Paladin vs. Gunslinger fight


Advice

51 to 100 of 111 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Lemartes wrote:


Guards, local law enforcement are essentially doing their job and they risk their lives doing that job. If he kills them he's evil. (If he can kill them all.) Then he can be smited.

Be at the Old Mill then with your tower shield have the guards etc hide out until he incriminates himself.

Alternatively isn't there spells that can corroborate the paladin's story that this guy broke the law? Commune, discern lies etc.

At least enough to get a trial.

I'm sure a paladin of Abadar can convince the local authorities that this guy should at least be put under surveillance.

There's always the Vindictive Bastard Archetype Paladin.

Again pc vs pc stuff is a waste of time especially when Paladins are involved.

if he kills the guards he is fighting is self defense and while evil, the paladin is also likely guilty of evil as well as they will most likely have blood on their hands as well


Lady-J wrote:
do we even know what law was broken by the gunslinger or is every one just taking a dump on them just because a paladin said they broke a law....

None of us are at that table so none of us know it for sure, but if the OP is lying it kills the entire point of the thread, and it kills the point of him asking for advice.

There have been stranger stories posted here that were true so it's not hard to believe, and the "evil/bad character in the party with the paladin" conflict is not a new theme. It's been seen on these boards several times.


Killing the guards is not self-defense when they are lawfully arresting him.


Lemartes wrote:
Killing the guards is not self-defense when they are lawfully arresting him.

wrongfully arresting him, the paladin would have basically hired a hit squad out on the gunslinger


When they see the gunslinger attack the paladin and he's not attacking back then it's reasonable to arrest him for violence.

And they are not there to kill him so they are not a hit squad.

Especially when it's away from innocent bystanders that could get shot by stray bullets. Ie: the whole point of the plan.


Lemartes wrote:

Wow, when they see the gunslinger attack the paladin and he's not attacking back then it's reasonable to arrest him for violence.

And they are not there to kill him.

Especially when it's away from innocent bystanders that could get shot by stray bullets. Ie: the whole point of the plan.

violence that he was goaded into by the paladin himself police aren't going to arrest some one that hit some one else when the person that got hit was literally asking to be hit


Did you read what I wrote the police are in on the whole thing. You missed the part where there was the option to talk it out. If he chooses violence then he's incriminated himself.

If the police had any issues with this the could say something beforehand.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

In honesty I believe that the players have a responsibility to find a resolution that does not result in PC death, I am not a fan of PvP on any level, but I know that's not a universally held belief.

Quick question, how were you supposed to heal the 'slinger of intelligence damage? Did you have lesser resto prepped and did the 'slinger know that?

Advising the player that you could not have healed them leads to the possibility of an interesting scene where 'slinger confronts you and you persuade him to put it behind you - actually that could be a good scene resolution anyway - become buddies after animosity is a tried and true trope.


Lemartes wrote:

Did you read what I wrote the police are in on the whole thing. You missed the part where there was the option to talk it out. If he chooses violence then he's incriminated himself.

If the police had any issues with this the could say something beforehand.

the only reason they would be there is if the paladin with hold the information of hey i'm going to provoke a guy into attacking me at this location at this time be there to mess him up real good when he does, and if that info was divulged and they went along with it then yes the guards are then acting as a hit squad and the gunslinger can do what he needs to to defend himself


5 people marked this as a favorite.

No that's not what I'm saying and I'm not wasting anymore time explaining it to you.

Lantern Lodge

GreyTheWise wrote:
i could take his stuff, but the DM is pretty strict about good/evil acts.

Than FALL and show him how evil you can be as an Antipaladin.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Vindictive Bastard Paladin


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Lady-J wrote:
Lemartes wrote:

Did you read what I wrote the police are in on the whole thing. You missed the part where there was the option to talk it out. If he chooses violence then he's incriminated himself.

If the police had any issues with this the could say something beforehand.

the only reason they would be there is if the paladin with hold the information of hey i'm going to provoke a guy into attacking me at this location at this time be there to mess him up real good when he does, and if that info was divulged and they went along with it then yes the guards are then acting as a hit squad and the gunslinger can do what he needs to to defend himself

That's not true at all.

