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

Deadmanwalking's page

Pathfinder Society Member. 3,949 posts (4,142 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 Pathfinder Society character. 2 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 3,949 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Andoran

Sissyl wrote:
It is b%&##+$% to say that there are necessary roles that must be filled. It is not b+#$&&*%, however, to a) point out that there is already someone playing a paladin, for example, which would mean your character will be very similar to another, and b) let the party lacking some important capability to find it a serious problem. It is not the GM's job to only put in monsters that a wizard only party can easily deal with, nor to provide multiple copies of loot for gunslingers/whatever.

This.

Warning people that their character idea might not be the most fun in the current group (like a Sorcerer joining a group with one of those Wizards who have every spell there is), or warning the group that they lack a vital skill (like noting "You guys lack a healer."), is the GM's job. Forcing people to play anything isn't. If the Sorcerer wants to join the group with the Wizard, or the group wants to go healer-less, that's fine...but I feel a warning is in order.

Additionally, sometimes a suggestion of a minor modification or for a specific version can be good. For example, while I wasn't the GM in this case, I recommended an Urban Ranger to one of my fellow players in an upcoming RotRL game since he was planning on making a Butterfly Sting TWF build, hadn't decided on a class yet, and we needed somebody to deal with traps. I also suggested the Healing Patron to the guy going Witch since we lacked any other real healer. I would've likely made similar recommendations (and that's all they are, recommendations) had I been the GM, and I think that's acceptable.

Andoran

Desi wrote:
Ah okay, I can understand the allure of all that. Higher point buy than 15 I assume?

25, though with no stats over 16 before racials and only one below 10 (and that no lower than 8)...but it's playable in any point buy:

The 15 point-buy version:

Str 18 (16+2) Dex 7 Con 12 Int 12 Wis 8 Cha 15 (Or you could drop Str to 17 and get con to 14...that's likely better, really)

The 25 point buy version I'm actually using:

Str 18 (16+2) Dex 8 Con 12 Int 14 Wis 10 Cha 16

The flaws of the build basically come down to not getting Come And Get Me, ever, and having less HP than many Barbarians. I consider the price worth paying for what I'm getting, but it's definitely not in terms of pure combat optimization. On the other hand, it's a vastly better out-of-combat character for only, IMO, a slight reduction in combat capability.

Desi wrote:
I thought about taking Sidestep Secret or the other Nature version, but with my goal of Come and Get Me, it's extremely counterproductive to dump Dex. I do think taking Oracle at 9 for super easy rage cycling would be really good for me though, so I'll definitely keep that in mind for when that comes around. Though.. my charisma score will be atrocious. So I suppose it is iffy.

The straight Barbarian build dumping Charisma is flat out better in a fight for the most part (he gets all Rage Powers a level earlier and better, eventualy gets Come And Get Me, doesn't burn a Feat on Extra Revelation, has better initiative and BAB, has more rounds of rage, etc.). Especially at 1st level, when the Oracle Build doesn't even have Rage. The Oracle/Barbarian build I'm using is, IMO, more fun (and more useful outside combat), but that's because I really enjoy being the party face and winning at Knowledge skills, not because it's objectively superior (though it does avoid needing a Cord of Stubborn Resolve to Rage Cycle).

Desi wrote:
Probably the last thing I can imagine I'd have a question about though is why do so many people tend towards greatsword? Is it just a flavor thing? I'm not sure I understand how it's superior mechanically to a falchion except in early levels for the larger base die.

You're correct, it's thematic. Falchions are a better call mechanically at all but the lowest levels. Nodachis are even better than that, but really anti-theme for most Barbarians, IMO.

Desi wrote:
Thanks again for all the assistance though, you've been a huge help with a class I would've otherwise just shied away from.

No problem, always happy to be of assistance. :)

Andoran

HalfOrc with a Hat of Disguise wrote:
Merisiel Sillvari wrote:
Rysky wrote:
What would you do if Kyra ascended to Empyreal Lord status?
She's already a goddess, so there would be no difference!
Wait what? I know I've been gone for several months but when did this happen?

They're dating. It's hyperbole. And very sweet.

Andoran

Desi wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
I'm personally using a variant on the Half-Orc one for my currently planned Oracle 1/Barbarian X, but he's got the additional incentive of getting Divine Favor which is actually pretty sweet with Fate's Favored added (way better than any other 1st level spell at a never-rising CL 1).

Are you dipping Oracle just for the bit of casting? The only other thing that comes to mind is Lame which kicks in at 5th.

Edit: Ignore me, at Oracle 1/Barbarian 8 it kicks in as well. I know things about things.

Actually, I'm dipping Oracle of Lore for Sidestep Secret and social skills so I can make a high Charisma Barbarian who's still very effective, and Focused Trance plus all the Knowledge Skills as class so I can win at those too. So he's charming, knowledgeable, and murders people with a greataxe. :)

The Lame thing is also totally happening, and the spellcasting is surprisingly nice (+2 to hit and damage 4 fights a day is actually not bad, and eventually I can grab a Wand and do it whenever I have prep time), as is being able to freely use Cleric Wands...but it's the playing a Barbarian who's actually good at all the social and knowledge skills that's the real selling point.

Andoran

You can also vary their starting Feats to reflect this if you like.

Andoran

Desi wrote:
Take Raging Vitality at third and get a +2 luck bonus to all saves and the eventual added +1 from Jingasa, assuming I get one. I also then have Endurance and a vision enhancer and will never need to worry about not being able to see/be unarmored in case of a night ambush. Both builds have obvious merits, but I feel that the Half-orc is just more versatile as long as I'm not too interested in having the free feat slot open for Heavy Armor Proficiency until around 9th or so, which is around when I'd maybe have Mithral Full Plate anyhow. I'm not suffering some glaring error in logic am I?

Nope, that all sounds right to me.

