How to reconcile a paladin and a vampire hunter of vampires. (Problem Solved!)

[meto30]

Hi, I'm in need of some suggestions on how to reconcile two PCs in our party. I'm the DM, by the way, and we're running the campaign in Forgotten Realms 3.5e.

The two PCs are an undead hating paladin/gunmage of Kelemvor (gunmage was imported from Iron Kingdoms), hereafter refered to as the Paladin; and a vampire hunter of vampires, hereafter refered to as the Huntress. Kelemvor's creed dictates that no undead should be allowed to exist, and thus the Huntress must be destroyed if the Paladin is to stay true to her faith. The Huntress has no intention of losing her vampirehood or going away, and we the party do want her to stay the way she is; we're primarily looking for solutions that could be applied on the Paladin's end. We've looked into having the Paladin convert, but the churches of good currently still present in the city is that of Tyr (justice), Helm (order and protection), Lathander (morning), and Ilmater (mercy); none of them are really hot on allowing vampires to last, even if said vampire hunts vampires.

The Paladin is currently questing alone in Westgate, fighting against a vampire nest that has almost completely dominated the city through its puppet thieves' guild, the Night Masks. Those of you familiar with FR will notice the big bad as Orbakh, one of the Manshoon Clones who survived the Manshoon wars. Three PCs are incoming to join the Paladin, which includes the Huntress, a CN fighter, and a NG sorcerer. Our campaign is a very narrative-centric one, and the incoming journey itself is being played out as an elaborate story all on its own. We just forgot about the Paladin until we realized the two parties are going to meet each other once the Huntress' party arrives. The player who owns the Paladin would rather not lose a character he is already emotionally attached to; but he'd also rather not have to break the story of the Huntress, as he thinks it's a very nice one.

The current solution we're toying around with is having the two PCs duke it out and see which one survives. The Paladin's player already has a backup in case the Paladin dies (there's a big level difference between the Paladin and the Huntress, and since the fighter's and the sorcerer's players have already stated their intention to stand by their companion, we don't expect the Paladin to win the encounter). As the Paladin's player put it, "it would be a fitting, albeit bitter, end for the Heroine who refused to quit when all her companions fled or died." It's just that, as a fellow 'audience' of the Paladin's story for the last 7 months, I'd like her story to continue on, at least until the big bad vampire is destroyed.

If anyone wants more information, I'm happy to provide them.

[hamishspence]

Reinterpret the dogma of Kelemvor to permit tolerance of good/neutral aligned undead?

At least while evil-aligned undead exist, there's better targets to focus on.

[meto30]

Reinterpret the dogma of Kelemvor to permit tolerance of good/neutral aligned undead?

At least while evil-aligned undead exist, there's better targets to focus on.

Unfortunately, the party is in agreement that the Paladin shouldn't be allowed to wiggle her way free of Kelemvor's creed on the undead - it is one of the few things whch Kelemvor cares about. Heck, his knightly order - the Eternal Order - has only one duty, and that's destroying every single undead they can find, even the good elven liches. Besides, it would be unfitting to reinterpret a church we've been consistantly portraying for the last two years. ...Yes, our campaign is in its third year.

Although I believe every one of us would agree about there being better targets to focus on.

[Threadnaught]

I'm sure Tyr, Helm and especially Ilmater wouldn't mind their Paladin hanging around a vampire. That is if said vampire actively hunts other vampires for the protection of others.

The huntress sounds like she'll be bringing justice to the ones she hunts, is obviously protecting people and it would be merciful to allow someone who has turned their own curse into a gift for others to be allowed to continue helping others.

Kelemvor seems less likely to accept any sort of compromise though. I think your pally should move to a different more understanding god.

[Ardantis]

I have two responses to this issue~

1) Tyr and Helm are both exceptionally pragmatic gods. Although it would not make them look good or be something they would make known, I would find it more than possible that they would permit a Blade-style vampire hunter to exist, albeit with a certain amount of tactful maintaining of all other appearances.

2) It is far more interesting (story-wise) to let your Paladin play out his interactions with the Huntress. Perhaps she is pragmatic, or (heaven alive!) compassionate enough to see the Huntress' value as an agent of Good and shared values as an individual who stands against Evil.

Let them play.

[Darrin]

I know this is absolutely no help to the OP, but this sounds like something straight out of:

They Fight Crime! (http://www.theyfightcrime.org/)

[meto30]

I'm sure Tyr, Helm and especially Ilmater wouldn't mind their Paladin hanging around a vampire. That is if said vampire actively hunts other vampires for the protection of others.

The huntress sounds like she'll be bringing justice to the ones she hunts, is obviously protecting people and it would be merciful to allow someone who has turned their own curse into a gift for others to be allowed to continue helping others.

