|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Rules exist for a purpose. When rules no longer serve that purpose, it's time to get some new rules. Given that even the Paladin code cares more about good/evil than it does about law/chaos, I'm inclined to think that if a Paladin finds law in conflict with good, good takes priority, though I do accept with the dumb way the code is worded in PF (as opposed to 3.5) my Paladin would fall for doing the right thing.
For the character that thinks that the rules of the order take precedence, then that would push them away from good as they see the rules as important if not more important than the health of others.
The paladin has several parts to uphold in his oath and it is up to the paladin to determine which is most important to himself and those around him. Else, it would work better as a straight list that said, "protect innocents, then act with honor, then punish evil, ..." rather than setting them all things that must be upheld at all times.
I wish this were the case in a real sense. Unfortunately the mechanics don't support that. I would choose to lie because putting others before myself is good (altruism). However, I'd still fall for it because unlike in 3.5 where the Paladin was allowed a bit of interpretive freedom with their code, Pathfinder's Paladin code is just a big trap if you actually want to be a good guy.
Real adults and real heroes don't have magical powers, or have good and evil deities interfering with their everyday lives, or live in worlds where good and evil have the kind of objective reality that they do in Pathfinder. If somebody was playing Superman in a superhero game I wouldn't hit them with morally ambiguous situations that have no clear solution because that's not the kind of problem that's appropriate for Superman. That's not a weakness of the character, but a feature of the genre.
What's actually strikes me as funny in this case is superman during his heyday in the comics basically ended up in this exact thing. The writers had backed themselves into a wall with depictions of how grossly overpowered he was as a hero, and instead began focusing on his character development, personal life problems, and things you can't hit with your fist to solve, because everything else became quite boring.
Any class that casts spells or has magical abilities is going to be limited in what genre (or sub-genre if you prefer) of fantasy simply because they do have magical abilities that work in a way appropriate to some genres and not others.
Well, as long as the genre is fantasy or science fiction, which in the grand scheme of things are incredibly broad and tend to include almost every other genre that isn't specifically non-fiction; including (but not limited to) everything from gritty pulp action, noir, and horror to My Little Pony and romance novels about dragons porkin' fair maidens.
That's one area in which the non-casting classes are more flexible than the casters. For example, I wouldn't try using a Pathfinder druid as a player character in most kinds of horror (I wouldn't use a paladin either). Equally, the majority of Pathfinder classes are inappropriate for stories where magic is inherently corrupting or entails a risk of insanity. Or for stories where magic is subtle in its effects.
Dude, druids are kickass in horror games. o_o
Especially as villains. >:)
Ah, I see. :o
Admittedly, I feel now that I was likely overly defensive (I think I have been making that a bad habit lately), and thus assumed you were just trolling. But that is again the danger of how we have limits on interpreting written statements, no? We end up painting more of ourselves onto it than the writer in our eyes.
Indeed. It can be hard to tell online sometimes. No harm done. For the record, I'm not much for trolling, though I am much for a good argument. To me, a good argument is a mutual search for truth, where two individuals are not fighting one another but engaging in a series of reason-based points and counterpoints in a search for the truest of answers.
I realize this view, or ideal, is not shared by many a messageboard enthusiast, however. :\
Oh, well thank you then. ^_^
Out of curiosity...you said that you were making some assumptions (presumably about my posts/or mindset perhaps?) that my response kind of rebuked unintentionally. Would you mind if I asked what those assumptions were?
I was referring to these sentences.
"IMO, a paladin should face black and white moral situations."
I find it saddening to think that a class requires a GM to paint everything in black and white strokes, and yes I do see that as dumbing things down, because real adults, and real heroes, don't always have the luxury of a certain right or a certain wrong answer.
Further, it might be fine in one genre, but I also feel like core classes (if not any class) should be able to comfortably fit into many different genres without problems, especially if dealing with a campaign setting like Golarion which is generally as genre inclusive as possible.
Succubi are pretty good at that. I've had campaigns where succubi have attempted to screw with Paladins for their own amusement, and sometimes get upset and in a huff when the Paladin doesn't falter from their attempts at upsetting him. In rare cases, the succubus may even appear before the Paladin and demand he explain himself because she wants to know why continues being a good guy when she's been shoveling loads of **** all in his face from behind the scenes.
