Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Seoni

Ashiel's page

8,988 posts (8,991 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 8,988 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Very nice. (^o^)


Blazej wrote:

That is very true and it is a very good-aligned paladin response.

I wasn't intending though to mean that the paladin was acting with honor meant that he was only doing so just to retain his powers. I meant that he was acting with honor because it is another important part of the code into him as part of his training and that for that character, acting with dishonor might have ramifications with him, but his paladin order.

What you suggest pushes away to lawful as it carries with it the feeling of, "if the rules are hurting people, then they should be ignored."

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.

Quote:
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.


JoeJ wrote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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. >:)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
lemeres wrote:

Mostly going off of how a few of the arguments I was proud of were getting torn apart and this joke:

Rynjin wrote:
Did he give you the whole "You know why I'm right, this should be obvious to anyone with a moral compass, you morally bankrupt monster you" spiel?
I have little first hand knowledge of how the developers/former developers are in conversation/as GMs (are they that bad?). I mostly know them as the ones that make comments in the rule threads that banish silliness like "half orc raised catfolk barbarians with 4 claw attacks" who get dissed by the kind of people....with those catfolk barbarians.

Ah, I see. :o

Quote:
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. :\


lemeres wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
lemeres wrote:
...with all this argument about moral ambiguity, I began to make assumptions. I must say, that is a fantastically honorable answer. Thank you for the guidance and helping me to look past myself.

Um, thank you. o_o

Are you...being sarcastic? :o

Nope.

..that is a legitimate, 'I'm not pulling a double bluff' nope. But this could be interpreted as sarcastic too... darn you limits of written media and our sarcasm obsessed generation!

It was an elegant argument that did in fact espouse the core ideals of a paladin (sacrifice of the self for the sake of others).

I am a person that is rather serious about paladin conduct. When I look at this class, and think 'this makes a great tank', my next question is 'could I possibly try negotiating with those hill giants rather than go in smiting?' since I can take a few hits if the answer is 'no'.

Admittedly, I would not go in without a plan either, since I have a party to worry about. Stealth and readied actions exist for good reasons, and 'blast the first thing that looks at good-two-shoes funny' seems like a reasonable way to use them.

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?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
JoeJ wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
JoeJ wrote:
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. -_-

?? What do you mean? Playing within the rules of the genre isn't dumbing down anything.

I was referring to these sentences.

"IMO, a paladin should face black and white moral situations."
"The class doesn't really work very well with shades of gray."

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
JoeJ wrote:
DominusMegadeus wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
lemeres wrote:
JoeJ wrote:
lemeres wrote:
Well, the right answer there is obvious, since making deals with fiends is historically a bad idea.

In my world, there will never be a situation where the morally correct thing to do is follow the advice of a fiend.

...unless.... they give you perfectly legitimate advice based on the idea that you will never follow it, since they are so untrustworthy.

DOUBLE DEMON BLUFF!

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.

I think the problem with that approach in this context is that a Paladin has the absolute moral right to smite evil outsider (along with dragons and undead). It's one of those coveted black and white moral choices.

Do you think any paladin is going to give a fiend five seconds to speak when they realize, for once in their life, they have express permission from the creators of the world to smite something without falling?

Only if they know that it's an evil outsider. This kind of deception usually works much better if the fiend is disguised as something more benevolent. A priest of the paladin's god, for example.

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.


JoeJ wrote:

If they publish anything further about gods, something generic like the old Deities and Demigods would be much more helpful to me than more information about the religions of a fictional world I'm not using.

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).


Lemeres wrote:

Well, a nicer way to put it is that you don't know what will happen with 'unknown dark arts spells'. I think knowledge:arcana check is not going to help to much with that (since where would you have learned about it from?). Maybe spellcraft? Yeah, that sounds good, since it is supposed to be about the 'technical art of casting a spell', and works on magic items with weird, randomly added rules that do not come from spells.

And even if it doesn't do any more damage to the sacrificed kid...well, what does it do to the kid being 'helped'? I mean, why would an evil spellcaster go to the trouble of making a spell like this when other options already exist (it is obvious part of the reason why some do gooders decided to divorce his head and body). I would be suspect of whether the sick kid would start growing tentacles.....