Kelemvor seems less likely to accept any sort of compromise though. I think your pally should move to a different more understanding god.

That is true, but the Huntress is nowhere near the Good end of the alignment chart, and that creates problems. She destroyes vampires because it's just fun. It's a form of sport she has developed to entertain herself after a thousand years of boredom. She is not evil per se, but she would not hesistate to drink from an innocent child if she is thirsty and there isn't a more abundant source around. She also is gathering vampire hearts because as far as she knows consuming other vampires' hearts makes her stronger. The CN fighter doesn't care about the Huntress' actual alignment, and the NG sorcerer doesn't know.

But now that I think of it, I think Ilmater's creed has enough room in it for the Paladin to accept the Huntress, although I'm not very experienced with the god of mercy enough to make an authoritative judgement on wether it would work. What would Ilmater say about accepting the Huntress as she is for now and slowly attempting to turn her into a sword of righteousness?

[danzibr]

Since she's a vampire hunter perhaps he'll let her kill some vampires before killing her. Ya know, use her to help his cause. Then when all the vampires but 1 are dead, kill the last one.

[SaintRidley]

Paladin could make it her personal mission to convert the Huntress to Good. That would be enough to bump down priority on the Huntress to minimal - take care of the evil ones first, then if your god is so against undead, take out the neutral and good ones.

[skycycle blues]

The Huntress and the Paladin's very first interaction must involve the Huntress saving the Paladin. If they come to battle, the Huntress should refuse to kill the Paladin unless she is absolutely unrelenting. Then, perhaps, the Paladin may suffer the existence of the Huntress on a conditional basis, conditions like, at the first sign of evil behavior, it's stake time, or the moment that whatever common cause is settled, she meets the sun.

[the clumsy bard]

Bluff.

Disguise.

Seriously.

Unless the vampire blatantly grows fangs, eats babies and sucks the blood of other creatures in front of the paladin there is no reason for the paladin to know.

[skycycle blues]

Some paranoid Paladins literally Detect Evil on everyone they meet. So, would also need alignment hiding.

[meto30]

I have two responses to this issue~

1) Tyr and Helm are both exceptionally pragmatic gods. Although it would not make them look good or be something they would make known, I would find it more than possible that they would permit a Blade-style vampire hunter to exist, albeit with a certain amount of tactful maintaining of all other appearances.

2) It is far more interesting (story-wise) to let your Paladin play out his interactions with the Huntress. Perhaps she is pragmatic, or (heaven alive!) compassionate enough to see the Huntress' value as an agent of Good and shared values as an individual who stands against Evil.

Let them play.

In the last RW two years of our campaign (which also means three IG years), the church of Helm has shown an increasing tendency to stick to an extreme interpretation of what 'order' means, and has also shown knight templar-isque attitudes in the recent past. Do note that I mention the church, not the god. Anyways, I don't think our campaign verison of the Helmite creed would allow our Huntress. Especially once her chaotic tendencies and non-good alignment becomes known.

Tyr on the other hand is an interesting case, as right now, the Tyrran church is the only good-aligned organization that has any influence to speak of in Westgate. The original Westgate party (of which the Paladin is the last survivor) has failed utterly in their quest against the Night Masks; the Monastery of Blinding Truth (the Tyrran cathedral) was destroyed, and Knight Grimjaw Grigor Khazar, Abbot of Westgate, was slain in battle. After that the Night Masks quickly eliminated the remaining forces of good, but the core faithful of Tyr survived and are working underground (both figuratively and literally) to liberate Westgate from the clutches of the vampires. The Paladin until know had been aligned with the Tyrrans, and had been dependent on the information they're gathering to mark and plan her hits. The current acting abbot is pragmatic enough to realize they need all the help they can get - if the Paladin converts to Tyr, and if the vampire succeeds in passing herself as Good - perhaps we can work something out.

It depends on whether the Huntress' player wants that, though.

[Threadnaught]

Ilmater is your best choice. If the huntress is evil, then it's better for Tyr that she dies because "justice!" she's also a big risk for Helm. Give the huntress' player the opportunity to choose to help the pally in a time of need, then it's up to the pally to show her the same mercy she shows him. Hopefully, for both players, the huntress will be willing to help and the pally will be allowed to attempt a conversion.

[Gnaeus]

There is an undead army somewhere else, and the church of K is calling in all hands to deal with it. Paladin is ordered to leave the party and report to her temple, where he will be plane shifted across the world.

Paladin makes a new character. Paladin is still alive somewhere. If Huntress dies, reintroduce Paladin, who gained enough levels to raise her to party average during the war. If huntress survives the campaign, promise Paladin a brief mini-campaign of Kelemvorites vs. undead.