Personally I pretty much use creatures of a power range that I consider sufficiently powerful. And that power may be quite relative. Generally any deity that I would stat out would be around CR 25 (because higher CR is just not necessary when a Solar is already godlike in every sense of the word, right down to being unkillable without magic that opposes its very being, and the ability to poop wishes and miracles).
In my own campaign, creatures are often worshiped as gods for far less. One very prominent religion is actually devoted to a high level Lillend Azata. In the same campaign, it's not uncommon to find small cults devoted to the worship of a particular fiend, or dragon(s), or in some cases undead (such as liches, mummies, etc).
Yeah, spellcraft, Knowledge Arcana, and all that sort of thing is really useful. I imagine that those skills aren't simply a matter of knowing every spell and/or magic item in existence, but instead the knowledge that is needed to examine and interpret what a spell does. Hence why a wizard can identify a druid's call lightning as it is being cast, even though he can never learn or cast that spell himself.
Um, thank you. o_o
Are you...being sarcastic? :o
I would. Most of my Paladins aren't generally interested in starting fights (but they're usually damn good at finishing them). If anything, evil or not, wasn't being hostile I'm not going to immediately murder it on the spot. Two wrongs do not make a right.
(This would, however, be a point where I would be highly likely to drink my elixir of +10 to a skill (sense motive) to support my already maxed ranks in Sense Motive. >_>)
Fiends are sentient creatures too, and hurting, oppressing, and killing them without justification is just as evil as doing the same to an an elf. Since I don't believe in racist genocide, I'm generally willing to stay my blade long enough to hear them out. If you cannot trust a Paladin to at least hear you out, who could you trust?
Then we wouldn't use it, but such was not how it was presented. That would be an obviously terrible end to the action of using it, as opposed to an evil past-tense that was already said and done. Again, it comes down to what you do. If the kid's soul was destroyed (and I'm very much against the very idea of destroying souls) already, then we end up right back in the situation where some poor innocent was harmed with great cost, and now not using it to achieve some measure of good would be morally reprehensible.
That would be an ethical dilemma. I could see that as an Evil act that requires some serious atonement for... at that point it really is YOU that's committing the sacrifice and not so much the guy who made the scroll...
It's not really an ethical dilemma at all. I just wouldn't do it. In this case, I'd say it was more evil to use it to save a child's life, because the destruction of a soul would be even more horrible.
Mechanically, yeah, its rubbish. But there are a lot of things going on behind the scenes with 'made up spells'
I'm not following your reasoning here. Spells do what spells say that they do. When you cast death knell to finish off an enemy and power yourself up, the soul of the dead creature doesn't magically implode into nothingness.
This is exactly the sort of thing the devils (and occasional demon) actually would do in my games if they are corruption focused (which most devils in my games are). Because they usually will indeed help you, but it might come at some sort of price, even if that price has no apparent value.
You catch more flies with honey, after all.
IMO, a paladin should face black and white moral situations. The right answer might be very hard to discover, but once discovered there shouldn't be any doubt that it is the right answer. The class doesn't really work very well with shades of gray. To me, paladins are the four-color superheroes of the fantasy genre and I would feel like I wasn't being fair to the player if I didn't give them the chance to act that way.
It's sad that there's even a base class that makes a GM feel like they have to dumb the game down for it to be enjoyable. -_-
I'd lie my ass off (putting my power before the needs of others would kind of kill the whole point). I'd lose my powers, but if I did otherwise I wouldn't deserve them anyway.
Agreed 150% actually. That's what blew my mind about it. Here you have a magical doohicky that some poor kid died for, against his will even, but at least his soul could know that it saved someone else's life. I, personally, would be comforted by the idea that if I was going to be murdered, that it would at least have a silver lining like saving the life of some kid with leukemia.
If a GM told me my Paladin fell for using said scroll on said child, I'd walk out and never associate with him or her again. Not because of the game ruling, but because I would want to stay far, far away from that human being.
Artemis Moonstar wrote:
I was once in a debate with both SKR and JJ about the alignment and spell thing, and neither could provide a RAW example of it being true, nor could either of them discredit the absurdity of the natural conclusion to that sort of ruling (that standing in a field casting protection from evil over and over will therefor make you good).
