(Pathfinder) Another dumb pally question...

[Nibbens]

Okay, say we have a paladin charging a BBEG - trying to kill him.
BBEG raises his shield to intercept the attack. Oops! the shield is an innocent human who takes damage from the strike and dies.
Does the pally fall?
Addendum: The pally does not know the human would be used as a shield, he just thought that the innocent was being strangled and charged to the rescue.
Edit: The reason I ask, is because this will be happening tonight (i'm almost certain at least). I want to know how to proceed. Any ideas, playgrounders?
PS. Solution found - alerting the PC mid charge that any damage dealt will be done to the human, will stop his charge most likely, and if he continues, he'll fall. But i'm still curious as to the original question. If the DM was a total jerk and did this, what would you rule?

[Abd al-Azrad]

Well. First off there is no mechanic I know of that allows this sort of thing to happen. Even if the BBEG takes cover behind a helpless innocent, at best you're talking about a +4 cover bonus to AC, one that does not force the paladin to actually strike the intervening innocent.

Second, you pretty much can't fit two medium-sized creatures in the same space. You'd have to make your shield out of pixies or something, or else the two wouldn't be able to occupy the same square, nor would the human shield provide an AC bonus vs. melee attacks at all. Granted, its presence would cause a charge attack to likely fail, but that's a separate issue.

Third, even if the BBEG somehow does make an effective shield out of the innocent, there are no rules that state that shields / armors take the damage instead of the person they exist to protect, when you strike that person and fail to overcome their AC. If a DM rules this way, it also means they implicitly allow for ALL failed attack rolls to act as impromptu successful sunder attempts against the target's shield or armor. Which, again, is completely outside of the rules system.

Really, this sounds like the DM is making up all sorts of spur-of-the-moment combat rules so as to create an unfair situation in which the paladin is forced to fall. This violates both the game rules themselves - strike one - for the sake of penalizing a player for actions they could not possibly have predicted nor defended against - strike two, three, four, five, etc.

EDIT: Frankly, if a BBEG did pull something like this, I would argue that said BBEG is not using this person as a shield. They are, instead, grappling this person. As such, they are inflicted with the Grappled condition (https://sites.google.com/site/pathfinderogc/gamemastering/conditions#TOC-Grappled), making them actually easier to smite, rather than immune to melee attacks as the DM seems to believe.

Whatever the case, please don't do this.

[Nibbens]

Well. First off there is no mechanic I know of that allows this sort of thing to happen. Even if the BBEG takes cover behind a helpless innocent, at best you're talking about a +4 cover bonus to AC, one that does not force the paladin to actually strike the intervening innocent.

Second, you pretty much can't fit two medium-sized creatures in the same space. You'd have to make your shield out of pixies or something, or else the two wouldn't be able to occupy the same square, nor would the human shield provide an AC bonus vs. melee attacks at all. Granted, its presence would cause a charge attack to likely fail, but that's a separate issue.

Third, even if the BBEG somehow does make an effective shield out of the innocent, there are no rules that state that shields / armors take the damage instead of the person they exist to protect, when you strike that person and fail to overcome their AC. If a DM rules this way, it also means they implicitly allow for ALL failed attack rolls to act as impromptu successful sunder attempts against the target's shield or armor. Which, again, is completely outside of the rules system.

Really, this sounds like the DM is making up all sorts of spur-of-the-moment combat rules so as to create an unfair situation in which the paladin is forced to fall. This violates both the game rules themselves - strike one - for the sake of penalizing a player for actions they could not possibly have predicted nor defended against - strike two, three, four, five, etc.

EDIT: Frankly, if a BBEG did pull something like this, I would argue that said BBEG is not using this person as a shield. They are, instead, grappling this person. As such, they are inflicted with the Grappled condition (https://sites.google.com/site/pathfinderogc/gamemastering/conditions#TOC-Grappled), making them actually easier to smite, rather than immune to melee attacks as the DM seems to believe.

Whatever the case, please don't do this.

The point is to give the pally the option to fall, not to make him fall.

