Lou Diamond wrote:
You were the GM, correct Lou? Actually the majority of my posts point to page 36 of the Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play which should answer all your questions. Though it won't tell you that a Paladin would not have defended someone as you imply.
Lou Diamond wrote:
they knew their primary mission was to protect Torch at all costs.
PFS Organized Play wrote:
Characters who commit potentially evil acts (casting spells with the Evil descriptor, killing or maiming someone, etc.) while following specific orders from their faction or the Pathfinder Society, do not suffer alignment infractions.
Did the party have any reason to KNOW the other two guards were innocent? So far no one has mentioned that. Unless Torch himself knew that only that exact guard was a Red Mantis Assassin... then it gets all kinds of confusing.
We're bringing up Paladins (While staying on topic) because it is fun and adding a lot of mirth to the topic.
Edit: Edit: I can make it better, we have the technology.
I have yet to meet a Richard in a PFS, I think the only time thats come up is when someone threatened to change someones alignment to good so they said they had to start burning orphanages to even things out.
Change their alignment to Good?!?! Was he playing a Blackguard! Because I have been playing for quite a large amount of my natural life, and I'll tell you that only the nastiest, vilest rogues and all Paladins get threatened with alignment shifts.
Not saying people are completely twisted and insane about Paladins, but you'll never, ever see a cleric wearing a Phylactery of Faithfulness
The feeling of pleasure and power people get holding this over a player is utterly disgusting to me.
The human decency guide for Organized Play does say the words "MUST warn any player whose character is deviating from his chosen alignment." So everyone should keep that in mind when deciding the consequences after a scenario or module.
That made me laugh considerably harder than I expected!
The gist of the entire page in the Guide to PFS is one of leniency and reason. It mentions consistently evil acts (Most would say Disruptive gameplay) that continue AFTER a warning has been issued.
It follows the prime directive of warn first, don't punish for things beyond control. I do like the example of Burning down an orphanage full of children though, because I can imagine players trying to reason it away. "That Orphanage attacked me!"
Bob Jonquet wrote:
We could use the Guide to Society Organized play Page 36 as our guide.
Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play:
"We believe a deity would forgive a one-time bad choice as long as the action wasn’t too egregious (such as burning down an orphanage full of children, killing a peasant for no good reason but sport, etc.)."
Of course, that probably isn't written with Paladins in mind, for the Paladin to have unknowingly slain two innocent guards to defend Grandmaster Torch when both he and the party were assaulted by the third guard is unforgivable by any Deity and I think it should shift his alignment to Neutral if not Evil.
The right thing to do would have been call a time-out to ask both other guards if they were also going to stab Torch.
Edit: Edit: Removed Edit. Edit-ception.
I'm Ryan and I'll be testing the waters with Renkan the Untrusting.
He's a muscular and tall man who tried hard to be a miner for a year before being fired. He lost his family due to work stress and spent a lot of time listening to preachers in the streets about how it's the selfish misuse of magic and devils that's done led to his sorry state of affairs.
He's recently joined the church of Freya in a pathetic and lonely attempt to find a new wife.
Pathfinder/3.5 Dungeon Crawler on Google+ Hangouts with Roll20.
First game will be Saturday, February 23rd at 1700 EST.
Feel fear for the last time as you delve into a sandbox Giga-Dungeon over multiple sessions in search of Evil, Wonder, and Treasure.
Requirements for Characters and Play::
-Starting Level: 1
All Pathfinder and 3.5 material allowed.
Pre-Generated Characters are available.
Semi-Free Form: Accurate Maps, Locations, and Sight-Distance provided, true movement determined through role-playing.
I plan on playing at a high periodicity, at least weekly as I am free to GM nearly every night in the evening.
If enough players express interest I am willing to open a second Game on any day in the evening. (Several Hours inbetween 1730-2200 EST)
I posted this in the Looking For Group portion of Roll20 three hours ago and already have three players, so I expect spots to fill rapidly. Please PM or Post.
@Dak Thunderkeg, Ah, Dak, I'll address that personally. I was in teamspeak with Waruko and made a very aggressive and rapid post pointing out the logical flaws in a post by a seperate user.
I then saw you had managed to sneak a post in 5 seconds ahead of me, and began editing it for my response to you. Which was requesting that instead of stating that the treaty (AS described by TEO's Bluddwolf and not by me) was rather vague, you instead post suggestions as to what should be contained in it. No offense to you, I was respectfully asked to remove that post due to it's aggression towards a seperate user.
