Is Intimitating guards a bad idea?

[Snowbluff]

Also, does bringing a person to negative HP count as attempted murder?
Are Tautological Templar (trope) Paladins a bad idea?
Is picket fencing a well in a town a good idea?
Would asking a guard charged with bringing them into assist in picket fencing count as punishable or lengthy aid?
Are you able to deal non-lethal damage with melee attacks?

[Human Paragon 3]

1) It depends. There are side effects to intimidate, i.e., the guard will be unfriendly to you as soon as you are out of sight. Use it only when needed. Charm person is much better if you have access to it.

2) It really depends. It's a matter of intent. And the laws of the country you are in. If you attack somebody with a sword and drop him to -1 and he stabalizes, it would be easy to make an attempted murder case. If you are fireballing some goblins, and an bystander gets in the way, it would be more like manslaughter - but a determined prosecutor could make the case, I should think.

3) I have no idea what that is.

4) Why would you do that?

5) What on earth are you talking about?

6) Yes. It incures a -4 penalty to hit.

[Snowbluff]

1) It depends. There are side effects to intimidate, i.e., the guard will be unfriendly to you as soon as you are out of sight. Use it only when needed. Charm person is much better if you have access to it.

2) It really depends. It's a matter of intent. And the laws of the country you are in. If you attack somebody with a sword and drop him to -1 and he stabalizes, it would be easy to make an attempted murder case. If you are fireballing some goblins, and an bystander gets in the way, it would be more like manslaughter - but a determined prosecutor could make the case, I should think.

3) I have no idea what that is.

4) Why would you do that?

5) What on earth are you talking about?

6) Yes. It incures a -4 penalty to hit.

1) The paladin did not have spells.

2) He attacked the person intentionally.

3) It's where you say everything you do is right cuz you are the good person and good people do the right thing.

4) Supposedly it was diseased. I didn't see anyone dying.

5) This is to test the DC of the paladin's completely ridiculous attempts at diplomacy. I said 40, according to the PF rulebook.

6) Thank you.

[ORione]

Are you trying to start some sort of game involving asking questions? Or are these questions you have come across in an RPG?

If the latter, I think we should have more context.

[Snowbluff]

Are you trying to start some sort of game involving asking questions? Or are these questions you have come across in an RPG?

If the latter, I think we should have more context.

Ha! You silly people and your pretenses. These are questions. Context was not needed, but I will provide my notes, taken as a player, about a paladin being the second worst class in the game (monks are worse). The system we are using is Pathfinder, and skills are being used RAW.

Moronadin notices that the water in the only wells in town is diseased. He attempts get the people not to drink it by blocking them when they try.

The people protest and guards arrive to remove the paladin. Paladin attempts diplomacy to get the, now hostile, guards to assist in picket fencing the wells and to take him to the town leader (+25 for hostile, +5 for aid in lengthy process, +15 for doing anything other than detain him, which is punishable). The DM says that would not work. Retardin then attempts to Intimidate the guard, which causes the guard to report him to authority, by calling back-up.

The guards move in to surround us, I take the hint and go in quietly, as does the CHAOTIC STUPID (you know you are doing something wrong when this guy gives up) Gunslinger. The paladin hits the nearest guard as he approaches for 10 damage, bringing him to negative 2 health. A hour of me not being allowed to do anything, and the death of countless innocent guards later, he's brought down and strung to be tortured.

Queue player rage quit.

[Spiryt]

Well, 3.5/PF rules are highly abstract, but in this situation dropping guy to -2 can pretty much mostly be interpreted as striking him with very mean intent...

As far as how it can be clasified, it's pretty moot, as we can assume that medievalish D&D setting doesn't really share 21th century Western Countries legal definitions. :smallwink:

It most probably can be qualified as 'unpalladining' choice of action though...

[Snowbluff]

It most probably can be qualified as 'unpalladining' choice of action though...

The Paladin said he did not break his code (one built on a logic fallacy, by the way), but the DM was going to do this anyway. I said it crossed too close to evil, even if it didn't make un-Lawful, especially since he could of hit them for non-lethal damage.

[killem2]

Honestly sounds like another case of a butt hurt dm. The paladin had good intentions to save people.

I'd like to know why in the hell the DM would allow the paladin to know the water was diseased and then basically punish him for trying to protect people.

[Snowbluff]

Honestly sounds like another case of a butt hurt dm. The paladin had good intentions to save people.

I'd like to know why in the hell the DM would allow the paladin to know the water was diseased and then basically punish him for trying to protect people.

The DM basically said it was having no immediate effect and that we should go and try to find a way to fix it.

Also, you are describing a moron. This player has experience playing, and refuse to break character (ie, acting like an idiot) to avoid derailing the game.

[ZeroSpace9000]

But why didn't the paladin just tell people that the water was contaminated? Seems like the player was trying to be a jerk, really.

[Snowbluff]

But why didn't the paladin just tell people that the water was contaminated? Seems like the player was trying to be a jerk, really.

He said it was, but the people wanted to drink water. After they get getting more water, he forced the issue.

[Crasical]

He said it was, but the people wanted to drink water. After they get getting more water, he forced the issue.

"PEOPLE! PEOPLE! DON'T DRINK! THE WATER IS POISONED!"
"....Eh."

Yeah, maybe the paladin was being stupid, but he's by far not the only one in this story.