I'm personally using a variant on the Half-Orc one for my currently planned Oracle 1/Barbarian X, but he's got the additional incentive of getting Divine Favor which is actually pretty sweet with Fate's Favored added (way better than any other 1st level spell at a never-rising CL 1).

Andoran

The Shaman wrote:
@ Deadmanwalking - I'm not saying it is the typical situation, but I can imagine the situation on a pirate ship being quite abusive, and not just towards females. It might be more of a "veterans do what they will, rookies suffer what they must" mentality where the old sailors (who incidentally tend to have more levels) can do anything to the newbies as long as it leaves them able to do their job. It´s not something that is likely to happen in a game, just part of how the setting can be a harsh place and not always roses and white stallions.

This is very possible (though it makes recruiting crews difficult...but there's always shanghaiing). It's also more or less irrelevant to this thread, since it'd apply more or less equally to the men and women.

The Shaman wrote:
I am actually quite curious - how many people would consider it a dealbreaker if there were (relatively minor) stat adjustments for males and females of all or most races? I think one of the early D&D editions had those... probably AD&D (the 1E version).

It'd be a deal breaker. Aside from a few gross physical differences, we don't understand enough of the (relatively small) differences there are between men and women to accurately portray them in a game system.

thejeff wrote:

I'd actually like to see races with more extreme sexual dimorphism. Not necessarily just "Men bigger, stronger, Women, smaller, weaker" either, but different twists. Where gender roles are even stronger and more biologically based than in humans. You see this kind of thing in SF sometimes, more so than in fantasy. Also just more alien in general.

It's easy to see why the published settings/races don't do much of this, but there's still some coolness to it.

Have you checked out the Lashunta? They do this to the point of having entirely different stat mods.

The Shaman wrote:

I am interested in the idea of how important gender is in Golarion societies because it helps me envision what a PC or NPCs occupation relates to that character's image of self. There will always be exceptions, and PCs are likely to be exceptions.What I am most interested is what constitutes the norm, common, rare, or exceptional behavior. It is a matter of frequency and overall acceptance.

For example, let's say there is a female guard sergeant in the city. Would that in the guard be expected (for whatever reason, the guard mostly recruits or promotes women), completely common (the guard is an equal-opportunity employer), uncommon but distinct (i.e. dwarves, elves or some noble families have such traditions) or exceptional (the sergeant has defied the social norms and performed significant feats to gain her positions)? This will probably have impact that character's personality and how she would react to the PCs, particularly in an official capacity. It can say a lot both for the society and for the character herself.

I agree that this is all good information to have.

And most places in the Inner Sea, a female guard will be about as common as a male one and about as remarked on (ie: not at all). There are almost certainly communities which are exceptions to this trend, but they aren't common.

Andoran

S'mon wrote:
Whether that's true or not (and I don't envy the cabin boy on pre-modern sailing vessels) replace "raping" with "attempting to have sex with" and maybe you can see the problem. Or not, *sigh*.

With even numbers...how is having sex a problem? Rape still is, but I address that above. With radical gender disparity sexual jealousy becomes a big deal, with even numbers not nearly so much.

S'mon wrote:
I think it can be worked around. Charismatic leadership, harsh discipline, religious taboo are just three possibilities I've thought of, trying to work out how to run S&S. It's the attitude that there is nothing to work around, nothing that needs thinking about or justifying, that is problematic.

It really doesn't need to be worked around. 20 men and 18 women living in a village together don't have unworkable problems due to the fact some of them want to have sex, why do they suddenly have them when they get on a ship?

Andoran

Desi wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:

Go Half Orc, take Power Attack as your Feat. Grab the Sacred Tattoo and Shaman's Apprentice alternate racial traits.

For Traits, take Fate's Favored, which will combine with Sacred Tattoo to add +2 to all your saves...for a +8 Fort, +3 Ref, and +5 Will while raging at 1st level.

Was browsing advice and actually came across this. Since I can keep the FCB either way, is this not better in nearly every way to getting the bonus feat, since I'm getting effectively 3 traits in a +2 bonus to all my saves along with a vision enhancer, plus the backstory reasoning of a falchion? I'd only have to push back my feat progression by pushing Furious Focus to 7th or removing Strength Surge or something along those lines. Could easily get rid of Raging Vitality also.

It's a solid build. But never ever get rid of Raging Vitality without replacing it with something else to keep you from dying when you go unconscious. The build you reference uses his free Endurance from Shaman's Apprentice to qualify for Diehard instead (and thus doesn't nee con 15 to start with)...which is a valid way to go (he just never goes unconscious), but definitely grab one or the other by 5th to 7th. Too easy to die coming down from Rage as a Superstition (ie: other PCs don't heal you in combat) Barbarian otherwise.

Andoran

Scavion wrote:

I don't have a dog in this fight, but are you comparing military discipline to pirate crews? Y'know the criminal kind? And expecting them to act the same when you mesh men and women and put them out on a boat in the middle of an ocean where no one is around and there is zero communication to land?

It's certainly possible that there may be a disciplined and cleaner pirate crew out there that may be able to handle having women as a part of the crew, but it certainly wouldn't be the norm. These are pirates. Lawless vandals who raid the coastline pillaging, looting and yeah theres a bit of that extra evil going on too probably.

Why wouldn't women be included in this sort of thing? They were in real pirate crews and there's a lot less sexism (like, basically none) in Golarion. They're every bit as capable of all the tasks required, and the Pirate Goddess is, well, a Goddess

As for the implication of rape...you don't rape people you sleep in the same room with who own knives and have little compunction about killing people (ie: pirate crew mates). Especially not ones who they have to trust at their back in a fight. Or if you do, you sure as hell don't last very long...

And before someone brings up prison...there's nothing keeping you on a pirate ship except your own will, and nobody to punish you for killing someone who rapes you, and nobody who's making weapons hard to get, and a pirate ship is a much smaller group which changes the interpersonal dynamics quite a lot. The two are very different situations.