Although I felt it was sincere and reasonable.
(This thread so far has been a blast, it's all fire and brimstone, obfuscation and misdirection, and the baseless assumption of both gameplay and that more than 3%+/-2.27% of the game will role play)
Do you remember Matthew Peck who kept attacking Pathfinder Online and would only run from a thread insulting it when Ryan Dancey would appear and question his motives? I see someone very similar in this thread.
Someone who skips over every post of actual relevance and seeks only to fuel the people who regurgitate their opinion without reading any of the thread.
All the while claiming it was "Discussion" as he gets off to all of the misdirection. He even got praised for his straw man "clear" arguments and trolling, and does it ever make him feel special.
The only time he concedes a point is when directly called out on it, then he goes back as if he didn't know that point so that new thread readers will be ignorant and make assumptions about what was actually talked about.
The irony of this all is that a thread about initial discussions on an alliance against the games end was hijacked by someone who wanted to spread grief to other people for his own sick pleasure.
Recapping Key Points of this Text WALL
The Treaty of Rovagug is a pact intended to be signed by the majority of Guilds in PFO, no matter their size or alignment!
It is NOT a set of rules to follow, it is NOT some cheap law to oppress certain play-styles.
It Is a pact to unite all organizations in the event that WHEN a large entity comes to destroy PFO and destroy everything people have spent months or years forging and crafting.. we will work together.
So that we even stand a chance.
It's a pity, you were being serious and completely reasonable for the first five. For the sixth you assumed this is a law... it is not, this is a document where companies pledge aid against a common and powerful foe in an end of our world scenario.
We do not intend to enforce behavior, or push our own upon others, this is a Pact to exact concerted arms upon an entity who violates the articles we as a group decide upon.
Really, it's not a law, stop changing what you're talking about mid-sentence, it's hard to tell when you're serious!
Since everyone ignored this:
I can see that you are in complete agreement with us and the purpose of the treaty!
I hope you reconsider needing recompense for when the end of the world, including yourselves, bears it's fangs.
Just remember, this is a game where a large offset-time zone guild could destroy a largely unguarded fortress in the night. If you are looking for the best longevity and largest tracts of land, you will want a guild that has many players and spans the entirety of the time zones.
One that stands vigilant at all hours, full of many time zones and populated at all hours.
Eta D'Lore wrote:
You should focus more on the subject, Eta, and less on other posters Regeneration 5 (Acid or Fire).Thar was just violating the most important rule of: Don't be a Jerk. by using blanket statements such as "People like you" with a straw-man attack and then trying to cover it up with a reasonable argument agreeing with you.
I personally want the PVP to be intense and to create a strong group mentality among players. I'm not saying that lone wolves will not be viable, just that Competition is definitely the drive that keeps people playing and paying together.
@Kyn: People read things before throwing several hundred dollars at them? I don't!
Yes, but a GM who focused more on realism would make NPC's suspicious of the person whose body looked so awkwardly bulky under their shirt/cloak and have thoughts about whether he's just wearing two or three layers of clothing or armor.
It's not impossible to hide armor but even many-linked chain shirts deform the natural body shape.
Still, it's a world of magic, and many players would be happier being able to shift their armor to look like whatever suits them best.
I am a big fan of being able to identify people's armor by looking at it. Not having a cosmetic option for say, someone wearing plate armor and it looks like skin-tight cloth. I understand the magic view that you could make armor look like anything though.
You may not be slowed down by red-tape as much, but it's definitely not an immunity as it tries to bog you down. Chaotic Good people just like to try and get rid of the tape. That's what they have in common with Chaotic Evil, y'know, except for the "I'm going to kill this person because it's Tuesday" mentality.
I don't believe that the lawful alignment truly revolves around beauracratic restrictions and more around personal conduct and integrity.
I hope I'm not distracting from the Dresden RPG talk, just putting my posts in the middle as extra thread bumps.
Honestly the bumps are my way of beginning to add my power into TEO's.
We call the goody-do-something's that can get the job done by nearly any means neutral good and chaotic good.
What do you call all the other alignments that can get the job done by any means? Waait, any means sounds like they have no moral qualms..I get it, you call the evil members 'Chaotic Good'! Genius!
This is all awesome and everything! But where do we sign up to do your dirty work on the side. ;D
The very best part of Collision detection is the tanking role.
Being able to block off enemies as a fighter is one of the most satisfying feelings in pvp.