[CaladanMoonblad]

So... let me get this straight...

the other heroes in your story are siding with a walking corpse that talks and walks and is an unholy abomination that does not even want to find a cure for itself (AKA, unredeemable)...

against a holy warrior that is alive, that is not an abomination, and that is playing its class.

Sounds like meta thinking is getting in the way of playing characters. Or are the other party members some sort of necrophiliac group? Why is the paladin hanging out with such obviously sick people?

Out of Game, why did the DM ever okay such obviously incompatible characters to play in their game?

[the clumsy bard]

True, but if the paladin is really playing a paladin in that sense... the game will have other issues.

If you are in a scenario where the paladin casts detect evil before anything else then there might be other issues (read lawful stupid)

[meto30]

Since she's a vampire hunter perhaps he'll let her kill some vampires before killing her. Ya know, use her to help his cause. Then when all the vampires but 1 are dead, kill the last one.


Paladin could make it her personal mission to convert the Huntress to Good. That would be enough to bump down priority on the Huntress to minimal - take care of the evil ones first, then if your god is so against undead, take out the neutral and good ones.

Thank you for your input, but wouldn't that solution entail the Paladin lieing about her intentions to the Huntress? Because the Paladin wouldn't hide her paladinhood once they join forces, and the Huntress would be interested in her self-preservation. She'd have to ask what the Paladin plans to do with her once the Night Masks are done with, and although Kelemvor allows lieing to an extent, I don't think the Paladin's player will be comfortable with that. I'll suggest it to him nevertheless.



The Huntress and the Paladin's very first interaction must involve the Huntress saving the Paladin. If they come to battle, the Huntress should refuse to kill the Paladin unless she is absolutely unrelenting. Then, perhaps, the Paladin may suffer the existence of the Huntress on a conditional basis, conditions like, at the first sign of evil behavior, it's stake time, or the moment that whatever common cause is settled, she meets the sun.

Hm, that is interesting. If the Huntress saves the Paladin before the Paladin learns anything, the Paladin would be faced with a moral dillema, as slaying the Huntress would mean killing the person who saved her life. But that still doesn't address the fact that she is facing a Fall from Grace if she tolerates the Huntress.



Bluff.

Disguise.

Seriously.

Unless the vampire blatantly grows fangs, eats babies and sucks the blood of other creatures in front of the paladin there is no reason for the paladin to know.

Some paranoid Paladins literally Detect Evil on everyone they meet. So, would also need alignment hiding.

Unfortunately, the environment has disallowed that path. The vampiric masters of the Night Masks, hereafter refered to as the Night Court, have already begun their takeover of the city's government proper, and as they mask their vampiric identities to smooth the process, the Paladin has developed all sorts of measures to determine if the person in front of her is alive or undead. The Night Court have some tricks up their sleeves, but I don't think the Huntress will be able to fool the Paladin, at least not once they join forces. Once she is revealed as a vampire, we are back to square one.

[Alienist]

Do a dread pirate roberts: "Good night. Good work. Sleep well. I'll most likely kill you in the morning."

[Gnaeus]

Once she is revealed as a vampire, we are back to square one.

You are really worse than square 1. At this point, not only is it an undead enemy that must be destroyed, it is also a liar that you can't trust, so the paladin has no justification in believing that any deal made with it will be honored on the other side.

[meto30]

So... let me get this straight...

the other heroes in your story are siding with a walking corpse that talks and walks and is an unholy abomination that does not even want to find a cure for itself (AKA, unredeemable)...

against a holy warrior that is alive, that is not an abomination, and that is playing its class.

Sounds like meta thinking is getting in the way of playing characters. Or are the other party members some sort of necrophiliac group? Why is the paladin hanging out with such obviously sick people?

Out of Game, why did the DM ever okay such obviously incompatible characters to play in their game?


Well, to explain, the Huntress' current companions include a Bhaalspawn (the CN fighter), and he actually doesn't care about whatever philosophy the Huntress adhers to as long as she fights good and she doesn't demand more than her predesignated share of the loot. The Bhaalspawn is currently tied down into fighting the Night Masks because of a deal he made with the Emperor of Chessenta (Tchazzar). The NG sorcereress... is currently being duped. The Bhaalspawn is currently working to influence her into changing alignment (quite possibly N or CN).

The Paladin has never been in the same party as the Huntress, so until now we didn't have a problem with it. The Paladin's original party consisted of LG and NG types full of zeal and passion for justice, and they had a near TPK where only the Paladin survived. Then we shelved the party for a few months while we focused on other parties in our campaign. We realized the Paladin would still be alive and kicking in Westgate recently; the Huntress party is well on its way to the city as of the moment.

And yes, we have multiple active parties in this campaign. This is to solve multiple simultaneously ongoing problems in the continent; our campaign is large in scope and long in time-scale.