In short, male pirates mostly don't rape each other, even in an all-male crew, why would they be more inclined to rape the female ones?

Andoran

Desi wrote:
That just makes it even better, nice!

Indeed. :)

Desi wrote:
Have you ever had a problem with the amount of rage rounds you have a day, or does that seem to be generally covered pretty well usually? That's really the only thing I'm concerned about with this character is that I'll waste it or be too afraid to use enough rounds or something.

At 1st, you only have 6 rounds. That's enough for maybe two fights, so use them wisely. By 4th, you have 12 rounds. That's enough for three or four fights, but you still need to be a little careful. By 8th, you have 21 rounds and can basically stop worrying.

The basic way I'd do it is ask "If I was a spellcaster would I use one of my highest level slots on this fight?" if so, Rage, if not, don't. That remains true until about level 7 or 8, at which point you really can basically stop worrying altogether.

Or just burn when you feel like it until you're down to three to five rounds (maybe more when you're getting pretty up there in levels), then save them until you're clearly in the boss fight.

And, of course, Drunken Brute makes all your worries go away, as you have literally limitless rage. Well, limitless as long as the booze holds out, anyway. It's got consequences, sure...but it's still handy as hell.

Desi wrote:
Thanks for all your help by the way!

You're very welcome. Always happy to be of assistance. :)

Andoran

Touc wrote:

Done is done. I'll rant first about good players assassinating with poison, then finish by congratulating your players on creativity.

Shakespeare set the tone for the contemporary view on poison: a dishonorable tool allowing those with lesser strength, wits, and political power to prevail, thus serving as a tool against order and hierarchy. Contrast this with combat, believed to be righteous because divine providence was afforded an opportunity to intervene (whether it did or not is another question...)

Poison strips men of defenses normally guaranteed them by strength or skill. We see this with Hamlet. His superior skill with a sword allowed him to hit Laertes mutliple times, but then Hamlet is hit with an otherwise non-fatal wound that carries poison. A foe with poison needs no skill, no courage, no wits, to slay someone of greater skill and status. A servant can kill a king.

Assassination means the players have taken it upon themselves to be judge, jury, and executioner, without consideration of the citizens or what they want (or who they want to rule them...may be odd but a corrupt ruler may protect them from far greater harm).

All that seems, to me, to be arguments why it's Chaotic, not Evil. Good cares about mercy, kindness, and the dignity of sentient beings. Poison's no more of an affront to those than a sword is. Law is the alignment that cares about honor and fairness per se.

Andoran

Desi wrote:
I was about to ask about this, then I found the line under Natural Attacks about weapons clutched in hands, so nevermind. That's sad. Are they not very useful then?

Solid backup weapons for if you get disarmed or grappled or something. And they open the door to the other Beast Totem Rage Powers which are great.

Desi wrote:
Someone else that knows the glory that is the Jingasa, finally.

Well yeah, that thing is great. I'm totally eventually grabbing it on my Oracle/Barbarian. Of course he has Fate's Favored, making it even better...

Desi wrote:
He was an Urban Barbie so he would've needed to take both medium and heavy proficiency as feats, so I guess he found it easier to not have an AC then try with that low of a proficiency on a 15 pt. buy.

As a Strength character? Yeah, that'd likely be too hard to manage. Dex-based Urban Barbarians are another story, of course.

Andoran

Freehold DM wrote:
It's a Hellraiser reference, man, and a damn good one. I've been wondering when someone was going to go all cenobite on Zon-Kuthon.

You mean other than the designers? ;)

And I caught the reference, I was just noting that we have no evidence he's the only God who endorses BDSM as such.

Andoran

Desi wrote:
Does that not allow me to, on a full attack, Greatsword-claw-claw for 3 attacks at full BAB?

Sadly, no. Claws are on your hands. If they're on your feet they're called talons. You get a Greatsword attack or the two claws, not both. You could also do a Longsword + 1 Claw...but that's silly since the claw would become secondary.

Desi wrote:
Looks good to me. I assume Heavy Armor if going Drunken Brute is to take advantage of the move speed I'm giving up anyway? I don't know that I will actually take Drunken Brute though, probably just Invulnerable Rager.

Yeah, basically. Like I said, drop it in that case. Maybe grab it at 9 or 11 if you think you can get a hold of some Mithral Fullplate.

Desi wrote:
The barbarian player I mentioned earlier in thread, when raging and Reckless Abandoning IIRC had an AC of 6 at about level 10. But if my AC is going to be low enough that anything of average CR will wail on my face, is it not better to maximize my offense in an attempt to mitigate the poor defense?

By 10th a Barbarian in a Breastplate can easily have AC of 26 (+9 Armor, +2 Dex, +1 Ring, +1 Amulet, +1 Jingasa, +1 Ioun Stone, +3 Beast Totem, -2 Rage) for around 23 k out of his 62 (leaving 15 for a Cord of Stubborn Resolve, 18 for a +3 weapon, 9 for a +3 cloak and some left over). He could easily have more if he went with Full Plate (28 or so...which is quite a bit better and advisable, therefore). The Jingasa and Ioun stone are admittedly iffy if you don't have someone with Craft Wondrous Item...but why in the world wouldn't you? And at that level improving the ring and amulet is almost as cheap. That's not a ridiculous AC, but it's not an auto-hit for most foes either, and getting hit by 1/2 of attacks is quite a bit better than getting hit by all (especially crits...)

The idea that Barbarians all have low AC is silly. You can choose to ditch AC on any character, and Barbarians are more likely to survive it than most, but it's hardly a requirement.

Andoran

Scavion wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
Off topic but is there a paladin archetype that breaks them out of the alignment straightjacket?
No. Unless you count Antipaladin.
Even he has restrictions.

True, but they're different ones. :)

Andoran

LordSynos wrote:
** spoiler omitted **

For the record, this is what I do. NG Paladins don't upset me though. LN ones would.

