Having the ability to do something does not make it moral or ethical to use that ability.
Usage of the racial trait is a violation of the paladin code.
|
Having the ability to do something does not make it moral or ethical to use that ability.
Usage of the racial trait is a violation of the paladin code.
Agree on both points, except that this particular racial trait is involuntary in usage. That's why I'm asking, as the poison effect happens whenever the paladin is bitten by others.
Arguably the trait makes you poisonous, it is not actively using poison. You should probably warn intelligent biting foes that you are bad to eat.
I would say no, the paladin isn't going against his code when the creature that bites him happens to be poisoned because the paladins physiology happens to be poisonous.
However, this does teeter on the precipice on the player-GM agreement and should probably just be avoided as an option altogether if you intend to play a paladin.
Having a natural retribution mechanism does not violate the Paladin Code.
(Using your toxic skin to poison your weapons probably would, though.)
That being said, you just might want to pick a god that doesn't give a rat's ass about using poison, like Sarenrae.
Deities aren't concerned with poison use, the paladin code specifically forbids it outside of deity specific codes.
deliberate poison sure, but this isn't deliberate on the paladin's part. expect table variation, but if I where the GM I'd allow it.
|
|
Arguably the trait makes you poisonous, it is not actively using poison. You should probably warn intelligent biting foes that you are bad to eat.
While I agree about warning others, at the same time, most creatures should consider warning intelligent biting creatures that they are bad to eat, even if most creatures use bluff for this...I think most intelligent biting creatures will doubt the sincerity of any creature that makes such claims.
It depends on the specifics of the paladin's patron deity and code of honor, but there's nothing inherently evil or chaotic about using poison.
There are a LOT of good-aligned creatures in the Bestiaries that use poison, for example.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Paladins (default code) are forbidden from using poison. They are in no way forbidden from being poisonous to eat.
Rules wise, there is absolutely no problem with this trait and being a Paladin, or even having foes die because they bite you.
Now obviously there are ways you could probably be evil using this, slathering yourself with BBQ sauce, taunting the poor hungry monster and then laughing as it dies.
|
|
Use abilities or items or spells to counteract the poisoning as soon as possible and you will be quite welcome at my table :-)
That sounds like a good way to handle it. Just have the paladin be obligated to cure the poison ASAP.
On subject, there is a feat for poison removal at low levels: Siphon Poison
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with Dave. A paladin with a poisonous body is not actively employing poison or venom to harm people. Anyone trying to eat the paladin has itself to thank if it doesn't like the taste.
A player who purposefully chooses to play a poisonous Paladin and hides behind the "not my character's fault" argument is IMO gaming the system to try and get away with using poison while still keeping the Paladin's package
That kind of "I am smarter than the GM" attitude is NOT welcome at my table
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That kind of "I am smarter than the GM" attitude is NOT welcome at my table
This is the rules forum, not the houserules forum.
Using poison and being poisonous (as opposed to venomous) are not the same thing.
|
|
A player who purposefully chooses to play a poisonous Paladin and hides behind the "not my character's fault" argument is IMO gaming the system to try and get away with using poison while still keeping the Paladin's package
How is your example paladin using this poison in an abusive or "I'm smarter than the GM" type manner?
The character has to be bitten for this to have any bearing. The GM could easily get around this by not biting the paladin. They could also just accept that the poison effect is rather minimal compared to the the damage dealt with a bite attack. Plus, amongst the monster races, poison immunity is rather common.
I agree with Dave. A paladin with a poisonous body is not actively employing poison or venom to harm people. Anyone trying to eat the paladin has itself to thank if it doesn't like the taste.
A player who purposefully chooses to play a poisonous Paladin and hides behind the "not my character's fault" argument is IMO gaming the system to try and get away with using poison while still keeping the Paladin's package
That kind of "I am smarter than the GM" attitude is NOT welcome at my table
I understand what you're saying, I feel like most players who choose this kind of option are most likely trying to push the limit of what they can get away with as a paladin, but if there are good legitimate reasons for this type of character I might be inclined to allow it.
However, if it was a player who was often a trouble maker with these sorts of things I would ask them to make the character without that particular optional trait.
|
|
A player who purposefully chooses to play a poisonous Paladin and hides behind the "not my character's fault" argument is IMO gaming the system to try and get away with using poison while still keeping the Paladin's packageHow is your example paladin using this poison in an abusive or "I'm smarter than the GM" type manner?
The character has to be bitten for this to have any bearing. The GM could easily get around this by not biting the paladin. They could also just accept that the poison effect is rather minimal compared to the the damage dealt with a bite attack. Plus, amongst the monster races, poison immunity is rather common.
