea that we should be able to determine definitively whether an action is evil or not, and that paladins should either suffer no consequences or all the consequences.

We moved away from the binary fall/not fall system because it made things more fun and make more sense:

A lot of people think paladins should give some bad guys a chance to redeem themselves(when it is appropriate/safe/whatever). Then a paladin makes 1 misguided action and loses all his power to do good until he spends wealth that could have done some good elsewhere. Evil gets a free second chance while paladins have to pay a king's ransom for one.

That just doesn't seem right. I think it is better if the paladin loses only a few powers if s/he did something that wasn't outright evil yet still questionable. That way the paladin is still capable of doing good deeds while also seeking atonement.

We still make a paladin fall when s/he does some clearly evil stuff, but now there are degrees of punishment for transgression.


Anguish wrote:
Take the succubus into custody, investigate, and act appropriately. detect evil is not an excuse to just open up and make things die. It's merely one bit of evidence to assist a paladin in evaluating a circumstance.

And note that she's going to understand the problem and not resist any reasonable measures he takes to ensure the safety of the situation.


Pixie, the Leng Queen wrote:

Unless youbare suggestin that if a Paladin ever shows up at a table, the GM is mandated to do a comb over his whole story just to cater to the Paladin. That is an example of a broken class/archetype. And the funny thing, the OATH SPECIFICALLY MENTIONS THAT MANY OF THEM KNOW THERE ARE GOOD UNDEAD AND DONT GIVE A RATS ASS.

Most of the oaths are piss poorly written....

Yeah, that's bad. I thought the Book of Exalted Deeds was bad about traps but this is worse.

Oathbound Paladins


Loren Pechtel wrote:
Anguish wrote:
Take the succubus into custody, investigate, and act appropriately. detect evil is not an excuse to just open up and make things die. It's merely one bit of evidence to assist a paladin in evaluating a circumstance.
And note that she's going to understand the problem and not resist any reasonable measures he takes to ensure the safety of the situation.

What advice would you

Give the succubus in general for avoiding misunderstandings whenever she wishes to stay in a new area for a while? Immediately go to the local good aligned church and tell them the truth and ask to be subjected to a zone of truth?


Bard-Sader wrote:
Remember this paladin has no idea what the other dude is because he doesn't have the knowledge ranks. Never say "demons are unlikely to be redeemed" because he failed the knowledge.

A thought here: The Paladin shouldn't need a knowledge check here, I would say he automatically knows that redeemed fiends are rare but do exist. Such knowledge should be part of Paladin training.

Scarab Sages

Shadowkire wrote:
Weirdo wrote:
Do we really need to make it binary? Shadowkire's group seems to have very intentionally moved away from the idea that we should be able to determine definitively whether an action is evil or not, and that paladins should either suffer no consequences or all the consequences.

We moved away from the binary fall/not fall system because it made things more fun and make more sense:

A lot of people think paladins should give some bad guys a chance to redeem themselves(when it is appropriate/safe/whatever). Then a paladin makes 1 misguided action and loses all his power to do good until he spends wealth that could have done some good elsewhere. Evil gets a free second chance while paladins have to pay a king's ransom for one.

That just doesn't seem right. I think it is better if the paladin loses only a few powers if s/he did something that wasn't outright evil yet still questionable. That way the paladin is still capable of doing good deeds while also seeking atonement.

We still make a paladin fall when s/he does some clearly evil stuff, but now there are degrees of punishment for transgression.

Paladins are always capable of good deeds. Their powers don't grant them the ability to do good; they grant them the ability to do the impossible, in the name of goodness.


Shadowkire wrote:
Weirdo wrote:
Do we really need to make it binary? Shadowkire's group seems to have very intentionally moved away from the idea that we should be able to determine definitively whether an action is evil or not, and that paladins should either suffer no consequences or all the consequences.

We moved away from the binary fall/not fall system because it made things more fun and make more sense:

A lot of people think paladins should give some bad guys a chance to redeem themselves(when it is appropriate/safe/whatever). Then a paladin makes 1 misguided action and loses all his power to do good until he spends wealth that could have done some good elsewhere. Evil gets a free second chance while paladins have to pay a king's ransom for one.

That just doesn't seem right. I think it is better if the paladin loses only a few powers if s/he did something that wasn't outright evil yet still questionable. That way the paladin is still capable of doing good deeds while also seeking atonement.

We still make a paladin fall when s/he does some clearly evil stuff, but now there are degrees of punishment for transgression.

agreed that the binary is weird... I can't imagine ever hiring a paladin for a crusade using the pathfinder system... "O dang the paladin has fallen, better take him off the front lines before he gets himself and others killed because he can barely swing a sword until we pay him a kings ransom and he repents..."