Andoran

Mostly looks solid to me. Personally, I'd drop Cha to 7 and raise either Int or Wis. With an 8 and no class skills, well, you might as well go all the way. I'd probably go with the Int 10, honestly. Makes the GM more likely to not b#%&~ about stat-dumping (well, and I hate playing dumb characters).

Drunken Brute's an either/or thing (you could take it or not, both are viable), but if doing it, grab Heavy Armor Proficiency somewhere in there, there's no reason not to at that point.

It's also worth noting that Lesser Beast Totem only gives two attacks, not three. It's solid, but I'd still switch the order of it and Superstition. I'd also skip Reckless Abandon, it and Come And Get Me together are just overkill, and leave you too vulnerable defensively.

Make sure to grab Cold Resistance and Endure Elements (Cold), since it's Reign of Winter and you're going Invulnerable Rager.

My preferred Feat/Rage Power order for the things you suggest:

1: Power Attack, Raging Vitality,
2: Superstition
3: Heavy Armor Proficiency (if going Drunken Brute, otherwise move all the other Feats down two levels)
4: Lesser Beast Totem
5: Furious Focus
6: Beast Totem
7: Extra Rage Power (Strength Surge)
8: Witch Hunter
9: Extra Rage Power (Spell Sunder)
10: Greater Beast Totem
11: Combat Reflexes
12: Come And Get Me

Beyond that? Honestly, I'd burn any additional Rage Powers and possibly Feats on Increased Damage Reduction. Though Stalwart and Improved Stalwart are also options, and might combine well with taking Reckless Abandon depending on your preferences...that's all post 12th level for the most part, though.

Andoran

Wiggz wrote:
Following this logic, there shouldn't be attribute bonuses or penalties for belonging to a particular race or sex. But there are, because generally speaking some races are stronger, faster, wiser, smarter than others - or less so as the case may be. If we can apply that common sense approach to races, why not sexes?

Three reasons:

#1: Separate species are more likely to have significant divergences in capability than different genders within the same species (barring serious sexual dimorphism...which I'm cool with, but we're talking Lashunta here, not humans).

#2: We (as in our current scientific knowledge base as a culture) don't have a good enough handle on the differences between men and women to properly apply anything except maybe a Strength penalty without coming off as wildly sexist and inaccurate...and if women get a penalty and no bonuses that has a whole different set of unfortunate and sexist implications.

#3: It makes the game less fun to pigeonhole people into certain character builds based on gender (since many people prefer to play their own gender), so why do it? Realism's nice, but in a system where you can swim through lava without magic and not only survive but be fine within days if you're tough enough...realism isn't the primary concern, stat-wise.

Andoran

Wiggz wrote:

Gender roles are alive and well in our games though:

1) different races and even different cultures may embrace wildly variable 'gender roles' than what would be considered traditional in our world.

In fairness, I do this too to some degree when doing homebrew worlds. In the world for the game I just started (tribal humans and orcs rebelling against the pseudo-Roman Elven Empire) Orcs have strong traditional gender roles involving men doing the hunting, fighting, and ruling while women do the farming and all intellectual pursuits, including what Arcane magic they have. Humans have no fixed gender roles (their main War deity is female, for example), Dwarves are kinda misogynistic, Elves have some weird gender roles based on their Gods (LN god, CN goddess), Halflings are vaguely matriarchal, etc.

Wiggz wrote:
2) There are always exceptions to the established norm.

Agreed. The above mentioned campaign includes an Orc Barbarian Princess. Her father does not approve of her life choices...but he respects her skill, and she's actually currently on a rather sensitive mission for him.

Wiggz wrote:
We have to look realistically at gender roles as having a valid purpose and legitimate reason behind them, especially in less advanced civilization - not just as a fabrication and means of oppression by the evil Male.

Some of them did...others not so much. It depended a lot on the particular culture. Certainly the many cultures that deemed women inherently less worthy or capable than men in basically all fields of endeavor were oppressive for reasons that amounted to complete b*#~!$#+.

Others (virginity till marriage for women but not men, for example) certainly had purpose and debatably legitimate reasons behind them, but as I mention, magic tends to invalidate a lot of those...

Andoran

Awesome episode, I'm really enjoying Evil Ward. He's fun. Also, if Skye can't save herself somehow when she gets to pick the battlefield, I'd be deeply disappointed in her.

And I'm betting on May's mom being CIA. She seems the type.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.

What do you mean by 'The U.S.' if you mean the people of the country as a whole...no. If you mean the government, sure. I don't tend to think the U.S. government qualifies for villain status in real life...but it certainly comes close some days. More than close enough for a near-future or slightly alternate world to have it be such a villain.

And besides, I'm a libertarian, I just generally approve of governments as main villains (or major corporations, those work too).

Andoran

Jaelithe wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Lincoln Hills wrote:
Jaelithe wrote:
Lawful good, in some measure because 70% of the PCs I play are paladins.
I'm glad to hear the class has some fans. Out of curiosity, however, if paladin limitations were merely "non-chaotic, non-evil," do you think you'd take advantage of other alignment options?
Speaking as someone who allows CG Paladins, this would upset me. If you're not Good you're not a Paladin. Period.
And if you're not lawful you're not a paladin. Period.

I can certainly understand where you're coming from, but I respectfully disagree. I'm just comfortable with a slightly wider spectrum of Paladins than that.

I don't think I've ever actually played a non-LG Paladin, it just vaguely seems like a thing that should potentially exist.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
A party of neutral and good characters poisoning people in their sleep, yeah.

Sure, why not? Poison isn't Evil. Assassination isn't necessarily Evil, depending on context.

You could maybe argue it was an Evil action to kill him in his sleep without first having talked to him and given him some chance to come to terms, and thus not Paladin allowed even sans poison, if you wanted (I might well even agree with you), but for anyone not a Paladin, the Good action of liberating the town overshadows the very minimal Evil of it quite a bit. Nobody's Alignment is changing over that, and nobody here seems to have been a Paladin...