I prefer a system where there is definite collision detection, but if it's pressed upon for a certain amount of time (Maybe a second or two) you can still find your way through that single enemy.
Meh. Monte Cook. It'll be d20 and Timmy Cards all the way down. He's a one-trick pony.
Well my little troll friend, thank you for your thread contribution. Could you please explain what is wrong with the d20 system the majority of this website plays and explain to us how you spent years fixing it.
As of writing this the world book is assured and Numenera is likely to be in all color!
Heresy? Try and say Cook's name on the Giantitp forums and it rapidly devolves into a frothing, insane discussion about how my vision of role-playing games is way more valid and much better than the way anyone else plays. The bitterness can be licked off your computer screen.
Back on-topic; I really want a setting without magic! When everyone asks me how something was done I'll go "SCIENCE!!"
I'm excited about lowering the difficulty of a a task rather than adding dozens of modifiers that I might forget to use. (I'm looking at you +2 vs charm and compulsion) It's completely made for fast combat, reading the playtest reports the whole system is designed to make combat fast and furious. There's nothing wrong when the players know what they need to hit an enemy, or know what they need to roll to dodge/block an attack; it just means the combat flies fast. As long as you keep the story they keep on edge.
Mr Cook just released a blog post about how d20 rolls work. One thing that is different is that 17, 18, 19, and 20 all have their own extra benefits that are seperate (17 different than 18 than 19 than 20) but all overlap a little. While only the natural 1 is a critical failure.
The game is made simple from the ground up. It is Rules LIGHT. Any splat book is just fluff and technology. No more having to convince my players that it's -GASP!!- okay to deviate from the Laser precision rules and make their ideas real. At the same time I can have a consistent world for them to reference that is more transferable between groups than my own home-brew for super science.
There is also an incredible amount of humor you can add in to a far-science campaign. The first thing that comes to mind is the mammoth island they found where all the mammoths inbred to approximate genetic uniformity. Fighting through a giant fallen construct husk for hundreds of miles to find a medieval castle full of genetically identical, unadvanced frenchmen who have lived there for eons.
With that argument, I don't see why you would get the physical copy at all.
Saying that, I am in complete agreement that I need a comparison list before I pay more than double the price.
If it's just higher quality it's not as motivational as if it's actual extra content.
This brings a PFS game I GMed a short while ago into a new perspective. When I was a player I once coup de grace'd someone, all 5 other people at the table gasped in SHOCK.
I was running a scenario recently with a particular sorcerer who had color spray, she knocked the Eidolon and the fighter unconcious is an instant.
She went down, and the cleric of the group, praying for her survival, healed her. She stood up and color sprayed again, the party then made sure to not only knock her down, but coup de grace her brutally so that it couldn't happen again.
If my (moderately low int) PC's could make the decision to end the threat, why wouldn't the NPC's think that way too? Especially as Evil characters.
I've been patiently, eagerly awaiting and reading all the posts since page 1 wondering how this discussion would blossom and grow.. It's still primarily role players vs roll players. Every mechanical advantage must be stretched to and beyond it's limits.
There have been some really good restatements and re-wordings of previous arguments but nothing I would call refinement.
As long as people remember the top Pen and Paper myth Rule that the GM is out to kill you and turn anything you try and do into painful, fun-squashing failure.
Approximately 15 of the 200+ posts are people saying that the GM cannot EVER interfere with RAW,to have a game governed by the rules is paramount. Then go on to, in the same post, say that the RAW is wrong and that you don't make meaningful Handle Animal checks, or if you do it doesn't matter because the Animal Companion is you, we are legion, it is us, you are me, we are you.
You can have it both ways, it's a fantasy game, you can have it both exactly 100% one way, and 100% not that way based on your current want. The rules are modular and every person is dysfunctional in our own way.
I spoke briefly 200 posts ago about how it is assumed in the creation of the classes and in their "balancing" that the animal companion is a separate entity, hence all of the wording and specific rules listed extensively above and in the Core Rulebook. Yet this was just brushed aside and not once disproved except for in an uneven comparison with the summoner saying in essence "Well then it wouldn't be exactly the same"
It's okay to disagree, it's okay to Think that's not okay. But Does it make sense to argue that the people RAW focused are wrong or doing something against the rules?
Does it make sense to throw out the term Straw Man because you saw someone use it in a post earlier, then it becomes contagious and someone else throws it out because they saw you use it.. it's a vicious cycle. IT makes the thread smell of regeneration 5 (acid or fire) so strongly.. so strongly I'm ranting pointlessly, my posts are always too long for people to respond too. tl;dr.