Poison Minion (4 RP): Drow sometimes augment their slaves and frontline warriors by making them toxic, causing their bodies to internally produce mawbane poison (see below). The resulting poisonous creature makes a potent weapon in the effort to discourage neighboring monsters. Any creature that hits such a character with a bite attack is immediately exposed to its poison. The save DC for this poison is equal to 10 + 1/2 the character’s Hit Dice + the character’s Constitution modifier.
Mawbane Poison—ingested; save Fortitude as above; frequency 1/round for 4 rounds; effect 1d2 Constitution damage; cure 1 save.Dwarves can take this trait in place of defensive training and hardy. Elves can take this trait in place of elven magic and weapon familiarity. Gnomes can take this trait in place of defensive training, gnome magic, and illusion resistance. Half-elves can take this trait in place of elven immunities and keen senses. Half-orcs can take this trait in place of orc ferocity and weapon familiarity. Humans can take this trait in place of skilled. Halfling physiology prevents them from taking this trait. Drow can take this trait in place of drow immunities, light blindness, spell resistance, and weapon familiarity. Wayangs can take this trait in place of light and dark, lurker, and shadow resistance.
It is very much a trait that the player buy, not something that "happen" to be part of a race.
It is so much trying to circumvent the rules against poison use that it make Moena smelling cheese smell fresh.Rule wise:
Code of Conduct: ... not using poison,
Atonement
....
This spell removes the burden of misdeeds from the subject. The creature seeking atonement must be truly repentant and desirous of setting right its misdeeds. If the atoning creature committed the evil act unwittingly or under some form of compulsion, atonement operates normally at no cost to you.
The paladin code don't recognize "I accidentally did a evil act, I accidentally did a chaotic act, I accidentally poisoned my enemy", every one of those is a violation of the code.
And every time you go and violate your code, even involuntarily, you have to atone. Enjoy your life of penitence.Even saying that the paladin committed the act "unwittingly" is questionable. He know that he is poisonous and he purposefully put himself in a position where he could be bitten. A very conscious and voluntary act.
The first thing that a paladin with that trait should do is to permanently detoxify themselves. Neutralize poison will do that for 10 minutes/caster level, a start, but not enough. he would have to search for a miracle or some other powerful effect to remove the poison permanently.
So he's sleeping and a rat bites him he loses he paladin powers?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So he's sleeping and a rat bites him he loses he paladin powers?
Until he atones, yes. (As long as the biting is classed as a creature and not an hazard or a disease. Rats are a creature, normal fleas are removed by cure disease, so they are a parasite but not a creature.)
On the other hand, how often you have your players bitten while sleeping by normal rats?
A questionable choice by a player shouldn't generate a questionable action by the GM. it is way better to say: "You can't take that trait and if you think that trying to bypass the code of conduct of the paladins is the right way to play them, maybe it is better for you to select another class."
Completely disagree. (Player issues aside, a mature player with a good backstory I would allow this trait/combo. It's really weak anyways.)
The rat example was to show how absurd ruling this as a violation.
What if he doesn't even know he's poisonous? Again it's not using poison it's that he's poisonous. If he gave his blood to someone to drink yes violation. Getting bit no way.
The code says "not using poison" it doesn't say don't be poisonous.
Finally it's the player that chose for the character to be poisonous not the character that chose to be poisonous. Therefore the character made no violation.
I guess it depends on if deities are cool with punishing their champions for being tortured by the drow or not.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think I will have a the evil forces in my next game make creatures that are completely unable to digest the flesh of the common races, eating any of them will be completely poisonous to it.
Then when they attack the Paladin's stronghold, the Paladin's will be falling left and right, making it easy for me wipe them out.
|
|
Completely disagree. (Player issues aside, a mature player with a good backstory I would allow this trait/combo. It's really weak anyways.)
The rat example was to show how absurd ruling this as a violation.
What if he doesn't even know he's poisonous? Again it's not using poison it's that he's poisonous. If he gave his blood to someone to drink yes violation. Getting bit no way.
The code says "not using poison" it doesn't say don't be poisonous.
Finally it's the player that chose for the character to be poisonous not the character that chose to be poisonous. Therefore the character made no violation.
The chances of "a mature player" takin this ability and playing a paladin are practically nihil, as it is a clear attempt to bypass the paladin limitations.
Poisoning a rat isn't a code violation? So a paladin can poison rats in your world. What other creature he can poison with impunity? Where is the limit?
The code is very clear a paladin can't use poison in any situation. And paladins are responsible even of their involuntary acts.
If a deity has chosen a paladin as his champion he would cure him of his poisonous blood when he take this class. I.e. the player wouldn't be able to choose the ability at all.
Choosing this kind of ability for a paladin is simply a sight that the player want to be a troublemaker, and you know, there is a piece of text for that in the CRB:
Don’t be afraid to ask the troublemaker to leave the game session if he won’t correct his behavior after a polite but firm request.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What if a first level paladin catches a disease who is then bitten and infects the attacker? The attacker dies as a result of the disease.
|
|
What if a first level paladin catches a disease who is then bitten and infects the attacker? The attacker dies as a result of the disease.