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Misfortune is a great Hex that works on Undead, as well as everything else.

Web Bolt isn't bad single-target control, either, and at 2nd level, Web. Bestow Curse, Lightning Bolt, and Twilight Knife at 3rd make for a more expansive selection, as do Volcanic Storm, Wreath of Blades, and Web Cloud at 4th. And so on and so forth.

And that's not counting buff spells, Patron spells, or Cure spells, either.

Andoran

Quandary wrote:
People find in MODERN day world social gender diffences, certainly in 20th century history (with plenty of "magic" technology) there is differences, so pretending there is no differences is silly and reduces the richness of the setting.

Yeah...but it's changing in a more gender-balanced direction, and we've had most of the 'magic' technology that helped change it in that direction what, 50 years? Maybe 100? Golarion's had magic for millennia, and presumably the same kind of gender balancing has been going on that entire time.

Quandary wrote:
I also prefer a more naturalistic model in other areas, e.g. getting away from the idea of one single "Common" for the most part, and using more of a plurality of "regional trade languages" with some being larger/more common than others, some being more integrated into average persons' daily lives than others, etc.

Actually, Common (actually Taldane) is explained pretty well in Golarion, given it was the common tongue of an Empire that ruled over most of the Inner Sea area (at least in Avistan). It's like people in medieval Europe knowing Latin, only even more believable since it's not mostly a dead language.

Different areas actually do have different equivalents (Polyglot in the Mwangi expanse, Tian in Tian Xia, etc.) So...this is actually a thing. For the record.

Quandary wrote:
I find this line of reasoning rather shallow. 'Herbs for birth control' are exactly a feature of realistic historic medieval humanity.

Yeah...not exactly. there were certainly a number of herbs used, but they weren't know about by everyone and were notably and profoundly unreliable (as mentioned by others). Pathfinder has, listed in the Adventurer's Armory, one that's basically 100% effective and used by women. That's a huge difference right there, as is evidenced by what the common availability of the pill did for women's lib.

Quandary wrote:
Actual history is replete with female deities, and priestesses.

What part of history? The medieval European part, where women were considered less than men, was notably lacking in them, and many societies that did have them treated women somewhat better.

But all that's beside the point. My point was if you have real and provable, female, deities who can actually talk to their worshipers, they're going to gradually influence said churches away from sexism towards women. Calistria, Desna, Shelyn, Pharasma, and Sarenrae have had millenia to do this, with only Asmodeus really opposing them (and per James Jacobs he's seriously scared of Pharasma, which might prove an impediment to such opposition). Is it any surprise it worked?

Quandary wrote:
Certainly rich and powerful women have existed in actual history, and most men would beware crossing them. Reducing history to 'men:powerful/high, women:weak/low' ignores the actual social structuring of society.

Sure...but the power of high level Pathfinder characters is an order of magnitude different than the personal prowess of any real world person. Powerful people in history were powerful because people listened to them and did as they said, which misogynists could pretty easily explain away as the men they ordered to do things being the powerful ones (though foolish, to serve a woman)...that's a lot harder to do when the woman in question can directly destroy you with a thought.

Quandary wrote:
The intimation that you ignore or erase male/female strength variance from the in-game context is shocking, and laughably irrealistic to believe that players can/will actually expunge such conceptions from their mind. I mean, in the most gender equal locale you could imagine on modern Earth, no serious person could ever REMOTELY imagine that to be true. Are you permanently conflicted with the biologial definition of human males and females to the point that in your fantasy game world you must remove it, essentially creating a new species not corresponding to actual humans? Obviously in the fantasy world, there are other species, and those can and do offer other gender dynamics in that regard, but this sort of conceit seems absolutely baffling, at least outside of a specific setting where genders did not exist as we know them.

Honestly? I don't think about this issue too much and neither do my players. Women don't get a Strength penalty, therefore women can be as strong as men. Whether that's the norm...perhaps, perhaps not. If I were inclined to think on it, I'd probably say that yes, on average, human women have less upper body strength than human men, reflecting reality as you say. I might even apply the same standards to Half-Elves and Half-Orcs...but Elves, Dwarves, Halflings and Gnomes don't logically follow. And dealing with such species would tend to modify human attitudes towards those women who departed from this particular norm.

And heck, again, this is a world with magic. Who's to say someone (presumably a feminist) didn't modify the species long ago so that women were as strong as men? Yes, this would technically make them a subspecies...but as the only kind of human on the planet, who cares? I probably wouldn't do this, but it's hardly a stretch if you did.

And I'll note that I specifically followed up by explaining why whether that was true or not was highly irrelevant since, in the world of Pathfinder, unlike the real world with medieval technology, raw muscle power is not necessarily the most effective method of disposing of foes even in a straight fight.

Andoran

Chengar Qordath wrote:
Jonathon Vining wrote:
My approach is for gender equality to be the norm. This, among other things, makes the game desirable to play at all for female players. I'm okay with sexist cultures or characters, but I like that to be as a contrast to the usual "discrimination is bad, mmmkay?" vibe. Same basic answers for racism, homophobia, similar topics. With the exception that some races (in the D&D sense) or cultures (countries, whatever) might not get along as a generalisation. See dwarves and orcs in Golarion.
Have to agree with this general sentiment. I don't want real-world issues like sexism, racism, and homophobia intruding on my fun game time. That's not to say you can't include them in a game and have fun with them, but I'd be wary of giving those sorts of issues focus unless you're sure everyone at the table is cool with it.

I agree. And think Golarion's pretty solid for this. Amiri has a strong sexism element in her background, and so can you, if you like...but none of the other female Iconics do, nor need you if you don't want to. Ditto other issues like racism, religious or anti-religious bias, illegitimacy, or a host of other issues.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Jacobs wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Gnolls tend to be patriarchal as well (oddly enough)
That bit there's kind of an error we're working on fixing. Gnolls should be matriarchal.