[Coidzor]

Lack of Orisons, yet one more reason why he should've played a cleric (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/spells/purifyFoodAndDrink.html).

Or Druid.

[Trinoya]

Yeah, isn't create water like an effortless spell to cast even in pathfinder?

Regardless, the player went about doing this the wrong way. Blocking off a major public works project and the like without proper authority, especially one critical to the towns survival such as a well, was stupid.

DM was stupid for not making this clear to the paladin if he had at least an eight in intelligence.


Failure to go peacefully with the guards and killing them? Murder, plain and simple. The men were doing their job, trying to stop a crazed paladin from preventing commoners from getting the water for their daily lives. Poison or not, unless the paladin has something to back up his claim other than it 'tastes funny' then it was stupid to go through with that idea of stopping people.

[Keegan__D]

I think it depends partly on the player and DM. If it were a specific one of my DMs, it would be a ploy to destroy the paladin. I would have explained to the player the consequences his sentient creature could assume. Exact wording and Dm's history is necessary to determine this.

The paladin should never have attacked the guards. Unless the guards were clearly evil or something along those lines, he would have fallen on the spot. Lawful being stopping a city-wide facility is standard procedure, and a case should have been provided before the paladin decided the town guards were performing evil or chaotic acts. Even if he saw them as having been neglectful, assaulting one is not the way. What the paladin should have done (no matter DM history), was gone to the head of government and pleaded his case.

[Gavinfoxx]

If my DM had presented my paladin with a poisoned well that people were drinking, it would have been totally expected (and also considered completely awesome) that he stop people from drinking from it, by force if necessary. And he wouldn't have even had a chance of falling, because he is doing a good deed -- stopping people from drinking from this particular poisoned water supply. He wouldn't have used excessive force, but a mid level paladin, even attacking with nonlethal damage (sap, fist, or with -4) would have been sufficient to encourage people to not drink from the poisoned water supply...

[Gotterdammerung]

Tricky situation. He would of had better luck saying the well was cursed by an ancient evil in a dramatic paladin speech. People en masse are dumb and prefer theories and superstitions to hard facts.

I personally don't mind anything he did. He was trying to stop people from drinking in the well at all cost. I don't think he broke his paladin code. However, he does have to live with the real consequences of the situation, i.e. he is seen as a criminal now and will be flayed.

There was definitely a better way to handle the situation. But it sounded like the DM wasn't being very helpful. I hate NPC's who always react confrontational.

As far as intimidate goes, we are slowly moving into a society where making someone feel bad is the ultimate evil. And as such, using the threat of force to persuade someone through fear is looked upon in a negative light, no matter how necessary it is. So usually, using intimidate at all will be ineffective.

[Geigan]

Well he had good intentions what with trying to stop the spread of the disease, but the problem was with how he went about it. He went against local law to do it, but being a good paladin isn't always about following the law. The problem I see was how he responded with lethal force to someone who was merely in the way of his good intentions. Certainly not paladin-like, but whether this one event is enough to make him fall is up to your group's preference of strictness on the paladin code.

He's certainly in trouble with the local law now, and it'll be a pain sorting this situation out. If you guys get a trial or any sort of talking to from a higher up, maybe you can explain the paladin's intentions at that point when everyone is a bit more calm. Perhaps get a little lighter sentence(*cough*punishment by quest*cough*), while they investigate it further. That way the DM can tie you back into the adventure with only a slight detour. Maybe even have that detour be related to how the well was poisoned in the first place?

On an unrelated note, did the paladin plan on having a gate in the picket fence so he could get in to investigate the water if needed? A Watergate (http://instantrimshot.com/) perhaps?

[Slipperychicken]

Tell guards and people: "the well is poisoned, I know because X. Please, people will die if they drink from this well." You do not hit people. Hitting people makes you harder to believe. If they do not listen, run for a cleric to test the water to show everyone. If they do not listen to their cleric, keep running for higher authorities until you are not allowed entry. Then you pray to your god. Then the DM. Then you can hit the DM.

EDIT: Also, unarmed strikes automatically deal nonlethal. You can take -4 to attack rolls to change the damage type from lethal to nonlethal or vice versa. Yes, that means you can deal nonlethal damage with a crossbow.

[TuggyNE]

EDIT: Also, unarmed strikes automatically deal nonlethal. You can take -4 to attack rolls to change the damage type from lethal to nonlethal or vice versa. Yes, that means you can deal nonlethal damage with a crossbow.

Fortunately, this only works with melee weapons :smallamused: -- so no crossbow non-lethals. (The apparent absence of blunt arrowheads is a subject for another daythread.)

[killem2]

Fortunately, this only works with melee weapons :smallamused: -- so no crossbow non-lethals. (The apparent absence of blunt arrowheads is a subject for another daythread.)

I believe you can improvise it for another -4 right? :smallbiggrin:

[Little Brother]

Fortunately, this only works with melee weapons :smallamused: -- so no crossbow non-lethals. (The apparent absence of blunt arrowheads is a subject for another daythread.)Uh, dude? RotW, P163.

[TuggyNE]

Uh, dude? RotW, P163.

Ah, good to know, thanks.

[Coidzor]

Fortunately, this only works with melee weapons :smallamused: -- so no crossbow non-lethals. (The apparent absence of blunt arrowheads is a subject for another daythread.)

Well, Pathfinder can't imitate everything that 3.5 had.