But, I was utterly repulsed and disgusted when SKR presented a scenario where a BBEG had a spell that he made up, which requires you to sacrifice an innocent as a spell component but otherwise healed all diseases; kidnapped a kid, and made a scroll of said spell; then he said if the PCs didn't destroy the scroll and instead used the scroll (keep in mind, the kid is already dead at this point) would be evil.
Except the PCs aren't hurting, oppressing, or killing anyone, and to use the scroll would be to destroy it (because that's how scrolls work). Yet he stood me down that to use the scroll to save the life of another innocent, such as a child with cancer, was evil because the spell had the [Evil] descriptor. Literally that it would be more good to burn the scroll and let the child die.
I was disgusted. Truly disgusted.
That entirely depends on why you're fighting a dragon. Are you doing it for his horde, or for some other reason?
Though I suppose your line of reasoning means anyone wearing dragonhide armor is evil. I'm sure that's a great idea.
Where is the chapter that describes how much good or how much evil casting a spell is? I cannot find it, because...IT DOES NOT EXIST.
What does exist is the alignment rules which throw all this nonsensical trash out on its ear, and puts a boot to the hindside of stupid arguments over things like this.
Again, it's like this: If you are HURTING, OPPRESSING, or KILLING it's evil. If you are not doing those things you are not doing evil. Doesn't matter what you're using to do it either. Either you do evil, or you don't. There is no section of the manual that states that casting spells with [x] subtype is always equivalent to x actions. All it does is affect how they interact with other spells and mechanical effects such as dispel good and detect law.
Quotes or it didn't happen. And I don't mean quotes from devs not following the rules, or quotes from devs saying that it is better to let a child with cancer die than to heal them with a scroll that was made with an [Evil] spell (to which the very example of such a thing was to such an extent evil unto itself that I was nearly sick with disgust at the very notion).
More like 'it is evil since it highly encourages predatory behavior, and I have to ask why you spent you time figuring out how to do that'
Experience points encourage predatory behavior. As does treasure. As does the Survival skill. And so on, and so on.
It also encourages survivalist and scavenging, since it can be used on dead creatures too. Adventurers *cough*murderhobos*cough* tend to have a lot of those around even if they don't want to.
The original thing JJ was talking about was the Blood Drinker feat, which has this line:
Citation? I'm pretty sure a witch can just hit that level and decide that she wants to get creative in the kitchen by applying the magic she's learned or intuitively acquired from her familiar/patron. Even then, you could get considerable practice without murder, it just means you need to find dead bodies that aren't in use (IE - graveyards or the countless orcs and demons who died in your defending the hapless peasants).
Planning to get either of these effects means that you do things like this regularly enough that it is not just plain 'necessity'.
Necessity has diddly to do with evil. If you are not HURTING, OPPRESSING, or KILLING somebody you are not doing evil. End of story.
I mean, let's be real here. Most D&D characters of around 9th level would be considered gods by us today if we saw them. I mean, if you saw someone walk up to a dying person and restore them to perfect health in less than 12 seconds, what would you think?
If you saw someone fly up into the air (levitate or fly and begin throwing fire from their hands with enough force to incinerate entire platoons of men instantly (fireball with the average warrior having about 6 HP with a 12-13 Con), while our nonmagical bullets did diddly squat to them (protection from arrows), and they were wearing nothing but robes?
If you watched someone walk out into a farming community, lift their hands, bless the crops, and increase their growth and yields by 33% for the next season? Or watch someone control the weather with their will, or call down lightning on their enemies with a glance?
If you watched someone strip another person of their free will with a word? Or assume the visage of anyone they wished? Raised the dead? Or called up the dead to be their soldiers?
What of these things is NOT "godlike"?
On a side note, has anyone here ever heard of Cargo Cults?
For all intents and purposes, these strange "gods" in their bizarre crafts came down from the sky and interacted with the natives, engaged in wars with other gods, and provided bountiful gifts of magic to these people. From their perspective, at least.
Has anyone compared pathfinder and 5e creatures (bestiary entries)? Are they at all inter-compatible?
Mechanically speaking, the likelihood of them being interchangable is extremely low as the two systems are already looking to be quite different.