I'm the DM, and I've promised my players that they are allowed to try and do anything their characters are able to. They are also entitled to all the consequences their actions bring - and they are fine with it. One of the primary focuses of our group is the clash of philosophies (and alignments), and what conclusions we can draw from said clashes. We have characters of all nine alignments in our PCs roster, and rare is the day when we play with a party with more or less the same AL. We believe it makes for a much more interesting and stimulating game. We even had a full PvP situation when a paladin of Tyr decided to question the leadership of the mercenary-style swashbuckler who was interesting in getting the contract done no matter the cost. We ended up with five dead PCs, and to this day we agree it was one of the most intense, and fun, sessions.

[Crake]

Uhh, why isn't slaying the vampire then resurrecting her to her pre-undead state an option?

Edit: hell, just casting resurrection or true resurrection on her without slaying her should return her to normal if she's willing

[meto30]

Uhh, why isn't slaying the vampire then resurrecting her to her pre-undead state an option?

Both the Paladin's and the Huntress' players have ruled that out as an option. To them (and me as well), killing either of them is a better solution - it's what the characters would actually do. As I've explained, the Huntress is not interested in losing her vampirehood. She's not that sort of vampire.

[meto30]

True, but if the paladin is really playing a paladin in that sense... the game will have other issues.

If you are in a scenario where the paladin casts detect evil before anything else then there might be other issues (read lawful stupid)

Well, the Night Court (vampire masters of Westgate) have already exploited the gullibility of the forces of good more than once (and the original Westgate party was wiped out because of such tactics), and at the moment the Paladin would be suicidal to not use her detection measures on anyone who approaches her. The Night Court is aware she is alive, and they're looking for her.


You are really worse than square 1. At this point, not only is it an undead enemy that must be destroyed, it is also a liar that you can't trust, so the paladin has no justification in believing that any deal made with it will be honored on the other side.

Indeed, it is truly worse than square 1.


Ilmater is your best choice. If the huntress is evil, then it's better for Tyr that she dies because "justice!" she's also a big risk for Helm. Give the huntress' player the opportunity to choose to help the pally in a time of need, then it's up to the pally to show her the same mercy she shows him. Hopefully, for both players, the huntress will be willing to help and the pally will be allowed to attempt a conversion.

I'll be contacting the Paladin's player to see his take on converting the Paladin to Ilmater. She'd lose most of the undead-hunter-Van-Helsing-isque quirks, but reflecting on his enthusiasm for the god of mercy in the past, I believe perhaps he will like it enough to do it.

[the clumsy bard]

Turn the paladin into a vampire?

A little if you don't understand me... walk in my shoes?

[Snowbluff]

I know this is absolutely no help to the OP, but this sounds like something straight out of:

They Fight Crime! (http://www.theyfightcrime.org/)

I clicked it for lols and got Catholic Boxer and Pragmatic Journalist from the Grave. :smallsmile:

[Guizonde]

could the paladin and the huntress sign a contract reading something like this?

_______ and _______ hereby sign a pact of temporary non-aggression concerning the elimination of the present threat __________________.
the clauses following are to be respected at all times until the completion of the above mission.

-no infighting is to be done to the detriment of the mission.
-the mission takes precedent over any and all personnal conflict.
-both parties are to be fully involved in the mission and only the mission.
-the contract does not force either party in socializing with the other, beyond mission parameters.

sanctions regarding disregard of the contract:
-?
-?
-?
regarding the termination of the contract:
-once the contract has been signed, it is to last until either the following:
a)the completion of the mission.
b)the death of one or both the parties concerned.
c)the abandonment of the mission by either or both parties.

this contract has been signed by ______ and ______, witnessed by ______, _____, _______, under the authority of _______.

i know throwing contracts like this into the game sounds like blatant metagaming, but unless alignments come into conflict, i guess it should hold up

[Ardantis]

Oh my Gawd, this is like marriage counseling for Romeo and Juliet.

[navar100]

How about Torm? He was bothered by his Church's intolerance against other faiths in the past and has decreed his followers to be more helpful. He's not the jealous type. The idea of a good undead fighting against other undead could be intriguing to the faith.

The Paladin converting can work. Kelemvor is Lawful Neutral. A Paladin can become disillusioned to the strict methodology regardless of circumstances. Having a Code is important, but it's supposed to enlighten not stifle. The Paladin comes to the conclusion Kelemvor is wrong. How the Paladin converts can be interesting roleplay. He needs to do it respectively. He needs to give Kelemvor the Honor he is due.

[meto30]

Turn the paladin into a vampire?

A little if you don't understand me... walk in my shoes?