Paladin to city guards:This guy has it out for me because <explains situation>. I'm going to try to talk him down, but in case he isn't in the talking mood I'd like to have a few of you here to arrest him.

In this case the paladin has done nothing to goad him into attacking. He just has the guard there in case the other person only wants to use violence. If the gunslinger chooses violence that is his fault.

The paladin is also under no obligation to let the gunslinger know the guards are there.

If the gunslinger knows the guards are there he can pretend to let the situation go, and kill the paladin later. By not knowing the guards are there his true actions be can revealed.

It's not much different than in real life when police setup stings. People aren't going to sell drugs or <insert other crime> if they know the cops are there. Not knowing the cops are allows them to act on what they really intend to do.


wraithstrike wrote:
Lady-J wrote:
Lemartes wrote:

Did you read what I wrote the police are in on the whole thing. You missed the part where there was the option to talk it out. If he chooses violence then he's incriminated himself.

If the police had any issues with this the could say something beforehand.

the only reason they would be there is if the paladin with hold the information of hey i'm going to provoke a guy into attacking me at this location at this time be there to mess him up real good when he does, and if that info was divulged and they went along with it then yes the guards are then acting as a hit squad and the gunslinger can do what he needs to to defend himself

That's not true at all.

Paladin to city guards:This guy has it out for me because <explains situation>. I'm going to try to talk him down, but in case he isn't in the talking mood I'd like to have a few of you here to arrest him.

In this case the paladin has done nothing to goad him into attacking. He just has the guard there in case the other person only wants to use violence. If the gunslinger chooses violence that is his fault.

The paladin is also under no obligation to let the gunslinger know the guards are there.

If the gunslinger knows the guards are there he can pretend to let the situation go, and kill the paladin later. By not knowing the guards are there his true actions be can revealed.

It's not much different than in real life when police setup stings. People aren't going to sell drugs or <insert other crime> if they know the cops are there. Not knowing the cops are allows them to act on what they really intend to do.

leave note goading him into a fight is not talking him down


Has anyone suggested Water balloons? Just pour a gallon of water over the gunslingers gun before he wakes up. Make sure it stays wet, that way if he does try and shoot you, it probably won't work so good.

That should buy you enough time to at least attempt a fair conversation. Offer him a fist fight, with an agreement not to kill if he needs to get the violence out of his system.

Also talk to the player out of character about what you want to accomplish? Are you both looking for an epic duel? Are you just feeling like you can't coexist? Are you both wanting to just see who can win the fight out of character?


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Perfect Tommy wrote:

Wet his powder. Surely if a spell can do it, so can mechanical methods.

Then, when he tries to kill you, and fails due to wet powder, you can get the jump on him.

This might work if he was just a typical murderhobo, but this won't fly with a Paladin.

"I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves.."

Wetting his powder is in no way equivalent to neurotoxin. It causes no harm (hell the powder will even work after it dries out). The only thing it does it give proof of intent.

He intends to harm you, and tried to kill you. After that... its all good.

In fact, if I were the Paladin I might well get a Contingency cast on his gun horn. Something like spark, if he fired on a party member...


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah I do agree that wetting gunpowder is more like disarming than poison, and trying to pretend it is goes beyond ridiculous. Paladins don't fall for having advantage.

But let's be honest here, the real is that neither player, nor the DM, nor anyone else at the table is saying the one question that actually matters.

"What the hell are we doing here?"

Because that's what I would ask. Like, this is all based on the fact one player goofed off and skirted laws and was a dick, another player refuses to help him but doesn't want to say Why until questioned, doesn't want to support him and when the gunslinger is downed from poison, actually let's the OTHER players choose if he lives or dies. Like... what just leave him brain dead on the floor?

And it just gets worse and worse when at any time the paladin, the gunslinger, the apparently more morally strong but utterly apathetic group and the DM... any of them at any time could have just said "what will it take to get over this and move on to the game".

