My Paladin catched a disease at paladin level 2 (close to 3) by missing his fortitude roll. So he had to endure the negative effects. Some days later he reached paladin level 3 that brings immunity do disease with it.
How does this newly added immunity affect an existing disease?
|
You survived the disease - you get holy cleaning so you get immunity to most mundane things that would cause you problems (short of it rotting off a limb or something unpleasant like that)..
Is it a permanent effect your character is under? I would guess its a GM call but its a divine upgrade to your system so it should cure you of a cold if you had one lingering etc...
Divine Health (Ex)
At 3rd level, a paladin is immune to all diseases, including supernatural and magical diseases, including mummy rot.
Immunity (Ex or Su)
A creature with immunities takes no damage from listed sources. Immunities can also apply to afflictions, conditions, spells (based on school, level, or save type), and other effects. A creature that is immune does not suffer from these effects, or any secondary effects that are triggered due to an immune effect.
Looking under the immunity ruling, as you are being effected from the disease then any that disease's you had prior you are immune to now as they can't harm you
As mentioned, you are now immune to the disease and take no further effects from it.
If, however, you had already taken some ability damage, that ability damage would still be there but could be healed naturally over time or with a spell like Restoration or Heal.
If your nose had fallen off because of the disease, your nose would still be missing, but you would not lose any other limbs, etc.
You know when I read title I thought this was going to be a compelling argument about why you should be immune to a disease after you've gotten over it I was prepared to believe. but yeah I agree with other three
Thank you so far!
But what´s with the disease itself? For the rules i understand, that the paladin 3 does not suffer anymore from ongoing status effects.
But is the disease cured entirely? Would it be infectious to others?
This question is just of academic interest to me, because the paladin got healed by NPC-Cleric anyway.
My interest is as a GM generally. The infection happend to a Char of mine that i play in the Runelords-AP.
I also run two campaigns as a GM in Cheliax and could still not find an answer to that question.
The paladin is immune to the disease so he is not a carrier of it as there are really no rules to cover such a thing.
If you wanted to make it a campaign hook or plot to have the infectious paladin who is immune to his disease, then I could see that as being interesting. You would want to discuss all of the possible implications with the player first.
I think anti-paladins work that way it doens't hurt them but there infectious as all get out
As for being cured and infectious to others that's an interesting on, as it doesn't say either way.
If I was on the DM side of it, I would go with that you still have the disease in you as you've already contracted before being immune and could possibly spread to others, could be fun on the RP side of things
As for being cured and infectious to others that's an interesting on, as it doesn't say either way.
If I was on the DM side of it, I would go with that you still have the disease in you as you've already contracted before being immune and could possibly spread to others, could be fun on the RP side of things
i agreed with Captain-Green so far but wanted to read other opinions and arguments that i surley missed.
Immunity to death effects, disease, paralysis, poison, sleep effects, and stunning.
Do undead carry diseases?
Personal approach? Ask the GM.
RAW? You can still carry diseases, you're just immune to their effects.
|
For a existing disease I would treat the paladin immunity as successful saves for curing it plus total immunity to its effect. So after a couple of day (depending on how many successful saves are required to overcome it) he would stop being a carrier.
You can create more realistic rules about how long the character would be infectious after overcoming the disease, but that would be complicated and outside the normal scope of the game.
My Paladin catched a disease at paladin level 2 (close to 3) by missing his fortitude roll. So he had to endure the negative effects. Some days later he reached paladin level 3 that brings immunity do disease with it.
How does this newly added immunity affect an existing disease?
Presumably you stopped taking damage much earlier since you're not dead. Any damage that wasn't cured would still remain until treated, or healed normally, bu you can't be affected by that disease again.
|
My Paladin catched a disease at paladin level 2 (close to 3) by missing his fortitude roll. So he had to endure the negative effects. Some days later he reached paladin level 3 that brings immunity do disease with it.
How does this newly added immunity affect an existing disease?
My understanding is that if a character has immunity, they are instantly unaffected by any conditions they are now immune to. So the disease would be removed.
Any damage already dealt by the disease would heal normally, not instantly healed with the disease.
The exception would be one of those really rare diseases where the disease has an incurable effect after a certain amount of exposure. Lycanthropy is what I'm thinking of, and leveling as a paladin shouldn't remove the Were template, but it would remove the initial disease if it hadn't fully changed your character.
There's a useful spell along these lines, called "Accept Aflictions," which allows you to transfer diseases and such from one character to yourself. If you are immune to the transfered condition, it is cured. A nifty alternative way to cure lots of conditions, provided your PC has some immunities.