Yay! Thanks James!

That always made more sense. The ones in LoF are Rovvagug worshiping heretics, so they can stay all patriarchal and crazy, but good Lamashtan Gnolls should be ruled by the women, dammit.

Renegadeshepherd wrote:
2) to c if anyone brings up or talks about how in a agrarian, medieval, tribal, or feudal societies the differences that gender plays. Those differences are small but ever present. For the considerable majority of my pathfinder games I just overlook em and play. Even so that is the basis of question 2.

The issue with this is, well, magic sorta invalidates almost all of them. Birth control? Totally an easy herb (probably created by magic) away. Paternity worries? Easily checkable with the right magic. Male upper body strength? Not a factor mechanically, and even if it is in-world...turning someone into a newt doesn't require it. God says so? No, as a matter of fact she doesn't, and you can ask her if you'd like. Inherently lesser, you say? Perhaps you'd like to try being one for a while...(this last one is generally pretty cruel, but it could happen, and frankly so's that newt thing I keep mentioning).

In short...it wouldn't make sense for there to be the kind of ubiquitous sexism there was at one point on Earth on Golarion.

Note: I'm not saying it made sense on Earth, or that those justifications are true on Earth...I'm saying that almost all the ways it was justified are much more easily proven false by women who can cast Wish or Baleful Polymorph. Or by provable female deities.

Andoran

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Renegadeshepherd wrote:

Hi all. I've noticed that many published material and players play the game based on "genders are largely equal". I'm curious if...

1) most play it this way

I certainly do.

Renegadeshepherd wrote:
2) does this seem possible

Sure. When women can have the power to turn you into a toad as easily as men, and some of the more badass Gods are female, a lot of sexism tends to depart at speed.

Renegadeshepherd wrote:
3) if changed what do u do different

I wouldn't.

Renegadeshepherd wrote:

The idea of gender equality across dozens of races in a fantasy setting is hard to accept as anything loosely based in reality when men and women of one race in the real world is still an ideal at best (and only in some parts of the world at that). This suspends disbelief for me to some extent and wonder if it does for u and how much. Even in say PFS, there are far more men in charge of a faction then men and, without spoiling much, Cheliax wasn't doing well last i saw.

Share with me plz.

Uh...gender equality is universal among the majority of most PC races, not across the world. The Drow are matriarchal and treat men quite badly, Orcs are patriarchal and do the same to women, Gnolls tend to be patriarchal as well (oddly enough), and so on and so forth. Asmodeus is quite misogynistic, too. There's quite a bit of gender bias in a variety of cultures in Golarion. Just not the prevailing Human, Elven, Dwarven, Gnom, or Halfling ones.

And heck, even among those, there's a female dominated nation in Southern Garund and Amiri's original tribe were quite sexist towards women. It's a thing that exists, just not the prevailing norm.

Andoran

alchemicGenius wrote:

> Paladin: standard action to detect charm

> Wyvern: may or may not eat wizard

Sometimes paladar isn't the best option. even if it's not a charm, there's nothing saying the wyvern didn't just bully the group into negotiation. If someone has a split second to make a choice, they will go with what their instinct tells them. From the paladin's perspective, he did the most reasonable thing with what information he was privy to.

Then why the coup de grace? I mean...the initial attack is potentially justified for the reasons you list. But then, after the threat was dealt with and the foe unconscious, he killed the creature despite his allies going out of their way to keep it alive. That's...a lot more problematic.

Andoran

Scavion wrote:
No. What I said is that, he was willing to perform actions to ensure he had the upperhand. That action was dishonorable. What other actions are dishonorable? We have proof that it is willing to commit a dishonorable act to get an advantage.

Codes of honor vary wildly and drastically. Most societies in history didn't consider ambushing foes dishonorable. Most did consider breaking your word to be so.

Scavion wrote:
Also lying is different from oathbreaking. One is to straight up give false information. The other is to break your word after you have given it. Oathbreaking is far more severe than lying. AND! in most medieval settings punishable by death. Heck in a TON of settings Oathbreaking is punishable by death.

Indeed. Which is why you have it swear to you to Not Do X Again, to not escape, things like that. Which would make it an oathbreaker if it broke it's word. And that proves it's untrustworthy, a threat to innocents, and the need to slay it. You gave it a chance, though.

Scavion wrote:
I'd love to know how you can irrevocably know whether or not someone will betray you. Quite a few ways apparently.

Well let's see, Sense Motive, them having a history of betrayal, Discern Lies, Zone of Truth...the list goes on. It doesn't need to be 100%, but there were literally no indications it wasn't a creature of it's word, and they could've at least talked to it to see if it was (ie: Sense Motive checks).

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Once again, I agree with Tacticslion.

(Note: This happens a lot)

At this point, I'm pretty much only arguing a side issue (that doing one sneaky/dishonorable thing doesn't necessarily imply you would do others of an entirely different type).

Andoran

Usual Suspect wrote:
Killing somebody when you do not have to do so to defend yourself or somebody else.

Okay, I'll agree to that definition. By that definition, I think murder is usually but not necessarily Evil.

Usual Suspect wrote:
Doing something like killing somebody because you want too, it makes you feel better, it is easier.

I agree. Those kinds of reasons all send you down the slippery slope towards Evil.

Usual Suspect wrote:
A state sponsored executioner is carrying out a sentence passed down by a convening authority that has determined somebody to be irredeemable. Presumably this authority has the moral standing to make such a decision (though they may not).

Forgive me for saying so, but this attitude has more to do with being Lawful than being Good. What makes the judge who sentenced someone to death morally superior to you or me?