And now it's gotten to the point players have to start having characters attack each other? Or trap a guy just out of a coma? Or trick him?

Nothing in this thread in the OP was about how to just solve this. It was how to beat this guy up and not die.

Maybe, I dunno, talk to him? Work some s&$* out? Apologize and be the bigger man? Help the other guy be the bigger man?

Why does this have to end in a straight up "someone has to die" kind of mentality? Especially with a damn paladin involved in a war with a comotose vegetable?

I reread this whole thread and I'm going to ask the question that your group couldnt.

"What the hell are we doing here?"


1 person marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:

Coup de grace him while he is in a coma. It's an act of self defense if you're sure combat is inevitable, and as they say in real life "It's better to ask forgiveness than it is to ask permission". So do it, and then atone*. Being the equivalent of an NPC warrior class trumps being dead.

*Yes I realize this might take a while since the GM isn't likely to just let you fix this with an atonement spell, but you're doing it for the greater good. The world needs paladins more than it needs law breaking gunslingers. :)

That is very lex luthor of you but I can't fault your logic.


Yeah even though I disagree with most of what lady-J says about everything and I'm quite sure she is from a parallel earth You went a bit overboard their Pratt.

Probably should avoid alignment topic otherwise this thread will end up looking like every other paladin/algnment Thread.

See I personally would just wait for him to come out of coma and recover then have a responsible adult decision with the gunslinger if he attacked in the mean time well Then I've never had a paladin who was worried afraid to fight even outmatched and out-numbered. I think the hard part here is to not go to meta-game with all that is happening PVP in dnd can break up groups. I've seen it happen. Should be handled responsibly.


Getting back on track....

Quote:
I am currently a 6th level paladin, high str and cha, classic sword and board, but much more healing oriented than i should be.
Fey Foundling, Greater Mercy, Selective Channeling...that sort of stuff? I want you at my PFS tables.
Quote:
The DM ruled that gunslingers can use manyshot, but he only has three grit. Any advice on surviving those deadeye shots? i might be able to tank them, but without smite evil, i might have a hard time. just a side note, we are in a low-ish magic campaign, but the gunslinger has a magic sword, making him formidable in melee, too. ... he's a level higher than me, so he has manyshot w/ seventh level

...This gunslinger character seems to be a "GM's pet" who gets anything he wants.


Slim Jim wrote:
Getting back on track....
Quote:
I am currently a 6th level paladin, high str and cha, classic sword and board, but much more healing oriented than i should be.
Fey Foundling, Greater Mercy, Selective Channeling...that sort of stuff? I want you at my PFS tables.
Quote:
The DM ruled that gunslingers can use manyshot, but he only has three grit. Any advice on surviving those deadeye shots? i might be able to tank them, but without smite evil, i might have a hard time. just a side note, we are in a low-ish magic campaign, but the gunslinger has a magic sword, making him formidable in melee, too. ... he's a level higher than me, so he has manyshot w/ seventh level
...This gunslinger character seems to be a "GM's pet" who gets anything he wants.

or the gm made a house rule and the player was like i make make a character that can utilize that rule and paladin player could have started later or missed a session and lost exp and loot especially if it was a boss fight, don't show up to a boss fight with out prior notice to allow the gm to adjust the encounter to account for you not being there you bet your not getting a cut of the loot/exp


4 people marked this as a favorite.

The paladin has nothing to do with the gunslinger character getting to break Manyshot or gain a magic melee weapon (if no one else has one).

Quote:
you not being there you bet your not getting a cut of the loot/exp

-- These games function best when everyone is at the same level, and levels together upon reaching milestones. The Cretaceous-era D&D XP mechanic really ought to have been flushed ages ago, and such is the case in APs, which use the milestone system. In PFS, it's retained only in name (characters just level every third session). But the thing about PFS is that the character can always play at other tables at their level. You can't do that in a home game.