1) The code don't say "Don't use diseases".
2) Can you cite a in game disease that is contracted by bitting someone?
3) But the more important thing: it isn't an attempt of the player to circumvent the code.
Edit: using biological warfare, i. e. firing diseased cows with trebuchets, is against other sections of the code, so not allowed for paladins.
Completely disagree. (Player issues aside, a mature player with a good backstory I would allow this trait/combo. It's really weak anyways.)
The rat example was to show how absurd ruling this as a violation.
What if he doesn't even know he's poisonous? Again it's not using poison it's that he's poisonous. If he gave his blood to someone to drink yes violation. Getting bit no way.
The code says "not using poison" it doesn't say don't be poisonous.
Finally it's the player that chose for the character to be poisonous not the character that chose to be poisonous. Therefore the character made no violation.
The chances of "a mature player" takin this ability and playing a paladin are practically nihil, as it is a clear attempt to bypass the paladin limitations.
Poisoning a rat isn't a code violation? So a paladin can poison rats in your world. What other creature he can poison with impunity? Where is the limit?
The code is very clear a paladin can't use poison in any situation. And paladins are responsible even of their involuntary acts.If a deity has chosen a paladin as his champion he would cure him of his poisonous blood when he take this class. I.e. the player wouldn't be able to choose the ability at all.
Choosing this kind of ability for a paladin is simply a sight that the player want to be a troublemaker, and you know, there is a piece of text for that in the CRB:
Don’t be afraid to ask the troublemaker to leave the game session if he won’t correct his behavior after a polite but firm request.
He's not poisoning them. He's poisonous. Big difference.
The code says nothing about being poisonous. If he was coating his arrows with his own blood sure.
I disagree about the maturity of a player selecting this combo. With a good backstory this could make sense and be very playable. It's not like he'll be getting bitten all the time. Plus it's weaker than the standard elf or half elf.
"If a deity has chosen a paladin as his champion he would cure him of his poisonous blood when he take this class. I.e. the player wouldn't be able to choose the ability at all."
This is a good angle and I can agree with this.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What if a first level paladin catches a disease who is then bitten and infects the attacker? The attacker dies as a result of the disease.1) The code don't say "Don't use diseases".
Nor does it say don't be poisonous.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, "since your character is toxic, you fall if anything bites you and gets poisoned" is a completely ridiculous take on the Code.
Though if you have a GM who's really like that, again, your best bet would be to go with Sarenrae, Erastil, or another god whose Code gives zero damns about honorable combat.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Poisoning a rat isn't a code violation? So a paladin can poison rats in your world. What other creature he can poison with impunity? Where is the limit?
The code is very clear a paladin can't use poison in any situation. And paladins are responsible even of their involuntary acts.If a deity has chosen a paladin as his champion he would cure him of his poisonous blood when he take this class. I.e. the player wouldn't be able to choose the ability at all.
Choosing this kind of ability for a paladin is simply a sight that the player want to be a troublemaker, and you know, there is a piece of text for that in the CRB:
Don’t be afraid to ask the troublemaker to leave the game session if he won’t correct his behavior after a polite but firm request.
Seems an odd one to quote. The disruptive behaviour is the GM that keeps sending Biting creatures after this paladin in order to disrupt the paladin's code for petty reasons. Playing a paladin shouldn't mean that the GM deliberately, and constantly, attempts to make the paladin PC need to atone. That's just sadistic GMing.
I can certainly see a GM saying this ability isn't allowed for paladins. Period. But I don't think involuntary actions are intended to be covered under the paladin code. I can also see GMs just banning paladins, since they don't want to have to always second guess the alignment/code infractions.
Though regarding the Rat example, it is notable that this ability exclusively applies to bite attacks, and wouldn't trigger from a swarm attack, such as one from a Rat Swarm. So a dire rat will get poisoned, but the Rat Swarm won't. GM could rule otherwise, certainly, but as written, it only applies to bite attacks.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So you're saying because someone was born with toxic skin that they can never become a True Paragon of Good?
Thats very un-Paladin-like.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So you're saying because someone was born with toxic skin that they can never become a True Paragon of Good?
Thats very un-Paladin-like.
Not that they were born with toxic skin.
That the drow fleshwarped toxic skin onto them.
Which is kind of a worse message, to be honest. All kinds of unfortunate implications.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So you're saying because someone was born with toxic skin that they can never become a True Paragon of Good?
Thats very un-Paladin-like.
Not that they were born with toxic skin.
That the drow fleshwarped toxic skin onto them.
Which is kind of a worse message, to be honest. All kinds of unfortunate implications.
I was going to bring that up but I really didn't want to get into the realm of consent and fleshwarping experiments. For sure though, it is far worse than being born with it.