IIRC th Huntress is uninterested in siring any new vampires, but I'll suggest it to the player.


could the paladin and the huntress sign a contract

i know throwing contracts like this into the game sounds like blatant metagaming, but unless alignments come into conflict, i guess it should hold up

I'm not sure the Huntress would be interested in signing that... and the Paladin faces a Fall from Grace should she sign it. If she converts to Ilmater however I'll suggest the contract.

By the way, I think that's a really nice contract :) I'll be copying it down for future use.


Oh my Gawd, this is like marriage counseling for Romeo and Juliet.

I'm aware the theories are running around in circles :smallredface: It's why I came here to ask for help.


How about Torm? He was bothered by his Church's intolerance against other faiths in the past and has decreed his followers to be more helpful. He's not the jealous type. The idea of a good undead fighting against other undead could be intriguing to the faith.

The Paladin converting can work. Kelemvor is Lawful Neutral. A Paladin can become disillusioned to the strict methodology regardless of circumstances. Having a Code is important, but it's supposed to enlighten not stifle. The Paladin comes to the conclusion Kelemvor is wrong. How the Paladin converts can be interesting roleplay. He needs to do it respectively. He needs to give Kelemvor the Honor he is due.

Torm would be perfect, but there are no Tormite clerics to oversee the conversion. Ilmater's church is present, so if it comes to converting the Paladin, I guess Ilmater will be the way to go.

[Guizonde]

By the way, I think that's a really nice contract :) I'll be copying it down for future use.


thanks:smallredface:, i guess 3 years of law school really do help out after all! :smallbiggrin:

[SaintRidley]

Thank you for your input, but wouldn't that solution entail the Paladin lieing about her intentions to the Huntress? Because the Paladin wouldn't hide her paladinhood once they join forces, and the Huntress would be interested in her self-preservation. She'd have to ask what the Paladin plans to do with her once the Night Masks are done with, and although Kelemvor allows lieing to an extent, I don't think the Paladin's player will be comfortable with that. I'll suggest it to him nevertheless.



Why should the paladin have to lie? She can tell the vampire "I'm going to make you a decent person. I'm going to stick so hard to your side that you'll feel the Good oozing into you. The path to redemption starts here, and I intend to lead you along it. Step one: You only feed on animals now. Got it? Good."

[Talderas]

Unfortunately, the party is in agreement that the Paladin shouldn't be allowed to wiggle her way free of Kelemvor's creed on the undead - it is one of the few things whch Kelemvor cares about. Heck, his knightly order - the Eternal Order - has only one duty, and that's destroying every single undead they can find, even the good elven liches. Besides, it would be unfitting to reinterpret a church we've been consistantly portraying for the last two years. ...Yes, our campaign is in its third year.

The answer is lying.

Either the Huntress bluffs her way around not appearing to be a vampire or she lies while committing to an oath. An oath similar to the following should suffice the paladin's code. "I swear on my life that once the last vampire is destroyed I will destroy myself." In other words, party harmony can be established by the vampire willfully subjecting herself to justice as seen by the paladin at a later date after the conditions of the oath have been fulfilled. In this case, Kelemvor would be satisfied because an undead creature is not being left with free reign and will be destroyed. In the eyes of the paladin and Kelemvor, the vampire is already destroyed, the act has just been delayed.

--


She can tell the vampire "I'm going to make you a decent person. I'm going to stick so hard to your side that you'll feel the Good oozing into you.

That is such a horrible... horrible innuendo...

[meto30]

thanks:smallredface:, i guess 3 years of law school really do help out after all! :smallbiggrin:

Law school! It really shows. :smallwink: I salute you proficiency in legal language, sir!


Why should the paladin have to lie? She can tell the vampire "I'm going to make you a decent person. I'm going to stick so hard to your side that you'll feel the Good oozing into you. The path to redemption starts here, and I intend to lead you along it. Step one: You only feed on animals now. Got it? Good."

As a paladin of Kelemvor, the Paladin is obliged to destroy the Huntress, no negotiations allowed; the Huntress is aware of this. Again, if the Paladin converts, that issue is resolved. Hm, look like it's boiling down to either conversion or PvP...

[meto30]

The answer is lying.

Either the Huntress bluffs her way around not appearing to be a vampire or she lies while committing to an oath. An oath similar to the following should suffice the paladin's code. "I swear on my life that once the last vampire is destroyed I will destroy myself." In other words, party harmony can be established by the vampire willfully subjecting herself to justice as seen by the paladin at a later date after the conditions of the oath have been fulfilled. In this case, Kelemvor would be satisfied because an undead creature is not being left with free reign and will be destroyed. In the eyes of the paladin and Kelemvor, the vampire is already destroyed, the act has just been delayed.

--



That is such a horrible... horrible innuendo...