In any group of n players, there's going to be one person who can make more games than anyone else, and one person who can make fewer than everyone else. That's just the way it is. If the GM ramrods hardcore XP-style leveling, then one player's character ends up a cakewalker and somebody else ends up hopelessly trailing and never able to catch up. The result is a strained party dynamic, and less fun for all players (except for maybe the cakewalker, if he's sociopathic).


Slim Jim wrote:
The paladin has nothing to do with the gunslinger character getting to break Manyshot or gain a magic melee weapon (if no one else has one).

no one said he had the only magic weapon just that he also has a magic melee weapon every one could have magic weapons and he just happends to have a back up weapon for when he cant use his guns, fairly standard for a gun slinger actually, in fact nearly all my gunslingers don't even use their guns till about level 7 when it becomes affordable to actually do so till then u use a melee weapon

Slim Jim wrote:


In any group of n players, there's going to be one person who can make more games than anyone else, and one person who can make fewer than everyone else.

and that's fine so long as the player who cant make it as often lets the dm know ahead of time, if they ditch out with out letting anyone know or call in 2 hours into a session saying they cant be there then ya they miss out on potential levels and loot


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You know nothing except what the OP wrote.


Slim Jim wrote:
You know nothing except what the OP wrote.

yes but based on what he wrote you can not make assumptions that the gunslinger is the only one with magic items

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.

How about finding a group that is not about PvP ?
Frankly, I would not tolerate today anyone whose character is about finding excuses to fight and murder my PC.


Lemartes wrote:
Lady-J wrote:
do we even know what law was broken by the gunslinger or is every one just taking a dump on them just because a paladin said they broke a law....
This is actually a very important detail.

they broke into a musem, murdered all of the guards, and stole several artifacts, which they later sold on the black market.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I could see the rogue getting mad about that too, since "murdering all the guards on a break-in" is a sign of lack-of-professionalism. Is there a rogue around we can have sabotage/steal the gunslinger's gear, just as a matter of principle?


PossibleCabbage wrote:
I could see the rogue getting mad about that too, since "murdering all the guards on a break-in" is a sign of lack-of-professionalism. Is there a rogue around we can have sabotage/steal the gunslinger's gear, just as a matter of principle?

that all depends on how much evidence was left behind so long as they found a way to dispose of any and all evidence(sending the bodies else were like another plain or using summons to eat them then prestidigitation the mess)


Huhm. My players think I'm a powergamer DM yet I would never think about letting Manyshot work with a gun...

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/manyshot-combat-final/

Especially since it's not necessary. With a loaded double-barreled pistol, you can already without a feat fire two shots with your first shot. Then reload... Why a houserule for something that works already differently?

Anyways. I'm in the camp of take his weapons and powder, put it on a table some feet away, sit before the table, polish your sword and greet him with a "I think we have to talk." nitpick.

If he attacks you later, he'd qualify for evil and smite evil plus swift lay on hands might possibly win the day if you survive the initial onslaught. Well... I don't really believe you stand any chance if he prepares to attack you. But that's a problem for the DM.


just because you attack a paladin doesn't mean you are now qualified for smite


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If you really wanna do this as a paladin, in character and don't want to escalate this but are prepared to commit to this fight, then here's how you do it.

Leave a note to the gunslinger explainibg your rationale, stating that you regret what has transpired but you were acting in accordance with your most strongly held beliefs. Explain that youre prepared to forgive and move on, to start fresh but still cannot condone murder. Tell the paladin that if after everything, there can be no peace between you, explain that you will on a hill, awaiting him, away from innocents who might get caught in the crossfire and that ge should seek you there. And then go to that place, and pray.


Slim Jim wrote:
The Cretaceous-era D&D XP mechanic really ought to have been flushed ages ago,

Could not disagree more. Removing separate advancement tracks removes the ability to balance classes.

There was a lot of wisdom in the original D&D advancement tracks. One can argue that this whole C/M Disparity is caused by equalized advancement.

Rogues, for example needed iirc 900 xp to get to 2nd level. Wizards needed 2250. Fifth level Cleric (HEALING) needed 12000. Fifth level wizard needed 20,000. And a Thief was well into 7th level by that point.