In terms of the DM controlling the animal companion... he can try, but when the druid can just say "Down" or "Heel" or "Stay" as a free action, the DM isn't going to be very successful in getting the animal to do as he pleases.
Getting the animal companion to do as he pleases? You make it sound like the GM is a BBEG casting Charm Animal.
I agree that just like any trained animal you could prevent it from doing something it naturally should do by telling it to heel, too bad every player forgets they use tricks to command it in the first place.
There appear to be three stances, One: The Animal companion is an NonPC as directly implied in Handle Animal and the class skill, and therefore can only be commanded by the Character with tricks taught, not the Player.
Two: The Animal Companion is a slave-bot meant only to be used by the player. Any Infringement on this is equivalent to death itself.
Three: It's a game for friends and people should compromise about sometimes having it as GM controlled so that it can have meaningful back-and-forth communique; and sometimes having it be a combat slave who does relatively what you want.
Losing control is much worse than not having it from the beginning. It will be essentially arbitrary unless you do what you suggest and put an in-combat/out-of-combat divide between them. If you arbitrarily lose control of your pet, it feels just like if the GM strips away any other class feature without explanation.
Once again, you're presenting it as black and white, lost control or always controlling.
It's not without explanation if it's in-setting and in-character. You're not permanently losing control either, just allowing the animal companion to work as intended. Should you ever really have control of your friends or companions or servants? It following you is all based on it's training and Handle Animal checks in the first place.
It may very well choose not to follow you if you abuse and torture and maim it, when the GM says that it growls at you, what do you do if you've Never role played a single aspect of it's personality. "Sorry, Mr. Scruffles likes it when I make him bleed, so he licks my hand in appreciation with the half of his tongue he still has"
I could see someone describing their animal companion as doing something out of combat like greeting someone in a social interaction. But how often do people just forget they have an animal companion outside of its skills and in-combat use? Take the Raven from OOTS as a great example. It is inherently an NPC animal, even if one that is introduced to and will follow the druid/ranger/etc around as part of a class feature.
As I've said before, there is nothing wrong with the GM using an Non-PC to roleplay appropriately.
Why, in your opinion, does it have to be absolute; black and white?
I personally believe that the companion should act as an NPC out of combat, but in combat the players dice rolls are still the d20 being thrown out. The player makes the commands, he should follow through with them unless they are out of reasonable bounds at GM's discretion.
This allows for faster gameplay, more accurate accounting of damage/+attack mods, and more fun for the player. However, it enhances the bond of the player with his pet because it can respond to him.
I don't have a lot of experience outside of the several places I've lived, and I am DM most of the time, so in my opinion the occurance of that kind of play is greatly exaggerated by the forums.
Having said that, I know that a lot of stereotypes are founded in truth. Some part of me thinks that this entire thread is about trusting the people you play with more than a rules question about whether players control animal companions All of the time.
I agree it says you can speak to them, but it doesn't specifically say they follow all commanders, just that they will attack enemies to the best of their abilities. While I agree with your interpretation, it is not stated outright as a rule.
Wow, I never realized the animal companion itself chooses it's training much like a player, this is very interesting and I did not notice that exact wording nuance before. That is a very odd way to think about animal companions but is also support for them not being psychic slaves to the Players... Though in-game your PC should be guiding the animal on it's choices of training with handle animal.
Any reasonable GM will happily let you decide what your animal takes as feats, but should still arbitrate anything too out of character as you describe your companion. (tiger trained with dwarven waraxe comes to mind)
There was a time before the internet?!?
This still doesn't answer my new questions about how I should feel about the DM being in control of my code. If I'm not comfortable with him controlling an NPC, how can I be comfortable with him as a Game Master who has any effect on my character at all? I am seeing this ending with the only way to play this situation in disagreement is not to play.
Or to assume 90% of GM's are really out to help everyone have a good time and not crush our feelings with a small, spontaneous event.
In fact if we take the whole NPC route then the druid has no control over what feats or skills Fluffy takes since NPCs are created by the gm and he decides how he levels. Though I guess a nice GM might ask for your input.
I'm having fun, I'm glad there are people up this late to talk too.
Nowhere do the rules say the DM creates all NPC's, in fact, the animal companion is created by the rules and could even be said to be Trained in game by the player, meaning the DM does not choose what skills they take, but who is the arbitrator who decides if it's okay for the animal to be built that way?