Now, if you're killing people without sufficient evidence to convict them if you were the judge, sure, that's a problem. But we're talking someone who saw them commit the crime. Their guilt is factual. The only difference between killing them yourself and turning them over to the law is a legal one, not a moral one.

Usual Suspect wrote:
This is not murder, though it may be morally suspect.

If that's not murder, how is killing someone for all the exact same reasons (to prevent them committing more crimes, as a warning to others, etc.) murder? The fact that you're legally allowed to do it in one circumstance but not the other doesn't make one more moral than the other.

Usual Suspect wrote:
Execution is not a good act, and can at best be described as a necessary act.

Here I agree with you entirely. I'm just not sure why it needs to be legally sanctioned to be Neutral instead of Evil. Chaos and Evil are different things, after all.

Usual Suspect wrote:
I hope that you understand that from our point of view, this is always a cheap shot. Comparing murder to the necessary but still not good acts that soldiers must take on the battlefield is always a sure road to bad feelings. I won't even respond to TOZ's comment. Yours were obviously not intended to be offensive; but they are. We are trapped in a situation where we must trust that those in authority above us, who have been given the moral and legal authority to make the decisions, have made the right decision that these acts are necessary (that still does not make them good, only necessary). And yet we are the ones who have to live with them as we carry them out. Actions on the battlefield always leave deep scars; even when you know you are doing what must be done. And the last 13 years have shown as always, that the people above us screw up too.

I'm legitimately sorry if I offended. I've had moral discussions with a number of ex-military people previously, and none of them were ever offended by the mention that being a soldier was a potentially moral thing to do. Which was all I was intending to say.

And I believe TOZ is actually ex-military, which paints his comment in a somewhat different light, IMO.

Usual Suspect wrote:
And that is why I respect you enough to reply. I am pretty sure though that we have reached the point of agreeing to disagree on the nuances. I have enjoyed the conversation.

Sure, me too. Sorry again about any offense given.

Andoran

Scavion wrote:

We're gonna work through this nice and easy.

1. Ambush is dishonorable. There is a massive difference in tone between meeting your foe in the field of combat and jumping them in the alley with their pants down.

Here, I agree with you to some degree. I'm not sure I'd go as far as ambush being dishonorable, but what the hell, let's go with it for the sake of argument.

Scavion wrote:
2. If this creature is willing to take dishonorable actions to guarantee it has an upperhand in combat, why then would we not assume that it may take other underhanded means? Such as lying as to it's purpose for attacking the party.

Uh...ambushes are not the same as oathbreaking. In the same way casual murder is not the same thing as rape. The first two are dishonorable, the second two are Evil. But not everyone who does one would do the other and assuming they would is, frankly, crazy.

What you're saying is on par with saying "Well he killed that guy so obviously he was gonna rape the corpse!" It flies in the face of all logic and knowledge of how people actually behave.

Scavion wrote:
Basically, the Wyvern was dishonorable in it's choice to take the adventurers by surprise and attempt to kill them. It didn't need to fight them, it just did. Food is plentiful in the Stolen Lands. If it was in it's so called territory it could have warned them off but it didnt. Thus it isn't a stones throw away to assume it may contain other dishonorable qualities.

'May' sure. 'Does'? Not so much. It could've betrayed them...or it could've been grateful they let it live, served them loyally, and eventually converted to the worship of the Paladin's God. We don't know because the Paladin just killed it.

And the risk of betrayal, when you have quite a few ways of checking for that sort of thing and are likely to have more in the future, is kind of a poor excuse for killing someone out of hand. Generally, killing people for things you think they might do in the future when you have no good evidence of that is a bad policy.

Andoran

Desi wrote:
I've never had a PC bard in a party, only NPC bards. I've played mainly paladins, fighters, magus, etc. How can I more easily transition this into something more like a bard? I wouldn't mind playing one, but playing a full support character seems very boring imo.

Who says Bards are a full support character? First, you take the lead in social stuff and usually in skill-based things as well (which tend to be a fair portion of the game), and second, both melee and archer Bards are actually quite solid in a fight. They're not quite on par with full-on martial characters, but they're solid if built properly. Heck, Dawnflower Dervishes are probably on par with more martial classes, though they give up some serious party buffing to do it and may be a bit off-theme for Reign of Winter...but then again, maybe not, fire vs. ice has some style to it.

Andoran

Desi wrote:
He implied we'll be far from mainland Golarion and that it wouldn't fit.

This is at least partially true. I'd personally say you were a Hellknight apprentice (spacing the term) to start with and just go with that in terms of justification, but I can see where your GM is coming from to some degree.

Desi wrote:
I haven't talked to the other players about it, I haven't seen them recently enough. So I don't actually know yet.

Well, Bard is always fun and useful, and Witch is very thematically appropriate. If going melee, I'm a big fan of Barbarian...it all depends what you're looking for.

Andoran

Berselius wrote:
Also, Arachnofiend and Deadmanwalking? My girlfriend saw your posts and she wanted to personally thank you for typing what you both did. Alot of GM's let their players get away with some terrible deeds when they let them play the bad guys but when concepts of rape and gender discrimination cross the boundary of fantasy and into the players and DM's interaction with each other then things have gone WAY out of hand and the situation needs to be reevaluated BIG TIME.

Wow. That's really cool, and I don't quite know what to say, other than a 'You're welcome.' I guess.

And obviously, I agree entirely with the sentiment expressed. Doing that kind of thing is just not okay.

Andoran

What else is in your party? Advice on Class is hard to give in a vacuum.

Andoran

Tacticslion wrote:

An example of (I think) a non-evil kill: I played a ranger who's favored enemy was orcs; in the course of a campaign in an area known to have a high percentage of evil humanoids, the party eventually captured an orc who was clearly a scout for something and refused to budge in divulging any sort of information. Orcs were the perennial enemies of those living the the area, and this one, once captured, had been spectacularly unhelpful.