XP tracks allowed DND to balance between classes - and it allowed some balancing in class. It wasn't an accident there was a big XP bubble around the levels that wizards got AOE spells. Or druids Shapechange.


Perfect Tommy wrote:
Slim Jim wrote:
The Cretaceous-era D&D XP mechanic really ought to have been flushed ages ago,

Could not disagree more. Removing separate advancement tracks removes the ability to balance classes.

There was a lot of wisdom in the original D&D advancement tracks. One can argue that this whole C/M Disparity is caused by equalized advancement.

Rogues, for example needed iirc 900 xp to get to 2nd level. Wizards needed 2250. Fifth level Cleric (HEALING) needed 12000. Fifth level wizard needed 20,000. And a Thief was well into 7th level by that point.

XP tracks allowed DND to balance between classes - and it allowed some balancing in class. It wasn't an accident there was a big XP bubble around the levels that wizards got AOE spells. Or druids Shapechange.

Yeah, buy that's more indicative of a broken system. It's far easier, IMO, to make everyone advance levels at the same rate and just move back when wizard (or druids or etc) gain their powerful abilities.


Claxon wrote:


Yeah, buy that's more indicative of a broken system. It's far easier, IMO, to make everyone advance levels at the same rate and just move back when wizard (or druids or etc) gain their powerful abilities.

Again, I don't agree. The XP track is one method of balancing. Using that doesn't mean the system is broken.

Take a rogue. A 11th level thief and a 8 level wizard had 220,000 exp.
This meant the rogue was in his 3rd tier of saves; the wizard was in his second. The rogue had attracted a base and followers; had much better to hit, had increased back stab etc.

In other words, Gary Gygax roughly balanced the abilities of the classes by EXP; he didn't worry about balancing fireball with raging. Overall balance mattered, balance by feature did not.

This allowed for IMO much more immersive game play. You had the sense that anything was possible in the game world, which is sorely lacking in todays "every thing must be balanced" approach.

And no one really argued about wizards being balanced, when it was so obvious that a hit from a dart could kill one. If you played wanted to play a beefy fighter - you played one. (or as Gary used to say
doughty..) If you wanted to play a wizard - recognizing that your saves sucked, your hit points sucked, and you were very very fragile - you played one. But there was never any of this incessant whining.

Back to exp. Exp also was a way of providing differential benefit, which was brilliant.

So if you had a party of 9th level fighter, a 5th level wizard and an 8th level cleric, a stone golem (2640 exp) would give each 840 xp. But the ref was also free to diminsh xp if the encounter wasn't significantly challenging. For example said fighter would get no experience for killing goblins, while the wizard would.


Perfect Tommy wrote:
Claxon wrote:


Yeah, buy that's more indicative of a broken system. It's far easier, IMO, to make everyone advance levels at the same rate and just move back when wizard (or druids or etc) gain their powerful abilities.

Again, I don't agree. The XP track is one method of balancing. Using that doesn't mean the system is broken.

Take a rogue. A 11th level thief and a 8 level wizard had 220,000 exp.
This meant the rogue was in his 3rd tier of saves; the wizard was in his second. The rogue had attracted a base and followers; had much better to hit, had increased back stab etc.

In other words, Gary Gygax roughly balanced the abilities of the classes by EXP; he didn't worry about balancing fireball with raging. Overall balance mattered, balance by feature did not.

This allowed for IMO much more immersive game play. You had the sense that anything was possible in the game world, which is sorely lacking in todays "every thing must be balanced" approach.

And no one really argued about wizards being balanced, when it was so obvious that a hit from a dart could kill one. If you played wanted to play a beefy fighter - you played one. (or as Gary used to say
doughty..) If you wanted to play a wizard - recognizing that your saves sucked, your hit points sucked, and you were very very fragile - you played one. But there was never any of this incessant whining.

Back to exp. Exp also was a way of providing differential benefit, which was brilliant.

So if you had a party of 9th level fighter, a 5th level wizard and an 8th level cleric, a stone golem (2640 exp) would give each 840 xp. But the ref was also free to diminsh xp if the encounter wasn't significantly challenging. For example said fighter would get no experience for killing goblins, while the wizard would.