Immunity to death effects, disease, paralysis, poison, sleep effects, and stunning.Do undead carry diseases?
Personal approach? Ask the GM.
RAW? You can still carry diseases, you're just immune to their effects.
I wouldnt be so sure of that. The antipaladin counterpart specifically states that they can still spread the disease, so i'd say that a normal paladin wouldn't carry the disease for more than a few days.
Yeah personally i would say that paladins don't transmit disease i feel it would be against the flavor of the pally unless you just wanted to do a gritty dark maybe horror sort of game.
In my understandig the Paladin gets 'shielded' when he reaches lvl 3. So all those nasty germs and viruses get repelled. But the ones inside dont get removed because the immunity exists from now.
Of course, the damage dealt so far could be healed, the disease as well. But what if it didn´t?
For undead spreading diseases: why not? Ghouls dish out ghoulfever, mummys sell mummyrot etc.
This is a rules forum. There is no RAW concerning being a carrier of an infectious disease. The point about undead has no relationship here as not all undead carry diseases. If a creature has a disease in their special abilities or attacks, ie ghoul, rat, etc, then they are a carrier of the disease.
A paladin of any level does not have any notation of disease in his special abilities or attacks so he is not a carrier of the disease whether or not he is immune to it. The rules just do not cover it.
So anything else is just a house rule, a DM fiat, or a logical jump but not a rule, written or otherwise.
The rules don't cover that, but I think it is pretty much against the paladin idea, that he starts to spread diseases.
As the DM, feel free to torture your players as much as you like, of course. I advocate against rulings that reduce the fun factor, the results in the past were less than stellar. And I know no player who enjoys dabbling with his character, especially paladins, who are playing partially for the immunities (well, druids are also prickly).
|
|
Immunity to death effects, disease, paralysis, poison, sleep effects, and stunning.Do undead carry diseases?
Personal approach? Ask the GM.
RAW? You can still carry diseases, you're just immune to their effects.
Yes and no. Undead are immune to diseases, so they aren't affected and can't become carriers in the traditional sense. That said, they could literally carry the disease on their/in body in the form of bad hygiene or diseased clothing. Eating diseased meat would likely result in a disease based bite attack, even if the creature doing to biting is immune to disease.
A paladin would still have to wash hands, bath, and clean their clothes, after encountering a disease filled area to avoid spreading the disease.
Divine Health (Ex)At 3rd level, a paladin is immune to all diseases, including supernatural and magical diseases, including mummy rot.
Immunity to death effects, disease, paralysis, poison, sleep effects, and stunning.
Immunity to diseases is the specific effect. Both Paladins and Undead have identical magnitudes of protection to diseases.
Anti-Paladins have a slightly different wording.
Plague Bringer (Ex)
At 3rd level, the powers of darkness make an antipaladin a beacon of corruption and disease. An antipaladin does not take any damage or take any penalty from diseases. He can still contract diseases and spread them to others, but he is otherwise immune to their effects.
An Anti-Paladin is not immune to disease. Rather, they are immune to the effects of them, as their ability clearly states.
Hendelbolaf is close with his point, but still off.
Both Paladins and Undead are immune to disease. Specific undead have disease as a special attack. This points out that while immune (IE; Not taking any effect from) disease, entities may still carry them. The Undead are only being used as a reference specifically because while immune to disease, they can demonstrably still carry it. Ergo, immunity to disease does not mean the entity cannot be a carrier
Hendelbolaf is correct in that there are no rules governing the spread of diseases (as far as I know at least).
So we have a result of Paladins being able to carry disease, being immune to disease, and no rules governing the spread of disease (since PF is a permissive system, this means no Typhoid Mary Paladins, regardless of alignment/code issues).
TL;DR: As per RAW Paladins can carry diseases, as previously stated. There are no rules to govern the spread of disease from them.
Again, my personal approach would be to ask your GM, especially since I doubt that the RAI is to have Paladins carry disease.
Edit: For more detail on my thought process. If I recall correctly, immunity to any feature means you have no need to roll a saving throw on it.
If my memory is correct, this would mean Paladins cannot become carriers post Divine Health.
However, if infected prior to gaining that feature, they would still retain that disease. There would be no further effects from it, but they would still be a carrier.
Again, I highly doubt that is the RAI, but it's the only way to reconcile the "Immunity to X" line without houseruling in a special ability for Undead similar to the Anti-Paladins Plague Bringer feature.
Why would you need to houserule anything for undead? Their ability to transmit disease and their ability to be infected by diseases are wholly unrelated, infecting people with ghoul fever is a special property of the ghoul's bite attack and doesn't have anything to do with whether or not the ghoul itself is sick.