Davor wrote:
Shadowkire wrote:
Weirdo wrote:
Do we really need to make it binary? Shadowkire's group seems to have very intentionally moved away from the idea that we should be able to determine definitively whether an action is evil or not, and that paladins should either suffer no consequences or all the consequences.

We moved away from the binary fall/not fall system because it made things more fun and make more sense:

A lot of people think paladins should give some bad guys a chance to redeem themselves(when it is appropriate/safe/whatever). Then a paladin makes 1 misguided action and loses all his power to do good until he spends wealth that could have done some good elsewhere. Evil gets a free second chance while paladins have to pay a king's ransom for one.

That just doesn't seem right. I think it is better if the paladin loses only a few powers if s/he did something that wasn't outright evil yet still questionable. That way the paladin is still capable of doing good deeds while also seeking atonement.

We still make a paladin fall when s/he does some clearly evil stuff, but now there are degrees of punishment for transgression.

Paladins are always capable of good deeds. Their powers don't grant them the ability to do good; they grant them the ability to do the impossible, in the name of goodness.

But by losing their powers their ability to accomplish great deeds in the name of goodness is diminished.

From a gameplay perspective having a player's character get turned into a Warrior because s/he didn't decide to play detective upon meeting every last enemy hampers the enjoyment for most people in most groups.

When a player paladin falls it isn't just bad news for the player, it is bad news for the entire party. The game becomes all about the paladin's redemption for a session or two, the party has to pick up the slack that the fallen paladin now leaves, or they have to role play the whole "Goodbye [crippled character]! We will miss you. OH! Hello convenient stranger, would you like to risk your life to [explains quest]? In return will will trust you as if you were [crippled character], whose role in the party you happen to be able to fill."

Of course the above doesn't apply to all groups, but I believe it applies to enough that the paladin fall mechanic needs some tweaking.


Davor wrote:


Paladins are always capable of good deeds. Their powers don't grant them the ability to do good; they grant them the ability to do the impossible, in the name of goodness.

True... but by that logic what would a god have a Gandalf capable character reduced to Frodo's stats do for killing another gods redeemed Balrog that would help the world more than the time the now Halfling takes to do this task that he could not have done 10x as much good as the wizard Gandalf...

you essentially are saying "We interrupt this quest for the one ring to bring you Days of Our Lives, Paladin edition".

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.

“Life before Death.
Strength before Weakness.
Journey before Destination.”

Scarab Sages

M1k31 wrote:
Davor wrote:


Paladins are always capable of good deeds. Their powers don't grant them the ability to do good; they grant them the ability to do the impossible, in the name of goodness.

True... but by that logic what would a god have a Gandalf capable character reduced to Frodo's stats do for killing another gods redeemed Balrog that would help the world more than the time the now Halfling takes to do this task that he could not have done 10x as much good as the wizard Gandalf...

you essentially are saying "We interrupt this quest for the one ring to bring you Days of Our Lives, Paladin edition".

That's only an issue if you believe that some good acts are greater than others.


Bard-Sader wrote:

How do you figure that smite fails? Smite checks for evil and detest it, and deals extra

Damage.

While she pings evil she's not evil.


Loren Pechtel wrote:
Bard-Sader wrote:

How do you figure that smite fails? Smite checks for evil and detest it, and deals extra

Damage.
While she pings evil she's not evil.

A creature with the Evil subtype doesn't count as Evil only for detection, but also other effect like spells that work differently on Evil targets and Smite.


Would she also be affected by Holy Word? Does she count as a Nongood creature?


Bard-Sader wrote:
Would she also be affected by Holy Word? Does she count as a Nongood creature?

The LG Succubus is affected by Holy Word, Blasphemy, Dictum and Word of Chaos, or none of them. It really depends if "nongood" and analogues count as "lacks good" or "is neutral or evil".

In the first case she is immune to all 4 spells, in the second she is affected by all of them


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Charon's Little Helper wrote:


You CANNOT have a neutral lich. The process of becoming a lich is so mind-numbingly evil - involving the sacrifice of multiple sentient creatures etc - that it's simply impossible.

Flat out wrong. From an official Paizo product:

Pathfinder Chronicles: The Great Beyond wrote:


Malikar’s Keep: Atop a massive, drifting island of
heavily weathered bedrock stands the redoubt of the mad,
planewalking lich, Xegirius Malikar (CN male unknown
lich wizard 20)
.
Pathfinder Chronicles: The Great Beyond wrote:


Others: Those wishing to claim this prize include at least
two other exiled minor diabolic nobles, Cormandrian (an
archon servitor of Iomedae), a troupe of several dozen mortal
paladins, a non-evil lich of uncertain original species,
the so called Children of the Reborn Glory (who seek to resurrect
Aroden), several dragons (both metallic and chromatic), and
a mad former solar of Aroden leading a wailing congregation
of grief-stricken petitioners all of whom are still unwilling to
accept their divine patron’s death.