Separate XP tracks was messy and a nightmare to balance encounters properly. 3.0 was like a breath of fresh air.

And it's much easier to say "an adventure for 10th-11th level characters" than "an adventure for characters with between 22,000-26,000XP".


Easier to say, but not easier to do when that creates a gap.

Dunno. When it first came out I liked it. Fighters did fighter things wizards did wizard things and they learned from them.

But looking back the xp gaps may have been a good way to balance.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Perfect Tommy wrote:
Slim Jim wrote:
The Cretaceous-era D&D XP mechanic really ought to have been flushed ages ago,
Could not disagree more.

-- This is what it boils down to: The GM wants to run a game. The players want to play a game. Some players cannot attend as often as others, because *reality*. For 98% of these people, it's not their first rodeo.

GM, enamored of XP: "You couldn't make it last Saturday, so you're character will fall behind unless you can do a make up session." (This means that both the GM and the player have to waste hours out of their lives doing some rinkydink grind.)

GM who makes his Int check: "We leveled-up on Saturday. Go ahead and advance your character to 7th, and add 2000gp. The party went through a mid-sized city halfway, so you can pick up anything costing about half that. Still in the field, though, so no crafting or upgrading. See you next week."


Slim Jim wrote:
Perfect Tommy wrote:
Slim Jim wrote:
The Cretaceous-era D&D XP mechanic really ought to have been flushed ages ago,
Could not disagree more.

-- This is what it boils down to: The GM wants to run a game. The players want to play a game. Some players cannot attend as often as others, because *reality*. For 98% of these people, it's not their first rodeo.

GM, enamored of XP: "You couldn't make it last Saturday, so you're character will fall behind unless you can do a make up session." (This means that both the GM and the player have to waste hours out of their lives doing some rinkydink grind.)

GM who makes his Int check: "We leveled-up on Saturday. Go ahead and advance your character to 7th, and add 2000gp. The party went through a mid-sized city halfway, so you can pick up anything costing about half that. Still in the field, though, so no crafting or upgrading. See you next week."

only if the player gave previous notice that they would be unable to attend you do not get rewarded for not showing up with out notice


So...uh...are you dead?

Is he dead?

Are you both dead?

No one dead?

Is this bit dead?


Yeah like im way more into your campaigns narrative then I should be


Yeah, it's like despite all the 'talk it out', 'come to an understanding' advice. We really don't want to hear that that's what happened. We want blood!
We want to hear that he came gunning for you and critically fumbled, dropping his gun and sprawling at your feet. Then he looked up and sneered, saying he knew you didn't have it took to finish him off while he was helpless. Then he grabs a boot knife and ...


Pizza Lord wrote:

Yeah, it's like despite all the 'talk it out', 'come to an understanding' advice. We really don't want to hear that that's what happened. We want blood!

We want to hear that he came gunning for you and critically fumbled, dropping his gun and sprawling at your feet. Then he looked up and sneered, saying he knew you didn't have it took to finish him off while he was helpless. Then he grabs a boot knife and ...

I'm glad you showed up. Now we have pizza for the fight!

***Takes the best seat on the couch and waits for Beerlord to show up.***


Rhaleroad wrote:
The players are derailing the campaign.

This should have been taken care of in "Session Zero". In fact I doubt there was a Session Zero in this campaign.

I think the gunslinger's player is in the wrong, but isn't it sad how the paladin's code is so inflexible that a non-violent solution is difficult to come up with? No luring (writing a letter saying to meet somewhere and not mentioning summoning the police might be viewed as "dishonorable" or lying), no typing him up, no taking his weapons, no wetting his powder...

(Also the gun rules are so complex it seems like the DM isn't following them.)


well while its just the gunslinger that has the grudge the entire party is guilty for going against the paladins code on a regular basis so i ask again why is this paladin staying with the party? they should have left a long time ago

51 to 100 of 111 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Paladin vs. Gunslinger fight All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.