Baby Armor?

[Kilmrak]

Alright, im DMing a session and one of my players is a paladin and was wondering if someone (likely his blackgaurd nemisis) wore armor made entirely of living human babies, if he would be moraly allowed to attack him.

I know its a ridiculous notion but I was intriged and wanted to see what others thought.

[Crow]

Are you trying to start a flame war?

[The Glyphstone]

Agreed, this topic has nowhere to go but down, and fast.

Mods may want to just lock it pre-emptively...please?

[hamishspence]

in BoVD the villain who calls himself "The Dread Emperor" has children chained to his armour, to boost his power.

Concerning the Living Shields issue, controversial as it is, it deserves an answer- which is- by BoED rules, yes:

if killing evil children of orc village is evil, when you catch them in the same fireball that was aimed at warriors, than killing Innocent Living Shields must be even more evil.

however, not all fictional moral systems follow this. in Outbound Flight- Thrawn, despite describing Living Shields as the most evil and cowardly form of defense ever conceived, is willing to fire on them anyway.

[hamishspence]

you never know, this could turn into a long and complicated debate on the whole issue of "Is it OK to kill innocent people in the process if its the only clear way to take out an incredibly evil villain?" and not deteriorate until very late.

I'd like it to go that way, at least

[ColdSepp]

in BoVD the villain who calls himself "The Dread Emperor" has children chained to his armour, to boost his power.

Concerning the Living Shields issue, controversial as it is, it deserves an answer- which is- by BoED rules, yes:

if killing evil children of orc village is evil, when you catch them in the same fireball that was aimed at warriors, than killing Innocent Living Shields must be even more evil.

however, not all fictional moral systems follow this. in Outbound Flight- Thrawn, despite describing Living Shields as the most evil and cowardly form of defense ever conceived, is willing to fire on them anyway.

They where the enemy, though. And it was either that or send his own men to die.

[hamishspence]

and, like I said- the living shields, weren't the enemy- they were hostages. Thrawn always tended toward pragmatism,(which is eventually what got him exiled in the first place)

[RTGoodman]

This isn't some new idea - people have used this idea to start flame wars all over the internet. It can only end badly, even if the OP didn't intend it that way.

And remember kids - if you're DMing and you're purposefully looking for inane, damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't ways to make your Paladin PC fall, you're Doing It Wrong^TM and you deserve it when your players leave you.

[hamishspence]

good point. though there are various non-lethal ways of immobilising the villain.

But yes- as a rule, unless there is a way (even if its a difficult way) to resolve the situation without falling- its unfair to throw it at the player- BoED even says that.

[Jack_Simth]

Alright, im DMing a session and one of my players is a paladin and was wondering if someone (likely his blackgaurd nemisis) wore armor made entirely of living human babies, if he would be moraly allowed to attack him.

I know its a ridiculous notion but I was intriged and wanted to see what others thought.

As a DM, I would not have the Paladin fall for choosing to try it. While it's not a good act, it's not necessarily an evil one, either. As a DM, when I put a Paladin in such an ambiguous situation, there are no particular repercussions for picking one of two grays. It's when the situation is a lot less ambiguous that there are consequences. I also don't generally tell my Paladin players this - it's an RP opportunity (although this does have a habit of making it look like I like to watch players squirm...).

[chiasaur11]

Simple.

Smite Evil. The babies, not being evil, will be uninjured, the villain will be hurt, problem solved.

[Jack_Simth]

Simple.

Smite Evil. The babies, not being evil, will be uninjured, the villain will be hurt, problem solved.

Do note that even on a "failed" smite evil, normal weapon damage still applies....

[RTGoodman]

Also, thinking about it, I don't think there are any rules anywhere that say what happens when you miss with an attack, especially regarding damage armor (outside of sundering); thus, even if you miss your attack roll, the babies don't get hurt.

If I were the Paladin, I'd go to town with full PA, Smite Evil, and all that, describing any miss as "I pull the blow to keep from hitting a baby" and each hit as "I maneuver my blade to stab the blackguard through the chink in his baby armor."

I could be wrong, though.


EDIT: @\/: It adds your Charisma mod to your attack roll and your Paladin level to damage.

[T-O-E]

Doesn't Smite Evil only add a bonus to the damage?

[TheCountAlucard]

Also, thinking about it, I don't think there are any rules anywhere that say what happens when you miss with an attack, especially regarding damage armor (outside of sundering)...