From a fluff perspective, bringing / converting almost anything to the d20 system is not only doable but often pretty painless. However, if the monsters are at all similar to 4E monsters in their design paradigms, you will need to round out a lot o the monsters or else they will feel very boring and lackluster by comparison to other creatures in the bestiaries.
What I mean by this is, in the 4E design structure, the monsters exist only to be killed. As a result, they rarely if ever had anything that you could use to develop them as NPCs, or include from an ecological perspective.
For example, in D&D 3.x/PF, a bone devil has a few different things that it can contribute not only to combat but to the overall narrative. Their abilities like invisibility, greater teleport, and quickened invisibility make them great options for spies and assassins, while dimensional anchor and wall of ice make them useful for providing support for more powerful fiends.
In a similar vein, Imps have commune periodically as a SLA, which is purely a sort of story-forwarding divination ability.
You're almost guaranteed to stumble across undead fiends and creatures in a pit fiend's lair because of their create undead SLA which has little in-combat application. Likewise, their ability to trap and trade souls like currency (backed by their mechanics) in itself is a strong element that you could add to various adventures.
Further, most well designed 3.x monsters are more well rounded than they were in the 4E paradigm, often capable of changing their strategies up, with two or three different means of being an obstacle to the party (erinyes for example can provide martial offense, or blast the snot out of you with SLAs, in both cases usually as hit and run or skirmish tactics), which usually leads to more dynamic combat potential* than the default creatures in by 4E MM.
*: I say potential because not all GMs will run their NPCs to their potential. If a GM just has an erinyes stand around and shoot, or try to whack someone with their sword, and/or not take advantage of their abilities then the encounter will still be just as "meh" as it would have been if they only had 1 special ability.
However, a well designed monster is a character in its own right and when placed in the hands of a GM who will make use of its potential is leaps and bounds beyond what 4E-style monsters had in potential, though the 4E monsters were simpler.
B.A. Ironskull wrote:
Why in the hell would I kill a living creature, when I have both the means to heal it myself, and a dead corpse right there to eat instead!?
You MONSTER! D:<
Alignment is actually a really simple thing to handle when people aren't overcomplicating it. Here, I'll break it down.
1. Is eating a /corpse/, regardless of what soul it once had, "hurting", "oppressing", or "killing" someone?
What people are really arguing over concerning cannibalism is whether or not it's okay to murder someone to eat them, but here's the thing.
1. Is murdering someone, for any reason, hurting, oppressing, or killing someone?
What you do with the body after that is pretty irrelevant, because at that point it is a soulless object made of various organic materials generally defined as meat and bones.
EDIT: So again, if I was playing a Paladin, sure I'd eat somebody. For some characters it might even be a part of their normal mode of operations. However, I wouldn't kill anyone to eat them, even if it meant starving to death myself, because that would require me to harm them.
It's not done, but you can read the comments (upper right of the google doc viewer page) to read changes and/or updates. Mostly getting abilities and such into their alpha phases. Given the extent of new content being added in this, I'll need to do some acid tests on it as well before I put my Ashiel's Seal of Approval on it.
However, if it's enjoyed, I'll probably consider doing the rest of the WoW classes up through WotLK. Probably continuing with Death Knight as the second, seeing as it's the least like any of the usual PF/d20 classes in terms of mechanics and playstyle.
Marroar Gellantara wrote:
Real time isn't that much different than turn based. For example, WoW PvP is probably the closest videogame analog to d20 combat that I've seen, and all the same pros and cons, and same thinking goes miles in both.
Most people mock MMOs for "aggro" but that's just against computer foes who have no human mind backing them. But other PCs? Well those have human minds, just like GMs, and that's where the aggro thing falls apart. Your "aggro" comes from how much of a threat real people consider you, and no matter how much you insult their mothers (I.G. taunt) they are going to murder your healer/artillery if you don't do something about it.
Unrelated Note: Concerning the barbarian and buffs, I'm currently playing a dedicated Healer/Buffer in a game right now, and if given the choice between a Fighter and a Barbarian w/ Superstition, I'd take the Barbarian...every...single...time. I'll have to use fewer resources on the Barbarian, use temporary HP / damage mitigation as an option, and worst case scenario the Barbarian can just delay (if convenient).