That is why you avoid the dark arts kids- no one wants to talk about them, so it can be hard to tell what you are signing up for.

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.


lemeres wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
Blazej wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
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.
What if told your Paladin fell for lying if telling the truth meant a family of innocents dying? (Lets say for this example this is like Speed, but the bus explodes if the paladin doesn't tell at least 50 lies per hour.)
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.
...with all this argument about moral ambiguity, I began to make assumptions. I must say, that is a fantastically honorable answer. Thank you for the guidance and helping me to look past myself.

Um, thank you. o_o

Are you...being sarcastic? :o


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DominusMegadeus wrote:

I think the problem with that approach in this context is that a Paladin has the absolute moral right to smite evil outsider (along with dragons and undead). It's one of those coveted black and white moral choices.

Do you think any paladin is going to give a fiend five seconds to speak when they realize, for once in their life, they have express permission from the creators of the world to smite something without falling?

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?


phantom1592 wrote:

Mechanically I would agree.

Fluff? It could depend on some things...

If Killing the kid was spell component and they used that to make the scroll... what if all the damage isn't done yet? I could see an evil wizard coming up with this spell powered by the kid's soul... that is utterly destroyed when the spell is cast.

Does that change your opinion any? Is it worth destroying a kids eternal soul to cast the spell? Would burning it free him?

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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.


lemeres wrote:
JoeJ wrote:
lemeres wrote:
Well, the right answer there is obvious, since making deals with fiends is historically a bad idea.

In my world, there will never be a situation where the morally correct thing to do is follow the advice of a fiend.

...unless.... they give you perfectly legitimate advice based on the idea that you will never follow it, since they are so untrustworthy.

DOUBLE DEMON BLUFF!

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.


JoeJ wrote:
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. -_-


Wheldrake wrote:
C'mon, I just don't buy it. Even if you're chaotic neutral, dining on the dead is just plain evil.

Why should I believe you?


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Blazej wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
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.
What if told your Paladin fell for lying if telling the truth meant a family of innocents dying? (Lets say for this example this is like Speed, but the bus explodes if the paladin doesn't tell at least 50 lies per hour.)

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.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
I guess Neutral is the new good.
Personally, I'd argue that not using the scroll is a greater Evil act than using it could ever be. And that's defensible, per the rules. So not necessarily.

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.


Rynjin wrote:
Did he give you the whole "You know why I'm right, this should be obvious to anyone with a moral compass, you morally bankrupt monster you" spiel?

Whatever would give you that idea? :)


I guess Neutral is the new good.


Artemis Moonstar wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
...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...
Wait, what? I missed this.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scavion wrote:
Isn't there a passage in Wrath of the Righteous that says the spells with an alignment descriptor are an X act?

I don't know. I don't remember a Wrath of the Righteous chapter in the Core Rulebook.


lemeres wrote:
Ashiel wrote:

If it's not hurting, oppressing, or killing someone, it's not evil. Source: The freakin' alignment rules.

Doesn't matter if it is creepy or gross. Creepy and gross is not evil (though a lot of evil may be creepy and gross).

I think dragon crafting could be considered 'hurting, oppressing, or killing'.

I mean, the fact that their is an industry for your organs and bodily fluids seems creepy (at least in the sense of the black market, rather than legitimate organ donors; hard to imagine most dragons doing that)

This brings up the Murderhobo Paradox:
Do you just happen to get loot from legitimate fights and killings, or are you fighting and killing in order to get loot?

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.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Aratrok wrote:
People at Paizo have claimed that casting protection from evil or summoning celestial badgers a bunch of times will make you go to heaven (JJ treats casting an aligned spell as an act of that alignment)-

That's really not how that works. Not all Good or Evil acts are equal. Casting Protection From Evil is a Good act on par with being nice to your waiter and leaving a big tip. If being nice to all your waiters and tipping well, and nothing else, is enough to get you into Heaven...you were probably a pretty decent person to start with.

Aratrok wrote:

without any rules citations, I'd add.