Homebrewed creature - Extraordinary ability Similar to meat shield. (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/mythicAdventures/mythicHeroes/champion.html#meat-shield)

So, to rephrase. BBEG using Meat Shield forces the Pally to kill the innocent. Pally doesn't know BBEG has meat shield. How do DM's rule?

[Elricaltovilla]

The point is to give the pally the option to fall, not to make him fall.

Homebrewed creature - Extraordinary ability Similar to meat shield. (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/mythicAdventures/mythicHeroes/champion.html#meat-shield)

So, to rephrase. BBEG using Meat Shield forces the Pally to kill the innocent. Pally doesn't know BBEG has meat shield. How do DM's rule?


I wouldn't put my player through this situation at all. You're essentially delivering a big middle finger to their character and creating a specific situation in order to hurt them. Nobody else would suffer from this scenario, so the only conclusion is that you're singling out the Paladin's player and attempting to ruin his fun. Its essentially a form of bullying.

Now, if I were temporarily divested of my sanity and sense of fair play to put my player into this situation, I wouldn't make him fall as a result. It isn't his action which causes the death of the innocent, but the BBEG's. The only possible mechanical scenario in which something like this could work is that the BBEG is essentially readying an action to make a reposition on the innocent to put him in the path of the paladin. This is an act beyond the paladin's control and thus he shouldn't be at fault for it as, mechanically, it would happen simultaneously with his action to attack the BBEG. It would be, in my mind, similar to forcing the Paladin to fall because the BBEG stabbed the innocent guy in the throat with the Paladin's sword.



I would argue that my character would not fall in this situation as the BBEG is the one responsible for the action which caused the death of the innocent NPC. If I was told that it was still my characters fault, I would leave the game. Not only is it mechanically ridiculous, but it targets me singly and ruins my character build and my fun all in one action.

This is one of the major reasons why I never play a paladin, because people see paladin and think its an excuse to ruin a good time for "roleplay." If my Paladin character was truly the virtuous soul that I'd be roleplaying him as, even if he didn't fall, the act of accidentally taking the life of an innocent would be more than enough trauma for months of roleplaying satisfaction. The point is, it should be the player's choice how his character reacts to what happened. Save falling for people who want to go Blackguard.


In addition to what I wrote, I agree with everything Abd Al-Azrad said and would like to TL;DR by saying if you do this you will be bullying a player, and will most likely cause a lot of hurt feelings if not outright driving them from the game.

[Aresneo]

In Pathfinder the Paladin's code specifies that they must Willingly perform an evil act to fall for it, if an innocent is moved into the path of their attack they did not willingly attack them and did not break their code.

[Nibbens]

Now, if I were temporarily divested of my sanity and sense of fair play to put my player into this situation, I wouldn't make him fall as a result.

That's what I was asking for. lol. The group I play with loves this sort of thing - moral dilemmas and whatnot.


You're essentially delivering a big middle finger to their character and creating a specific situation in order to hurt them.

...or anyone else who doesn't want it on their characters consciousness that "they killed an innocent." the moral dilemma exists for any "good" or perhaps even some aspects of "Lawful Neutral" alignment. Even though we're discussing the Pally here and not others, we shouldn't assume that the party is full of nothing but paladins and I'm out to hurt them. lol.

Which is precisely why I asked (regardless of fair play and sanity) how dm's would rule as a completely hypothetical situation - totally based on rules.

Besides, at the level they are at - atonement spells cheap and they know this. lol.

[Nibbens]

In Pathfinder [...] they must Willingly perform an evil act to fall for it, if an innocent is moved into the path of their attack they did not willingly

Ahhh! There's the rub! That's what I missed. I knew I was missing something. Thanks.

[Elricaltovilla]

...or anyone else who doesn't want it on their characters consciousness that "they killed an innocent." the moral dilemma exists for any "good" or perhaps even some aspects of "Lawful Neutral" alignment. Even though we're discussing the Pally here and not others, we shouldn't assume that the party is full of nothing but paladins and I'm out to hurt them. lol.


You apparently missed a major part of my post:


If my Paladin character was truly the virtuous soul that I'd be roleplaying him as, even if he didn't fall, the act of accidentally taking the life of an innocent would be more than enough trauma for months of roleplaying satisfaction. The point is, it should be the player's choice how his character reacts to what happened. Save falling for people who want to go Blackguard.