That... that is MARVELOUS! Why didn't we think of that before?! Not only might that work, it fits perfectly with the Huntress' personality!

But wait, the paladin has max ranks in sense motive. What happens if she sees through the bluff?

[SaintRidley]

Law school! It really shows. :smallwink: I salute you proficiency in legal language, sir!



As a paladin of Kelemvor, the Paladin is obliged to destroy the Huntress, no negotiations allowed; the Huntress is aware of this. Again, if the Paladin converts, that issue is resolved. Hm, look like it's boiling down to either conversion or PvP...

Who said anything about negotiating? I didn't, and there's no negotiating about it. The Paladin insists on the paladin's way and the vampire either disagrees, which case a smiting stake gets shoved in her heart, or the vampire agrees and submits to the destruction of everything the vampire is as it enters a journey of redemption.

[Talderas]

That... that is MARVELOUS! Why didn't we think of that before?! Not only might that work, it fits perfectly with the Huntress' personality!

But wait, the paladin has max ranks in sense motive. What happens if she sees through the bluff?

Who said it needed to be a bluff? There's plenty of ways to word an oath to avoid needing to self destruct.

Here's a few example.

"On my life, I swear to help you destroy all undead until you die of old age."
How do you get out of this oath? Make sure the paladin doesn't die of old age.

"On my life, I swear to help you destroy all vampires until I am the last one."
How do you get out of this oath? You don't, but as a vampire she can make sure there are plenty of vampires left for him to destroy.

Paladins don't fall if they get duped.

[Rubik]

That... that is MARVELOUS! Why didn't we think of that before?! Not only might that work, it fits perfectly with the Huntress' personality!

But wait, the paladin has max ranks in sense motive. What happens if she sees through the bluff?This. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/glibness.htm) akjahdlkfjhadsf Stupid minimum character length

[JeenLeen]

That... that is MARVELOUS! Why didn't we think of that before?! Not only might that work, it fits perfectly with the Huntress' personality!

But wait, the paladin has max ranks in sense motive. What happens if she sees through the bluff?

Why would the Paladin accept this oath if it's not supernaturally enforced? If signing a contract would cause a Fall from Grace, I don't see why accepting an oath like this would be different?

If a player can cast Geas with it, that'd be different, but I could see it hard for the Huntress to accept that.

If the Paladin does accept it, great, but you should think about this beforehand in case he does as well.

[Eldonauran]

That... that is MARVELOUS! Why didn't we think of that before?! Not only might that work, it fits perfectly with the Huntress' personality!

But wait, the paladin has max ranks in sense motive. What happens if she sees through the bluff?

Actually, the solution isn't lying, it is telling the "truth".

From what I gather from your posts, this vampire enjoys killing other vampires, just for the thrills. From her perspective, what happens when all the other vampires are gone? Who does she hunt that might prove worthy of her attentions? An oath to destroy herself might be adequate for one so old, no seeing a point in continued existence.

So, she swears an oath. Magical oversight or not. She knows the paladin will make it her life mission to slay her if she renegades from the deal. Wonderful thing is, everyone grows old and dies (that is alive). A mission to slay ALL the vampires will take several lifetimes, expecially if the oath is left open-ended by design (hint hint) or mistake. They might mean all the vampires infiltrating the government but they worded it poorly and the vampire can use it to mean all the vampires in existence. Besides, one can always change their mind later. She can subvert any kind of magical enforcement, given enough time.

By the way, what a wonderful situation you have brewing. Exciting...

[KillingAScarab]

I would like to start by saying the little I know of Kelemvor has made me a fan of him, yet I also like the idea of this Huntress, so I'm rooting for both sides. This campaign sounds very good and I wish you the best with it.


Why would the Paladin accept this oath if it's not supernaturally enforced? If signing a contract would cause a Fall from Grace, I don't see why accepting an oath like this would be different?

If a player can cast Geas with it, that'd be different, but I could see it hard for the Huntress to accept that.

If the Paladin does accept it, great, but you should think about this beforehand in case he does as well.Kelemvor is lawful, but more along the lines of seeking an order to death so that people need not fear dying. He isn't interested in actual laws or contracts, as I understand it. So, I guess it comes down to whether the paladin is the kind of person who seeks contracts.

If the Huntress is slaying vampires not just for the thrill but also because she believes she gains power from them, somewhat like The Game in Highlander, she is already seeking to become the last vampire. However, if there is a geas or something similar, why should she wish promise now to relinquish her existence in the future once she has that much power?