I'm not inclined to call those official rules. :P

Eh, I'd argue that anything the majority of the Paizo staff say is how things work is how they work officially, since they're the ones that decide what the official rules are.

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).


lemeres wrote:
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:

Quote:

That sound evil. You hunt down and drink the blood of intelligent enough creatures that you have detailed preferences and have learned how to more effectively feed on them and gain power from it.

Similarly, the Cook People Hex is a high level hex that you need considerable training to learn.

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).

Quote:
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.


Yeah, using the hex on a living creature (since it specifies alive or dead) would definitely be evil. That said, if they were dead already? Well it does say that the result is always delicious, and I've never had orc before.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

That would definitely fit with the cargo cult thing. Heheh.
EDIT: Though I was actually thinking of biblical terms, like Elijah's ascent to heaven.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
Ashiel wrote:

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"?

It all depends on context. One person doing these things is a miracle. A dozen of them.... a new top 500 corporation.

Exactly!


Lamontius wrote:

guys

if I die first
you all can eat me

Aww, you're so sweet Lamontius! *slurp, slurp*


2 people marked this as a favorite.

If it's not hurting, oppressing, or killing someone, it's not evil. Source: The freakin' alignment rules.

Doesn't matter if it is creepy or gross. Creepy and gross is not evil (though a lot of evil may be creepy and gross).


4 people marked this as a favorite.

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"?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

On a side note, has anyone here ever heard of Cargo Cults?

Wikipedia wrote:

Pacific cults of World War II

The most widely known period of cargo cult activity occurred among the Melanesian islanders in the years during and after World War II. A small population of indigenous peoples observed, often right in front of their dwellings, the largest war ever fought by technologically advanced nations. First, the Japanese arrived with a great deal of supplies and later the Allied forces did likewise.

The vast amounts of military equipment and supplies that both sides airdropped (or airlifted to airstrips) to troops on these islands meant drastic changes to the lifestyle of the islanders, many of whom had never seen outsiders before. Manufactured clothing, medicine, canned food, tents, weapons and other goods arrived in vast quantities for the soldiers, who often shared some of it with the islanders who were their guides and hosts. This was true of the Japanese Army as well, at least initially before relations deteriorated in most regions.

The John Frum cult, one of the most widely reported and longest-lived, formed on the island of Tanna, Vanuatu. This cult started before the war, and only became a cargo cult afterwards. Cult members worship certain "Americans" (such as John Frum and Tom Navy), who they claimed had brought cargo to their island during World War II, as the spiritual entity who would provide the cargo to them in the future.[13]
Post-war

With the end of the war, the military abandoned the airbases and stopped dropping cargo. In response, charismatic individuals developed cults among remote Melanesian populations that promised to bestow on their followers deliveries of food, arms, Jeeps, etc. The cult leaders explained that the cargo would be gifts from their own ancestors, or other sources, as had occurred with the outsider armies. In attempts to get cargo to fall by parachute or land in planes or ships again, islanders imitated the same practices they had seen the soldiers, sailors, and airmen use. Cult behaviors usually involved mimicking the day-to-day activities and dress styles of US soldiers, such as performing parade ground drills with wooden or salvaged rifles.[14] The islanders carved headphones from wood and wore them while sitting in fabricated control towers. They waved the landing signals while standing on the runways. They lit signal fires and torches to light up runways and lighthouses.[citation needed]

In a form of sympathetic magic, many built life-size replicas of aeroplanes out of straw and cut new military-style landing strips out of the jungle, hoping to attract more aeroplanes. The cult members thought that the foreigners had some special connection to the deities and ancestors of the natives, who were the only beings powerful enough to produce such riches.

Cargo cults are typically created by individual leaders, or big men in the Melanesian culture, and it is not at all clear if these leaders were sincere, or were simply running scams on gullible populations. The leaders typically held cult rituals well away from established towns and colonial authorities, thus making reliable information about these practices very difficult to acquire.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Guang wrote:
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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Odraude wrote:
Simon Legrande wrote:
You know that saying "a sufficiently advanced technology would be indistinguishable from magic"? Well, a sufficiently advanced lifeform would be indistinguishable from god.
What does a god need with a space ship?