Moral dilemmas are fine and can be fun to roleplay, but punishing a character's mechanical effectiveness for something out of their control is something I strongly feel is unnacceptable.

EDIT:

To further my point, no matter how difficult the moral dilemma is that a Good or Lawful Neutral character faces, the only one who actually suffers mechanically is the Paladin, so yes, you are out to hurt the paladin specifically because the Lawful Good Fighter doesn't lose his Bonus Feats and Weapon Training if he ganks a guy in the street.

[Nibbens]

You apparently missed a major part of my post:

Apologies.


Moral dilemmas are fine and can be fun to roleplay, but punishing a character's mechanical effectiveness for something out of their control is something I strongly feel is unnacceptable.

And this, as a DM I totally agree. Falling should always be a choice of the player. I was more concerned with rules and mechanics - which unfortunately is a moot point because of the fact that it is not "willingly" done. I missed that. lol.

Now, if the player knows what'll happen and does it anyway - that's a whole 'nother ball of wax.


To further my point, no matter how difficult the moral dilemma is that a Good or Lawful Neutral character faces, the only one who actually suffers mechanically is the Paladin, so yes, you are out to hurt the paladin specifically because the Lawful Good Fighter doesn't lose his Bonus Feats and Weapon Training if he ganks a guy in the street.

DM's threaten players lives and powers all the time. Poison that drains strength makes fighters less effective. etc. etc. Why should pally's get special protection because they swear an oath?

If I give my enemy Unholy Aura (that drains the fighters strength every time he successfully attacks the enemy) or if I give my enemy Meat Shield to stop the Pally from mauling him on turn one, what's the difference? Or better yet, my players knows the succubus drains levels, yet they go to kill it anyway, because that's what players do.

Addtl: So under your argument, anything that damages a players abilities or skills should be negated from the game?

Attonement costs 1000gp (or extra for willing acts) regaining str points cost a little less, agreed. But isn't it all just one more form of the same thing?

[LTwerewolf]

This is pretty much why my table threw out the idea of a fallen paladin altogether. When the oath is there, dms make up excuses to cause a fall. What is so wrong with not penalizing a player playing a paladin over a cleric any more than not picking the cleric? Because that's what these always turn into. "Well that sucks. I started out with less power than a cleric, and now because I'm not playing a cleric, I don't have any at all. This is fun." It's a good way to get people to walk away from the table.

Now if they do something heinous that would cause a cleric's deity to stop giving them their spells, that's a little different. For example a cleric of Pelor that goes around and begins building an undead army to take over the world probably won't have their spells for very long. But again, this is very different than "whoops, you made the mistake of rolling that class when I want to be a douche dm, so there ya go." You could just tell them "yeah you fell because I said so and I was going to make you do it anyhow." To the player, it's really not different.

[aleucard]

If you go through with this in full, then please post a picture of you after you get the appropriate instant karma for being the kind of DM that makes people hate tabletop gaming.

Were I the player, I'd either 1) tell you to either stop the bull@#$^ or piss off, or 2) take this ball and run with it to Blackguard, and do so in the most uncomfortably twisted Evil fashion possible, because that's the only thing you could realistically want from this. If you'd pull this crap out of your [donkey] at random once, who's to say you're not going to turn it into a protracted game of Wak-a-Pally? Maybe you should abuse some of the clauses in other players' characters that bricks their sheet for laughs. Or is the only ones that can be realistically done to Paladins and Clerics? I'm not sure.

[LTwerewolf]

The BBEG steals the wizard's spell book, glues it to the cleric's holy symbol, which he then force feeds to an innocent after putting a time bomb on them that is essentially a suitcase nuke with a contingency that if the vessel is utterly destroyed with no remnants, the nuke doesn't go off. The fighter's weapons must bne used and will be disintegrated when they hit the innocent, which also has very high damage reduction because of the nuke because things. Therefore the fighter has to use enchanted weapons. He also doesn't know about the whole disintegration thing. Did I mention your wizard's spellbook and cleric's holy symbol hold all of their casting ability and if they get destroyed their casting is gone forever?


That's what you're trying to do with the paladin.