What about something similar to the Dragonball Z cycle (http://www.lilformers.com/blog/2008/07/14/07142008/)? The paladin and the Huntress fight and the paladin is simply unable to destroy the Huntress. The Huntress is amused enough to allow the paladin to live. Only continued association with the undead would result in a fall, right? Any conversion of the paladin to a different church (you said Torm would work well, but isn't available now) could take place later, so long as the paladin is making efforts along the way when possible to destroy the Huntress, but their common foe is the lower-hanging fruit or there are other greater obligations (the passage in Faiths and Pantheons regarding the Lament of the Fallen comes to mind).

[drax75]

I think a lot of people have been hinting at this or said it out right but if you read the class description in the book about Paladin's they have a strict moral code.

They cannot for any reason break that code. Traveling with a "evil" creature or working with one would break that. Even neutral characters can perform evil acts they can also perform good acts, thats why they are neutral.

Paladin is the hardest character in the game to play in my opinion because according to the rules in the class description you have a "STRICT" moral code.

I would say have your character play crusader or swordsage with maybe some Paladin flair.

[meto30]

Who said anything about negotiating? I didn't, and there's no negotiating about it. The Paladin insists on the paladin's way and the vampire either disagrees, which case a smiting stake gets shoved in her heart, or the vampire agrees and submits to the destruction of everything the vampire is as it enters a journey of redemption.

Since it's a pally of Kelemvor we're talking about, the Paladin having her way would mean the vampire's destruction. So from the Huntress' point of view, it's a stake through her heart either way. Kelemvor does not suffer any undead to remain - the point is to destroy all undead simply because they're undead, he doesn't care about their alignment or their philisophies.



Who said it needed to be a bluff? There's plenty of ways to word an oath to avoid needing to self destruct.

Paladins don't fall if they get duped.

That's still lieing in the spirit of the concourse, and she'd still need to roll bluff to hide the fact that she's duping the paladin.



This. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/glibness.htm) akjahdlkfjhadsf Stupid minimum character length

Unfortunately there are no bards in the party :smallfrown:



Why would the Paladin accept this oath if it's not supernaturally enforced? If signing a contract would cause a Fall from Grace, I don't see why accepting an oath like this would be different?

If a player can cast Geas with it, that'd be different, but I could see it hard for the Huntress to accept that.

If the Paladin does accept it, great, but you should think about this beforehand in case he does as well.

The difference, as I see it, is that the latter involves the vampire being destroyed after the Night Masks are taken care of, which I believe would not violate the Kelemvoran creed, at least not directly. It's something a lot of other Kelemvoran clerics and paladins would not approve of, but it's a workable concept, and there's no hiding the fact that the forces of good at Westgate are in desperate need of aid, from whatever source.

The Huntress can swear an oath to the effect of her self-destruction being the final result. It's not strictly acceptable, but given the circumstances I think even Kelemvor will approve of it, for now.



Actually, the solution isn't lying, it is telling the "truth".

From what I gather from your posts, this vampire enjoys killing other vampires, just for the thrills. From her perspective, what happens when all the other vampires are gone? Who does she hunt that might prove worthy of her attentions? An oath to destroy herself might be adequate for one so old, no seeing a point in continued existence.

So, she swears an oath. Magical oversight or not. She knows the paladin will make it her life mission to slay her if she renegades from the deal. Wonderful thing is, everyone grows old and dies (that is alive). A mission to slay ALL the vampires will take several lifetimes, expecially if the oath is left open-ended by design (hint hint) or mistake. They might mean all the vampires infiltrating the government but they worded it poorly and the vampire can use it to mean all the vampires in existence. Besides, one can always change their mind later. She can subvert any kind of magical enforcement, given enough time.

By the way, what a wonderful situation you have brewing. Exciting...

The paladin should be aware of such possible loopholes and will word the oath/contract to mention the Night Masks specifically. And as the arbitrator of this exchange, I'm obliged by the rules to notify the Paladin's player of this possible loophole, especially since I'm well aware of it.

Both the Huntress and the Paladin would agree to the observation that it would take several centuries to destroy all vampires in Toril, assuming that's even possible. It's like trying to eradicate an evil church - history has proven that it's easier to kill the evil deity instead.



I think a lot of people have been hinting at this or said it out right but if you read the class description in the book about Paladin's they have a strict moral code.

They cannot for any reason break that code. Traveling with a "evil" creature or working with one would break that. Even neutral characters can perform evil acts they can also perform good acts, thats why they are neutral.

Paladin is the hardest character in the game to play in my opinion because according to the rules in the class description you have a "STRICT" moral code.

I would say have your character play crusader or swordsage with maybe some Paladin flair.

I'd rather not argue about the Book of Nine Arguments in this thread not now; suffice to say, I have banned ToB from our campaign.



I would like to start by saying the little I know of Kelemvor has made me a fan of him, yet I also like the idea of this Huntress, so I'm rooting for both sides. This campaign sounds very good and I wish you the best with it.

