Succubus Profane Gift question

[Iceheart2112]

I was reading through this thread http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?445252-Succubi-Dos-and-Don-ts and got to thinking about its machinations and other such things. Here's a hypothetical: She sidles up to a paladin, successfully bluffs him/tricks/seduces him into believing she's human/elf/not-a-demon. He's getting ready to travel off on a dangerous mission and she says something to the effect of "Let me pray over you and grant you strength on your mission" and goes to gives him the Profane Gift. Another successful bluff check later, and its granted to the paladin. As a DM I'd rule that he would not fall, as it wasn't a willing evil act; he truly believes the succubus is a person and is trying to help him. I'm also waffling back and forth on the idea that a profane bonus isn't 'evil' per se, just another qualifier so you can stack it on top of other bonuses.

Any thoughts on the subject Playgrounders?

[AvatarVecna]

I wish that succubus good luck in not triggering the Evil Detector built into the paladin's head.

[MyrPsychologist]

Presuming the succubus bypasses the paladin's spider sense?

Sure. I'd let it go as acceptable for the paladin to benefit from a profane bonus. He isn't creating evil or bringing evil forth into the world. He didn't even request it be given to him and wasn't even aware of what it was. It's just helping him smack evil in the jaw.

[Nibbens]

I wish that succubus good luck in not triggering the Evil Detector built into the paladin's head.


Presuming the succubus bypasses the paladin's spider sense?

Bypassing the Paladins spider sense is very easy (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/spells/misdirection.html).

On a second note though, I'd rule he doesn't fall, but once he knows the bonus comes from a profane source, he'd feel dirty using it, and I'd probably rule he'd want to get rid of it. He wouldn't lose powers, but a short while later he may want to get an atonement to wash the stink off before it "sinks in."

But of course, that's how I roll with atonement - it may not be suitable for everyone.

[Psyren]

The broader question being asked here is "can you be tricked into being willing?" Or more precisely "does being willing to do one thing, and thinking you're about to be exposed to that thing, mean you can be deceived to count as willing for something different?"

I would personally say no, or even if it were yes, that they couldn't be penalized for it.

[Reprimand]

can you be tricked into being willing?

I have this really cool buff spell that can give you a permanent +2 to an ability score.

[Psyren]

I have this really cool buff spell that can give you a permanent +2 to an ability score.

Forsooth! What is this "ability score" of which thou pratest, knave?!

[Crake]

Isn't accepting the profane gift considered a chaotic act anyway? Not an evil act?

Nope, I was thinking of the lilitu's gift, which is very similar, but not quite. Then no, it is in no way evil at all. If the paladin was aware of the succubus' nature, he would be breaking the associates clause of his code of conduct, but he's not, so there's nothing wrong with it, at least from the paladin falling standpoint.


The broader question being asked here is "can you be tricked into being willing?" Or more precisely "does being willing to do one thing, and thinking you're about to be exposed to that thing, mean you can be deceived to count as willing for something different?"

I would personally say no, or even if it were yes, that they couldn't be penalized for it.

I personally rule making yourself willing for a spell makes you completely vulnerable toward that person. Of course, the willingness comes at the moment the ability is used, so in the case of spells, a spellcaster can spellcraft what is being cast (though that can be fooled by things like false theurgy).

[Psyren]

I personally rule making yourself willing for a spell makes you completely vulnerable toward that person. Of course, the willingness comes at the moment the ability is used, so in the case of spells, a spellcaster can spellcraft what is being cast (though that can be fooled by things like false theurgy).

I could see an argument for that approach, but this FAQ (http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748btpy88yj/faq#v5748eaic9p1l) suggests otherwise. It refers to drinking potions but I think we can extrapolate intent.


Potions: If I drink a potion, do I automatically forgo my save against that potion?

No. Nothing in the potion rules says it changes whether or not you get a saving throw against the spell stored in the potion. Even if someone hands you a potion of poison and tells you it’s a potion of cure serious wounds, you still get a save.

[Crake]

I could see an argument for that approach, but this FAQ (http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748btpy88yj/faq#v5748eaic9p1l) suggests otherwise. It refers to drinking potions but I think we can extrapolate intent.

Bah, I dunno, it's 4:30am for me. I'd come up with something about natural bodily responses against a poison, and that spellcasting involves a mental aspect, and how cure light is a (harmless) spell etc etc But nothing coherent is coming to me right now.

That's how I rule it anyway, which means people in my games only open themselves to people they trust with their lives.

[Aldrakan]

I wouldn't think it would be a problem. You don't need to say "she touches you and you feel a horrible corrupting sensation that clearly reveals she's evil" after all, the profane gift presumably is supposed to feel nice. She says she's giving strength, she gives strength; the character has no reason to notice something's up. Identifying that it's from a different source than she suggested is a separate thing. (It does specify that it's a touch but also takes a full round, suggesting the contact is a little more involved than the standard touch spell, so that could be a clue.)

More generally as to whether you get a save if you're expecting it to be a helpful spell, you could probably argue that you at least get a circumstance penalty on the save. I know potions mechanically take place immediately, but they feel like something that should take a few moments to take effect and let you feel their effect starting (or with poisons, like an automatic physical response), while for the spell you would only have an instant to realize the effect happening isn't what you were told.

[SangoProduction]

For me, personally? I remove the whole "falling" mechanic entirely. You may as well kill them for all it does for their class.

[Psyren]

For me, personally? I remove the whole "falling" mechanic entirely. You may as well kill them for all it does for their class.

I dunno, Atonement is a lot cheaper than Raise Dead.

I view falling more as a stick to nudge a divine caster back onto the path of not doing something their Power would disagree fervently with - not as a "gotcha" to let them do whatever it is and then yoink their class features afterward, unless they're being very brash.

[MyrPsychologist]

I dunno, Atonement is a lot cheaper than Raise Dead.

I view falling more as a stick to nudge a divine caster back onto the path of not doing something their Power would disagree fervently with - not as a "gotcha" to let them do whatever it is and then yoink their class features afterward, unless they're being very brash.

It can also be a great story developing tool that can help flush out a character and make their development more interesting.

[Arbane]

It can also be a great story developing tool that can help flush out a character and make their development more interesting.

I suppose it COULD, but that doesn't seem to be how it's usually used.

(Protip to bad GMs: Just because a paladin CAN fall, doesn't mean they MUST.)