Entryhazard wrote:
Bard-Sader wrote:
Would she also be affected by Holy Word? Does she count as a Nongood creature?

The LG Succubus is affected by Holy Word, Blasphemy, Dictum and Word of Chaos, or none of them. It really depends if "nongood" and analogues count as "lacks good" or "is neutral or evil".

In the first case she is immune to all 4 spells, in the second she is affected by all of them

If you are DM how would you rule it?


Bard-Sader wrote:
Entryhazard wrote:
Bard-Sader wrote:
Would she also be affected by Holy Word? Does she count as a Nongood creature?

The LG Succubus is affected by Holy Word, Blasphemy, Dictum and Word of Chaos, or none of them. It really depends if "nongood" and analogues count as "lacks good" or "is neutral or evil".

In the first case she is immune to all 4 spells, in the second she is affected by all of them
If you are DM how would you rule it?

Affected by all. No matter how LG she is personally, her form is still infused with raw CE.


And Magic Circle?


Loren Pechtel wrote:
Bard-Sader wrote:

How do you figure that smite fails? Smite checks for evil and detest it, and deals extra

Damage.
While she pings evil she's not evil.

Infernal healing will cause you to ping evil too.


Bard-Sader wrote:
And Magic Circle?

Negatively affected by all for the same reasons as the other spells.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Davor wrote:
M1k31 wrote:
Davor wrote:


Paladins are always capable of good deeds. Their powers don't grant them the ability to do good; they grant them the ability to do the impossible, in the name of goodness.

True... but by that logic what would a god have a Gandalf capable character reduced to Frodo's stats do for killing another gods redeemed Balrog that would help the world more than the time the now Halfling takes to do this task that he could not have done 10x as much good as the wizard Gandalf...

you essentially are saying "We interrupt this quest for the one ring to bring you Days of Our Lives, Paladin edition".

That's only an issue if you believe that some good acts are greater than others.

And now we get into cosmology.

As I understand Christian theology, good actions are not so much important in their own right as they are important in that they express faith in God. Ultimately, God wins, and mortal suffering is insignificant next to the salvation of our souls. If the paladin is significant because they are a symbol of ultimate faith and purity, it's important that they remain perfectly faithful and pure.

However many polytheistic religions (and D&D / PF settings) feature some kind of cosmic battle between good and evil in which concrete gains on the material plane matter. If paladins are important because they're the front lines against a demonic invasion, then it's decidedly counterproductive to take away a paladin's powers in the middle of a war because of a minor offense.

I lean towards the latter side - faith and the will to do good matters in itself, but specific actions are ultimately important not just to the people who aren't getting eaten by demons today, but because the amount of suffering in the world affects the cosmic balance. This take emphasizes the importance of the PCs' actions, even those PCs who aren't particularly faithful.

This is part of why I use the "it's evil if you know it's evil or should know it's evil" standard for paladins in cases like this. The cosmic battle against evil is too important for the Powers That Be to depower a paladin over an honest misunderstanding, but a paladin who is negligent or reckless erodes faith in the paladin ideal even if that paladin is able to justify their actions - and even if they're still overall a Good person. (I also really like the idea of partial falls because it gives you a direct way to signal divine displeasure with someone who is not taking their role seriously enough without actually invalidating their entire service as a paladin.)

Though honestly this is armchair theory for me because the only situation in which my party even considered a fall was instigated by the player saying "falling might be a valid character arc for my character in situation X." Our paladin players usually take that more seriously than the GMs.


Exactly my point Weirdo, If it ultimately matters what occurs on the material plane, or that quest X is done before time Y, reducing an adventurer on said quest to NPC A until he does good deed for NPC's B-D, or making him pay for atonement, just becomes a tax for the party that makes having a paladin a liability.

"That's only an issue if you believe that some good acts are greater than others."

while that theologically works IRL, but in practice, it would be like trying to justify giving first responders shitty equipment because one made a racist remark... not repurposing it to give it to better responders... but shelving it.... does it help the black guy bleeding out that the guy is a minute late and not saying racially biased comments... or that he gets there a minute early because he has reliable transportation?

This was why replacing the succubus with the fallen Pally as a healer wouldn't work, as you essentially have a glorified first aider essentially replacing someone who can bring you back from death.