OK, if you are the GM and think it is too irritating a sleaze, don't allow it.
If your player is pissy about it being denied, too bad for the player.
If you do allow it in, making the paladin fall is bad GMing.
If this is PFS, and the player can force it into the game, "You knew the job was dangerous when you took it, Fred."
|
|
What if a first level paladin catches a disease who is then bitten and infects the attacker? The attacker dies as a result of the disease.1) The code don't say "Don't use diseases".
2) Can you cite a in game disease that is contracted by bitting someone?
3) But the more important thing: it isn't an attempt of the player to circumvent the code.
Edit: using biological warfare, i. e. firing diseased cows with trebuchets, is against other sections of the code, so not allowed for paladins.
1) I agree that it doesn't mention not using diseases as weapons, but I also can't think of a way to use diseases as a weapon while maintaining the other required aspects of the paladin (like a good alignment).
2) Well, although not well described in the CRB, I'd argue that any ingested disease would be potentially transferable if you bite the diseased creature. There's a decent list of diseases in the CRB, including a handful that are acquired via ingestion.
If something attempts to eat/bite a diseased 1st or 2nd level paladin, does that really constitute a paladin code/alignment infraction?
3) Are they circumventing the code, or are they just trying to get bitten less? Seriously, what build are you picturing where the PC is using this in an abusive or otherwise bad for the GM manner? Chances are pretty low that allowing your PC to get bitten in order to poison the opponent with this ability is a viable tactic. Sounds like a great way to get your character killed. And really, the paladin should have enough AC where getting bitten really doesn't come up much against lesser creatures (like rats).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So you're saying because someone was born with toxic skin that they can never become a True Paragon of Good?
Thats very un-Paladin-like.
Not that they were born with toxic skin.
That the drow fleshwarped toxic skin onto them.
Which is kind of a worse message, to be honest. All kinds of unfortunate implications.
If the poisonous Paladin does everything in her power to prevent creatures from suffering from her poisonous blood, I find it great
If she uses being poisonous as a weapon, just like the CE drows intended, I shall not be amused
I did once have an eidolon put up no resistance to being swallowed whole in order to tear apart a monster from the inside -- but I don't think the Poison Minion trait would inflict further doses of poison on a creature that has already swallowed a character with that trait.
|
|
I did once have an eidolon put up no resistance to being swallowed whole in order to tear apart a monster from the inside -- but I don't think the Poison Minion trait would inflict further doses of poison on a creature that has already swallowed a character with that trait.
Yeah, I noticed that. Kinda funny that Swallow Whole (ex) doesn't futher bite them once consumed.
For practical purposes, this racial trait is extremely limited in function. It discourages creatures from biting you, especially when biting multiple times, but that's really as far as it goes. And most creatures with bite attacks feature high Fort saves or immunity to poison.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Arguably the trait makes you poisonous, it is not actively using poison. You should probably warn intelligent biting foes that you are bad to eat.
This is best accomplished by wearing a wasp costume.
I'd allow the trait/class combo. Paladins dressed as wasps is a great idea.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Arguably the trait makes you poisonous, it is not actively using poison. You should probably warn intelligent biting foes that you are bad to eat.This is best accomplished by wearing a wasp costume.
I'd allow the trait/class combo. Paladins dressed as wasps is a great idea.
I was thinking about a Tower Shield that has "DO NOT EAT" written on it's face, and maybe one of those "x" eyed frowny faces that is used to mark things kids shouldn't eat in your home.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Arguably the trait makes you poisonous, it is not actively using poison. You should probably warn intelligent biting foes that you are bad to eat.This is best accomplished by wearing a wasp costume.
I'd allow the trait/class combo. Paladins dressed as wasps is a great idea.
Nah, that would confuse people. Everyone would think you are a worshiper of Calistra.
|
|
That sounds fair.
If the poisonous Paladin does everything in her power to prevent creatures from suffering from her poisonous blood, I find it greatIf she uses being poisonous as a weapon, just like the CE drows intended, I shall not be amused
One of the problems is that it is a way used by drow to enhance front line warriors and slaves.
If you were a slave maybe it is acceptable to become a paladin (hard to guess where you learned the code and the appropriate behavior), but if you were a drow front line warrior, a Janissary like fighter for the drow, becoming a paladin has about the same level of difficulty as becoming a paladin for a demon. You would have done so many atrocities that practically nothing could remove the stain on your soul.OK, if you are the GM and think it is too irritating a sleaze, don't allow it.
If your player is pissy about it being denied, too bad for the player.
Exactly.
[QUOTE="Daw"
If you do allow it in, making the paladin fall is bad GMing.
I will never allow it in my games for a paladin.
[QUOTE="Daw"
If this is PFS, and the player can force it into the game, "You knew the job was dangerous when you took it, Fred."
I hope it is not on the Approved Sources list.