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
1. Won't murder someone to eat them.2. Already dead? Pass the salt, please.
Behold. GM thinking in progress. :D
The lore warden is my favorite fighter archetype, its make me sad that it was(is?) considered bad designed. I wonder how many great ideas for fighter were rejected just to not have more lorewarden-like archetypes.
Yeah...imagine how many good fighters wound up on the cutting room floor. :(
It's no secret that the most common alignment in the game is evil. Paizo seems to have some sort of raging lust for slapping the EVIL alignment on everything by principle.
The invisibility/fly combo was happening as low as level 3 since the potions only cost 750 a pop its very doable. By level 4 the sorcerer was able to make his own. That means that from now on all quests have to be underground to prevent the fly in fly out tactic. Or they have to have some sort of magic field that negates either effect.
Consuming 1,050 gp worth of magical items at a time is a hard pill to swallow for 3rd level characters.
As far as the invisibility bonus itself, its not just 20 its +20. Meaning that a character with 0 Stealth taking 10 (I wouldn't let him, but thats the halfway point) gets a roll of 30. In order for a wall guard to to have a 50% chance of spotting them they have to have a perception score of 20. The pre-generated NPCs at level 6 and 7 have Perceptions of +10 meaning only a 5% chance to spot, and thats assuming the player flies close by and its broad daylight.
This is basically the entire point of being invisible.
Detect Magic and Taking 10 do take "extra time", but not from the players perspective. Thats what makes them damaging in my opinion at least having to declare or roll a die gets annoying and they stop doing it leaving them vulnerable. Sure you can have time sensitivity in game but how meticulous and draining would that be. I like and use the idea of you have X number of days to complete the quest or the princess dies or if you sleep in the dungeon the bad stuff happens. But for these abilities you would literally have to keep track of the seconds of the day. Or arbitrarily declare that too much time is being taken.
Take 10 doesn't take any extra time. It just means you're being conservative about it. You're willingly accepting the low-end of average (10-11) to avoid rolling horribly low. It also speeds up gameplay for the GM. When I'm GMing, it's a hell of a lot easier to assume the orcs in the camp are taking 10 on their Perception checks. If I insisted that every Stealth/Perception combination be rolled, then not only would that take forever, but it would also pretty much assure that Stealth doesn't work (because you will roll badly, or one of the twelve enemies nearby will roll really well).
Detect magic can be circumvented By X thickness of Y but that's not always a viable option. Most chests or doors with magic traps aren't 3 feet thick. Magic items aren't often going to be in a lead box. Many dungeons aren't constructed by epic level wizards such as a dragon's lair, a giant's castle, or a city sewer. And many permanent effects such as The Endless Corridor (which has a soft spot in my heart) are just completely out in the open and I haven't been able to find anything that masks the presence of a magic aura. While a GM could say that detect magic doesn't work for one reason or another, that's little more than just saying "no".
Magic Aura is a thing. A low level thing. A low level, cheap thing. Given its 1 day/level duration, it even gets significant discounts if you want to make it a permanent magic item effect.
Actually, yeah, they do. You could build an effective barbarian on half of your usual feats. Power Attack, Improved Initiative, Lightning Reflexes, Iron Will, Dazing Assault. Done. That leaves 5 feats unaccounted for, so if you really want to, you can pick up things like Extra Rage Power, or various maneuver feats. If you want, you can take Heavy Armor Proficiency and grab a mithral suit of plate and some AC-boosting rage powers and just tank the AoO (they have to hit you), which might be a tactical way of wasting your enemies' AoOs so your party can get in.
If you take Come and Get Me, you can basically punish your enemy for taking AoOs on you anyway. So either your enemy doesn't take their AoO, and you succeed on your Combat Maneuver, or your enemy does, and you smash their face in. >_>
And the funniest thing? Come and get me resolves before the enemy's AoO, which means you could run up, attempt a combat maneuver, provoke, then with your AoO, strength surge and DISARM them as part of your AoO, which against most foes is going to wreck their AoO anyway. That may have been your whole plan to begin with!
You're kind of missing the point. That might be what the price chart says, but the rules are pretty explicit that they can make more than that just by taking 10. The equipment books also have silly nonsense like extremely expensive charcoal.
Seriously, with how much the supposed market price of charcoal is, you'd be better off investing in an iron pot and firewood instead of adventuring. You'd make a hell of a lot more money for less trouble.