[Nibbens]

If you go through with this in full, then please post a picture of you after you get the appropriate instant karma for being the kind of DM that makes people hate tabletop gaming.

Were I the player, I'd either 1) tell you to either stop the bull@#$^ or piss off, or 2) take this ball and run with it to Blackguard, and do so in the most uncomfortably twisted Evil fashion possible, because that's the only thing you could realistically want from this. If you'd pull this crap out of your [donkey] at random once, who's to say you're not going to turn it into a protracted game of Wak-a-Pally? Maybe you should abuse some of the clauses in other players' characters that bricks their sheet for laughs. Or is the only ones that can be realistically done to Paladins and Clerics? I'm not sure.

Wow. Lot of love here. lol.

1) Not doing it.
1.1) Can't do it because it's not "willingly commiting an evil act."
2) You obviously didn't read my comments. See #1 and 1.1
3) Seriously, you kiss your mother with that mouth?
4) Perhaps you've never had a player who wants to fall as part of his story. Just trying to help a brother out.
5) My god, I hate trolls.

[torrasque666]

Wow. Lot of love here. lol.

1) Not doing it.
1.1) Can't do it because it's not "willingly commiting an evil act."
2) You obviously didn't read my comments. See #1 and 1.1
3) Seriously, you kiss your mother with that mouth?
4) Perhaps you've never had a player who wants to fall as part of his story. Just trying to help a brother out.
5) My god, I hate trolls.

The guys here are never going to endorse the idea of the Paladin falling, despite how easily it is to fix. To them, once fallen, always fallen. I like the idea of a Paladin falling. To me, its not bullying. Well, at least not if the situation would occur regardless of party composition.

If a computer had thrown the same situation at a player, would they feel the computer or the game designer is bullying the player? Probably not. Because in a game, its part of a challenge. Part of the challenge of playing the damn Paladin. While I as a player would not ask to fall, I would still roll with it. If I didn't want the risk of facing a situation where I'd fall, I wouldn't have played a paladin.

[Nibbens]

The guys here are never going to endorse the idea of the Paladin falling, despite how easily it is to fix. To them, once fallen, always fallen. I like the idea of a Paladin falling. To me, its not bullying.

If a computer had thrown the same situation at a player, would they feel the computer or the game designer is bullying the player? Probably not. Because in a game, its part of a challenge. Part of the challenge of playing the damn Paladin. While I as a player would not ask to fall, I would still roll with it. If I didn't want the risk of facing a situation where I'd fall, I wouldn't have played a paladin.

Thanks for the heads up. Falling IS immensely easy to fix and a few minutes of a setback at most. My players are certainly among the lot that understand it.

I know to keep the pally opinion questions in this thread to a minimum, now. lol. Thanks.

[LTwerewolf]

The guys here are never going to endorse the idea of the Paladin falling, despite how easily it is to fix. To them, once fallen, always fallen. I like the idea of a Paladin falling. To me, its not bullying. Well, at least not if the situation would occur regardless of party composition.

If a computer had thrown the same situation at a player, would they feel the computer or the game designer is bullying the player? Probably not. Because in a game, its part of a challenge. Part of the challenge of playing the damn Paladin. While I as a player would not ask to fall, I would still roll with it. If I didn't want the risk of facing a situation where I'd fall, I wouldn't have played a paladin.

It's not about falling. It's about forcing a player to fall. A paladin fall can be an interesting plot point. It can change a character and lead them towards a myriad of options and roleplay opportunities. Where people here get bent out of shape is when the player isn't in on it. Forcing the player to fall brings it from "interesting plot point" to "being a bad dm." Player choice has to matter. Not just character choice, but player choice, and in almost every thread brought up about this topic, character "has a choice" but the player doesn't. This is another one of those situations.

[OldTrees1]

As a DM:

1) I rule that any DM to player miscommunication caused by my DMing should not penalize the player.
2) If the Player knew that there might be a meat shield and the Character did not know, then I would count that as 1 strike against the Paladin's purity.
3) At my table: Paladins are kept informed in character about their failings. Paladins can work to redeem their failings before needing an atonement spell. Paladins only fall if they accumulate enough strikes to outpace their efforts at redemption.