BBTroll, I'm curious about your opinion on how the GM decides if your action is against your alignment or say.. paladin code! You would lose control of a huge portion of your character even on his whim! Are these also classes you would never play?
I'm sorry, I was assuming the worst because you have Troll in your name and wasn't being civil instead of snide. I also thought it silly to think that a Magus's blackblade could never work outside of their control and was sarcastic.
We're all making the assumption that the GM is a monster of a person, and this argument works best when you assume worst case scenario. However that does not mean that it's unreasonable to follow the rules and realize that an animal companion is still a tamed, trained animal.
So summoners get a free pass on controling godzilla but that wolf or tiger yeah thats a lot sheer strength to be controlled.
Each conjuration spell belongs to one of five subschools. Conjurations transport creatures from another plane of existence to your plane (calling); create objects or effects on the spot (creation); heal (healing); bring manifestations of objects, creatures, or forms of energy to you (summoning); or transport creatures or objects over great distances (teleportation). Creatures you conjure usually—but not always—obey your commands.
So where do you get the idea that Summoners get a free pass on commanding their sentient high-int Eidolon? It's never stated, though it may be implied under Summon Monster.
I concur wholeheartedly, BBTroll. Why play a class that can have a sentient companion, be it an item or beast, when it is actually able to think or act beyond my exact control? The idea is patently absurd.
Back around to the OP, I think everyone should remember that it is not a competition between players and the GM, it is a game for fun and if he uses an NPC in a in-story consistent way to advance the game... why would you rather he did such a thing poorly? I am fully in favor of a consistent, fun-paced game between friends.
Players who are new will learn to read their class abilities and know what they're signing up for, like a fun NPC companion. Especially after the shock of being denied what they Assumed was the way it worked.
The GM is not taking away the class feature, he is controlling a sentient and living thing in the game. That's like saying that since you take the leadership feat you should have absolute control of anyone who follows you. The GM says you can't just send them to fight the dragon barehanded, they won't do it.. you say "That doesn't fit my vision of my cohort"
A thought just crossed my mind to start a thread talking about how to improve the Point Buy system, but I realized it would just devolve into another thread where people would say exactly what is being said here.
Most people would say you should edit your post instead of responding to yourself. ;D What do you think could be improved or is wrong with point-buy? I would love to up my home-games player-friendliness.
I always think about how it's not a competition when people talk about unfair situations. You can have huge power imbalanced with point-buy and rolling alike. Albeit one being the result of choice and the other of chaos and math (Dice averages)
Four pages of fun, this discussion would go Great with a long talk about how every sample build is human.
I just can't help but agree with the opinion that everyone who builds their fantasy character as a specialized and trained individual whose physical condition biases them towards a certain adventuring career is a munchkin! It in no way reflects personal choices by the player.
On the counter-argument, I can't help but disagree with the opinion that everyone who builds as a (usually) Very powerful superhuman is Not the best role player and only good way to make a loveable fantasy character.
(4d6 averaging 13 in every stat and regardless of in-game bonuses representing how incredible someone is exponentially, not linearly, for an example see dragons and how they are not just 4x stronger or smarter than the average human)
I am not fond of all of the talk of cheaters because some people roll well. In my experience, you can buy some Chessex dice that just rolls extremely well. It's not intentionally weighted, it just ends up averaging very high and the player holds onto it. I am known as a player (And especially as a GM) for rolling big numbers in front of my players constantly and I attribute it to perception. They remember the dread of my crit rolls and forget the fumbles.
I always roll my dice on hard surfaces and I always give them good rolls instead of dropping them, this allows me to find a truer average in my dice compared to the person who grabs their d20, always sets it down 20 side up, and drops it on the table the same way, never thinking why they roll so poorly.
Also, for reference since someone days ago asked for balanced and working point buys, before racial adjustments; 14/12/14/13/14/10 is a 20-point buy with an amazing amount of versatility, is a +2 just not good enough to deal with equal CR encounters? (Disclaimer: If Monk with no mage armor, disregard this point buy and use the Monk only approved brand. 13 AC Front Line is Goblin Fodder).
The 13 AC thing smells of green hide and regeneration 5 (acid or fire).
Just about everyone should know that the RAW is not the end-all for RPG's and just because the rules don't say something doesn't mean that it's that way. The rules don't say that there is breathable air in Golarion so why should I assume that there is?
The rules don't specifically say that something moving at the speed of sound doesn't have a higher AC, so then it's all left to interpretation.