Actually, you can't use sunder on worn armor, either. Basically, the only way to damage the armor is to roll a 1 on a Reflex save against Fireball or somesuch.

[Fenix_of_Doom]

Alright, im DMing a session and one of my players is a paladin and was wondering if someone (likely his blackgaurd nemisis) wore armor made entirely of living human babies, if he would be moraly allowed to attack him.

I suppose you could use non-lethal damage and then it would be all right.
Besides I doubt that blackgaurd would be much of a thread, it's doubtful he has exotic armour proficiency: baby armour and the armour check penalty on an armour like that is probably huge.

[Pandaren]

Do note that even on a "failed" smite evil, normal weapon damage still applies....

Exactly, and considering it's not possible to attack the ....something without hitting the babies, the smites would be wasted, and you'd have dead baby on your hands.



Nonlethal damage would work, by the rules, but punching most babies tends to kill them, smacking them with the flat of a sword would probably kill them in reality.

[Raroy]

He could get a sword that can only hurt evil. It phases through neutral and good beings.

[Pandaren]

He could get a sword that can only hurt evil. It phases through neutral and good beings.

Babies are nuetral...? I'm guessing a yes..

[hamishspence]

thats the advantage of being in a party- a wizard can paralyse the villain.

[Fax Celestis]

Do note that even on a "failed" smite evil, normal weapon damage still applies....

Smite evil touch attacks deal damage only to evil creatures.

[Zeful]

Actually, you can't use sunder on worn armor, either. Basically, the only way to damage the armor is to roll a 1 on a Reflex save against Fireball or somesuch.

Which means a paladin can wail away on baby armor all he wants, without harming the babies.

I have a question. If an evil wizard Magic Jard a baby. Could a paladin attack said baby without repercussions?

[Pandaren]

Smite evil touch attacks deal damage only to evil creatures.

The extra damage is only to evil creatures, the normal damage is still dealt if a good or nuetral creature is hit.

Which means a paladin can wail away on baby armor all he wants, without harming the babies.

I have a question. If an evil wizard Magic Jard a baby. Could a paladin attack said baby without repercussions?

Hitting usually involved cutting through armor, critical hits are the only that do not have to bypass armor, because they attack vital unprotected spots.

[Zeful]

The extra damage is only to evil creatures, the normal damage is still dealt if a good or nuetral creature is hit.

Touch attacks don't actually do any damage, so adding a smite evil to one only deals cha mod of damage.

[Crow]

Also, thinking about it, I don't think there are any rules anywhere that say what happens when you miss with an attack, especially regarding damage armor (outside of sundering); thus, even if you miss your attack roll, the babies don't get hurt.

If I were the Paladin, I'd go to town with full PA, Smite Evil, and all that, describing any miss as "I pull the blow to keep from hitting a baby" and each hit as "I maneuver my blade to stab the blackguard through the chink in his baby armor."

We have a winner.

[hamishspence]

interesting question- if baby's soul is not in body, does it cease to be "an innocent" when there is a powerful evil soul present?

[Fenix_of_Doom]

Which means a paladin can wail away on baby armor all he wants, without harming the babies.

Not with only 2-5 smites per day....

Smite Evil (Su)

Once per day, a paladin may attempt to smite evil with one normal melee attack. She adds her Charisma bonus (if any) to her attack roll and deals 1 extra point of damage per paladin level. If the paladin accidentally smites a creature that is not evil, the smite has no effect, but the ability is still used up for that day.

Interpretation depends on the word "with" if this means you attack and smite evil than you still deal normal melee damage if this means you use a smite evil instead of the melee attack then you would deal no damage.
I think the first one is correct but I can see where Fax is coming from.

[Devils_Advocate]

Do note that even on a "failed" smite evil, normal weapon damage still applies....

Well, by RAW, "the smite has no effect". Normal weapon damage is definitely an effect.

It depends on how you determine "smite" in context. A smite is just a strike, so by the most literal possible interpretation, it's just as though you never struck the target. You could argue that "smite" is intended to mean a use of the Paladin's Smite Evil class feature, but that's purely RAI.

[ColdSepp]

and, like I said- the living shields, weren't the enemy- they were hostages. Thrawn always tended toward pragmatism,(which is eventually what got him exiled in the first place)

Phf. It was all part of his master plan.

[hamishspence]

probably. Still, at the time, until he managed to win her over, the less pragmatic Maris Ferasi seemed a bit shocked.