It's called a chariot, duh. /endjoke


That's pretty awesome. :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

People are still grossly overcomplicating things which leads to alignment problems.

Remember: Evil = Hurting, Killing, Oppressing.

Eating a corpse, regardless of its source, is none of these things.


B.A. Ironskull wrote:

It's an "only if" situation. A paladin would do everything in her power to avoid such a situation. I sincerely doubt that any party stranded anywhere would find cannibalism a sincere recourse. Survival checks, Profession checks, etc.

Really? Paladin cannibals? Really? I understand the exercise but wtf.

As a GM, I'll toss out a wounded moose- hey, it's got a broken hoof! Stabbity and sustainable.

Why should a paladin fall to cannibalism? Spells, tactics, Survival, and aid from party members....

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:<


5 people marked this as a favorite.

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?
2. If the answer is "No" (and is is no), then it is not evil.

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?
2. If the answer is "Yes" (and it is), then yes it is evil.

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.


Scavion wrote:

Hm...

I've been thinking. WoW classes d20ized would be kinda cool.

Weeeeell...

This is a thing I'm working on for Kryzbyn. ^_^

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Marroar Gellantara wrote:
Anzyr wrote:

Anzyr PSA: Less the 45 minutes to go until RWBY Season 2 Episode 1 goes live.

Watch the series and understand what a mid level martial should be capable. The answer is not "full out their bow". It's attack every enemy around while defending with your weapon, while you move around.

*yesssssssss*

This is I what I think constitutes a good martial. RWBY is nice, but a lot of their appeal is spectacle, the combat lends itself to something more real-time than turn based.

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).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Anzyr wrote:
Anzyr PSA: Less the 45 minutes to go until RWBY Season 2 Episode 1 goes live.

SQUEEEE! @.@*

** Drops everything and runs to Rooster Teeth **


13 people marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Self-explanatory question.

Say the only way a Paladin could survive was to eat another living being of the same race. Would they do it, or would they sooner sacrifice themselves for that same person to live?

1. Won't murder someone to eat them.

2. Already dead? Pass the salt, please.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
JoeJ wrote:
pclark4422 wrote:
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.

They haven't invented the iron bar in your world? A couple of those across the windows should keep invisible flying wizards out quite nicely. Or just make the windows smaller. If you know that it's possible for people to become invisible and fly, why would you put big open windows in your tower?

Behold. GM thinking in progress. :D


Nicos wrote:
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. :(


Caedwyr wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
Also, funny fact...Paladins and Rangers both get auto-confirm crits as class features. Paladins get it at 4th level. :P
Bless Weapon is pretty nice, though it is against evil foes only.

Those tend to be the worst of them, no? Seriously, which would you consider more of a threat to you? A CR 7 erinyes, or a CR 7 fire elemental?

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
pclark4422 wrote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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).

Quote:
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.


pclark4422 wrote:
**OP**

Bad GMs are bad.


Also, funny fact...Paladins and Rangers both get auto-confirm crits as class features. Paladins get it at 4th level. :P


2 people marked this as a favorite.
666bender wrote:

i diagree.... agood grapple (greater, rapid etc) is viable at any level. true, not vs any foe.... but very useful.

and barbarian got str surge, but without the improve feats he will wat many AOO....
(and barbarian dont have feat to spare.)

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!


JoeJ wrote:

The hireling price is 3sp/day trained and 1sp/day untrained according to the price list on p. 159. The definitions of p. 163 say that a trained hireling includes "mercenary warriors, masons, craftsmen, cooks, scribes, teamsters, and other trained hirelings." Untrained includes "laborers, maids, and other menial workers."

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.


Kryzbyn wrote:

Rock on Ashiel.

<Palpatine> Soon the Warlock will be complete. </Palpatine>

See, pestering gets you everywhere. :D

Latest 'Lock Revision. I've started adding comments to detail what's been changing from revision to revision. Now drink! Drink the QQ. >:D

1 to 50 of 8,988 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.