Kelemvor is lawful, but more along the lines of seeking an order to death so that people need not fear dying. He isn't interested in actual laws or contracts, as I understand it. So, I guess it comes down to whether the paladin is the kind of person who seeks contracts.

If the Huntress is slaying vampires not just for the thrill but also because she believes she gains power from them, somewhat like The Game in Highlander, she is already seeking to become the last vampire. However, if there is a geas or something similar, why should she wish promise now to relinquish her existence in the future once she has that much power?

What about something similar to the Dragonball Z cycle (http://www.lilformers.com/blog/2008/07/14/07142008/)? The paladin and the Huntress fight and the paladin is simply unable to destroy the Huntress. The Huntress is amused enough to allow the paladin to live. Only continued association with the undead would result in a fall, right? Any conversion of the paladin to a different church (you said Torm would work well, but isn't available now) could take place later, so long as the paladin is making efforts along the way when possible to destroy the Huntress, but their common foe is the lower-hanging fruit or there are other greater obligations (the passage in Faiths and Pantheons regarding the Lament of the Fallen comes to mind).


It's good to see a fellow lover of Kelemvor. He's an interesting god, but more importantly, he is an interesting character. His unwilling servitude to the Divine Order makes his story even more interesting, methinks. Thank you for your interest in our campaign. :smallsmile:

You've seen correctly that the Huntress seeks to become the final, ultimate vampire. :smallcool: Although it is an extremely long-term goal; to the point that the goal has no bearing on our campaign other than as the Huntress' fluff.

The Dragonball Z idea seems very nice, fitting story-wise, and workable from a game viewpoint. I'll suggest it to the players.

[meto30]

It's morning here in Korea, and I've sent a message to the Paladin's and the Huntress' players as they'd be awake by now. I was correct, and the players have reviewed this thread and made a decision. It's a combination of KillingAScarab's Dragonball Z idea and the conversion to Ilmater idea. We've worked out a story mini-arc for it.

First, the Huntress unknowingly saves the Paladin. Assuming the Paladin is actually rescued, she at a later date recognizes the Huntress as a vampire and attempts to slay her. If the Huntress wins (which we expect), she spares the assailant. The Paladin then would question her church's creed on destroying all undead, decides some undead are actually different, and converts to Ilmater.

It's complicated somewhat, but I think it's a story we'll be satisfied with.

[Worira]

Who said anything about negotiating? I didn't, and there's no negotiating about it. The Paladin insists on the paladin's way and the vampire either disagrees, which case a smiting stake gets shoved in her heart, or the vampire agrees and submits to the destruction of everything the vampire is as it enters a journey of redemption.

Or, you know, shank the paladin.

[Eldonauran]

It's morning here in Korea, and I've sent a message to the Paladin's and the Huntress' players as they'd be awake by now. I was correct, and the players have reviewed this thread and made a decision. It's a combination of KillingAScarab's Dragonball Z idea and the conversion to Ilmater idea. We've worked out a story mini-arc for it.

First, the Huntress unknowingly saves the Paladin. Assuming the Paladin is actually rescued, she at a later date recognizes the Huntress as a vampire and attempts to slay her. If the Huntress wins (which we expect), she spares the assailant. The Paladin then would question her church's creed on destroying all undead, decides some undead are actually different, and converts to Ilmater.

It's complicated somewhat, but I think it's a story we'll be satisfied with.

I can believe a story like that. I think you mentioned something about the paladin's former comrades falling in a near TPK and this paladin is the sole survivor? You can also use that as a partial motivator towards turning towards Ilmater, should the paladin carry any unresolved guilt over their deaths.

[meto30]

I can believe a story like that. I think you mentioned something about the paladin's former comrades falling in a near TPK and this paladin is the sole survivor? You can also use that as a partial motivator towards turning towards Ilmater, should the paladin carry any unresolved guilt over their deaths.

That is a very nice motivator indeed. Thank you, I'll relay that to the Paladin's player and recommend it.

[KillingAScarab]

It's morning here in Korea, and I've sent a message to the Paladin's and the Huntress' players as they'd be awake by now. I was correct, and the players have reviewed this thread and made a decision. It's a combination of KillingAScarab's Dragonball Z idea and the conversion to Ilmater idea. We've worked out a story mini-arc for it.

First, the Huntress unknowingly saves the Paladin. Assuming the Paladin is actually rescued, she at a later date recognizes the Huntress as a vampire and attempts to slay her. If the Huntress wins (which we expect), she spares the assailant. The Paladin then would question her church's creed on destroying all undead, decides some undead are actually different, and converts to Ilmater.

It's complicated somewhat, but I think it's a story we'll be satisfied with.Yay! If you would favor us with an update on how it turns out, I would like to know.