I would also argue the fact adventurers and quests are so in demand argues that at least in Golarion, some acts are definitely better than others.


Abraham spalding wrote:
Loren Pechtel wrote:
Bard-Sader wrote:

How do you figure that smite fails? Smite checks for evil and detest it, and deals extra

Damage.
While she pings evil she's not evil.
Infernal healing will cause you to ping evil too.

But infernal healing makes you evil only for detecting purposes, for everything else you count as your actual alignment and so Smite fails, while it works on a Good Succubus


M1k31 wrote:

Exactly my point Weirdo, If it ultimately matters what occurs on the material plane, or that quest X is done before time Y, reducing an adventurer on said quest to NPC A until he does good deed for NPC's B-D, or making him pay for atonement, just becomes a tax for the party that makes having a paladin a liability.

"That's only an issue if you believe that some good acts are greater than others."

while that theologically works IRL, but in practice, it would be like trying to justify giving first responders s!@$ty equipment because one made a racist remark... not repurposing it to give it to better responders... but shelving it.... does it help the black guy bleeding out that the guy is a minute late and not saying racially biased comments... or that he gets there a minute early because he has reliable transportation?

This was why replacing the succubus with the fallen Pally as a healer wouldn't work, as you essentially have a glorified first aider essentially replacing someone who can bring you back from death.

I would also argue the fact adventurers and quests are so in demand argues that at least in Golarion, some acts are definitely better than others.

But Good should not be the side of "the ends justify the means" so there ought to be some consequences for a paladin doing evil even in the name of saving the world.


Good absolutely has to use "the ends justify the means" just like everyone else.

In my current WOTR campaign, the PC army is laying siege to Castle Drezen to stop a big evil. The demons sent some forces to attack random villages in Mendev in an attempt to force the PCs to divert forces to save the innocent villagers. However if the PCs diverted those forces, their attack on Castle Drezen would likely fail and the demons would overrun the region and probably the world.

The PCs including the paladin did not choose to send forces to rescue the villagers and I did not make the paladin fall. Basically there were no good choices for the PCs and they chose the least suckiest option in their opinion.

In another area of the combat, a NPC paladin named Irabeth was leading some diversionary forces to tie down major demonic armies. This force had to be very fast and mobile and live off the land (which in the Worldwound area is very difficult). When she captured some tiefling prisoners, she had some very bad choices.

1) Free them which means they would come back the next day to kill her soldiers

2) Declare no quarter and kill the prisoners

3) Take the prisoners with her which would probably result in mission failure since they would have to be guarded constantly, fed, and could get her army killed off if attacked by demons.

4) Try to send some of her men to escort the prisoners back to the main forces. This would split up her army and make it much more likely that each force would be annihilated by the demons.

Irabeth chose option 2. I required her to have an atonement, but she did not fall. When faced with sucky choices, even a paladin must pick the least bad choice.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

That's not what I'm talking about. Choosing to assault Drezen instead of saving villages isn't evil in any way. The PCs didn't attack. The blame is on the demons.

What I'm saying is that Paladins cannot torture prisoners for information even to complete an important quest, for example.


What if the torture of a demon for information would save the life of an innocent child?

What if a demon in the midst of some innocents being used as human shields was about to cast a spell that would kill other innocents. Would the paladin fall if he ordered a mage to cast fireball to kill the demon (assuming that's the only way to stop the demon) and surrounding innocents even though far more lives would be lost in letting the demon complete its action?

There are many times where paladins must choose between the lesser of two evils. If they fell every time they made such a choice, pretty soon there would be no more paladins.


Celanian wrote:

What if the torture of a demon for information would save the life of an innocent child?

What if a demon in the midst of some innocents being used as human shields was about to cast a spell that would kill other innocents. Would the paladin fall if he ordered a mage to cast fireball to kill the demon (assuming that's the only way to stop the demon) and surrounding innocents even though far more lives would be lost in letting the demon complete its action?

There are many times where paladins must choose between the lesser of two evils. If they fell every time they made such a choice, pretty soon there would be no more paladins.

Torture doesn't work without actual lie detection ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

And at that point with magic you could charm/dominate/read thoughts to force the release of info without actual pain.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Entryhazard wrote:
Celanian wrote:

What if the torture of a demon for information would save the life of an innocent child?

Torture doesn't work without actual lie detection ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

And at that point with magic you could charm/dominate/read thoughts to force the release of info without actual pain.

Good thing you are talking about fantasy when you speak of lie detection, lie detectors, because in real life they are still fantasy.

451 to 500 of 527 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Would this Oathbound paladin fall? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.