The ranger explained to the orc that they currently simply didn't have the time to properly come to trust the orc/keep it captured: they were in a major time-crunch/rush to save a comrade/ally who'd been captured (semi-ironically-in-the-dramatic-sense-or-whatever, probably the one comrade/ally that could have convinced said orc to cooperate), and they couldn't afford to let the orc go, given the racial tensions that had run so very high of late between the ranger's chosen people and the orc's.

So, the orc had two options: cooperate and divulge his purpose, the location of his military force, and why he was scouting (and what), or take a beheading for his people, as they couldn't, in good conscience, allow him to return to scout wherever he was going or to return with said information. He was surprised at the idea, and angry, but took the beheading instead, silently accepting the reality of the situation: he refused to betray his people. The ranger noted that he respected the orc and his decision, and tried to make it a clean chop, and did (a coup-de-grace against what is effectively a helpless enemy with a high STR and halberd meant that the orc was entirely dead and beheaded). The group then made a quick, but "honoring" burial in "the orc custom" (insomuch as there was one), and created a sign for other orc scouts (in orc, if any could read) that might come through the area, detailing the death of the orc, how he died (honorably), and that he'd divulged no information in doing so, in case other scouts came through and wanted to recover...

I agree with this post in it's entirety. My point has always been that this action was Evil because there were viable alternatives that the Paladin didn't even bother to think about. He didn't even try to avoid killing the helpless creature, quite the reverse. The situation described above had none of those options and what ones they had were tried.

Andoran

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Thomas Long 175 wrote:

Gotta point out, what counts as an evil act in pathfinder is nowhere near what we consider an evil act, as canon material from the deities book outright says it is a legitimate action for a lawful good character to mash the heads of baby goblins if he doesn't think they'll turn out to be good and non violent.

Honestly, I don't understand how a creature that is in the description inherently violent towards everything that doesn't give it stuff and is intelligent enough to know right from wrong isn't evil. Regardless, if he knows enough to know that its going to be a continual threat to civilized lands, per mashing goblin baby head rule, he can kill it surrender or not.

Edit: and yes, i'm calling it the mashing goblin baby head rule.

I'm just gonna link a thing here. And given that's from James Jacobs and he is the guy who has the last word on this in Golarion...no, killing babies isn't Good.

Andoran

Scavion wrote:

Ah but you were wrong about always needing to accept surrender.

The Wyvern took the immediate most aggressive action. If it was merely trying to defend it's home it would have warned. "Go away or I'll eat ya." Then it'd have an argument for attacking. As it stands it didn't. It could have communicated peacefully but didn't.

And life and death situations tend to paint how you treat people when they are the cause of those situations.

You claimed the Paladin had to accept surrender. You were wrong. The Paladin is within his right to deny the Wyvern when the Wyvern took backhanded and evil approach to combating them.

Thus we know that the Wyvern can't be trusted.

Wait...what? This post makes no sense. Initiating a fight unprovoked and keeping your word are two entirely separate things that have absolutely nothing to do with each other. In Pathfinder, a LE guy is the obvious example, because he'd absolutely do the first, but quite possibly never do the second. Historically, a number of raiding/warrior cultures are also excellent examples, with vikings coming immediately to mind.

Attacking people does not equal having no honor.

This admittedly a bit of a digression...but the whole end of that post just makes no damn sense at all.

Andoran

Okay, my internet died for several hours before I could post this, and it seems relevant even considering how many more posts there have been in the interim, so here it is:

Sub_Zero wrote:

Lets also point out that the vast majority of thing you fight in this game aren't killed outright, merely they reach -1 or lower hitpoints and we write them off as dead.

The GM specifically broke the rule to allow it to be at -1 hp (which is fine, but not the norm) and the Paladin finished it off.

This rule of coup de grace is never ok is just silly. You fight an army of Kobolds, I guarantee you a large number won't be killed outright, and will instead be at -1 or lower dying on the ground. Are you seriously suggesting that the Paladin must save them all? Or if not, can you really say it's better for him to watch them slowing die slowly as they die from hideous wounds? This entire line of argument is silly.

I'm seriously suggesting that, if the fight is over and he has no more pressing concerns (including seeing to the injured on his own side) the Paladin should treat the enemy wounded, yes. That's the right thing to do, so he should do it. What he does from there depends highly on the situation.

Sub_Zero wrote:
At the end of the day, I agree with Scavion. You could have a Paladin who might fall for this, and you could have a Paladin be completely fine with this, and you might even have a Paladin fall somewhere in between. The fact that the GM hadn't hammered out the Paladin's code is a big issue.

I agree that the lack of a code is an issue. However, I'd strongly argue this falls under an Evil act and thus all Paladins would fall from it regardless of specific Code.

Sub_Zero wrote:
To sit here and spout off that there is a single way this should go down is absurd. It's absurd, because as you can see there are varying opinions on the matter.

Certainly there are. People all have different definitions of Good in real life, and thus inevitably in the game.

Sub_Zero wrote:
The moral system that defines the Paladin is going to change depending on what values he holds, and what you're definition of good is. Deadmanwalkings version of a Paladin might very well deserve to fall for killing a Wyvern, because it breaches his definition of good. Scavion's Paladin might be completely justified because it fits what his definition of good is.

This is why it's an excellent idea to discuss how your GM defines Alignment before you play a Paladin. Really, this should be required for all Paladin players and GMs.

Sub_Zero wrote:
Finally, I keep seeing a double standard being used about the Wyvern's intelligence. On the one hand it's "but he is smart sentient being how dare you kill him during parley (that the Paladin didn't understand)" and on the other "It's just an Apex predator doing it's thing, it didn't know it was wrong to start slaughtering people it thought were weaker then itself". The fact is it's a smart sentient being who decided it'd rather ambush and kill people in it's territory rather then talk/warn them. The fact that it's monster entry says Neutral is almost irrelevant to the fact that it was doing an entirely evil act, and only stopped because it was beat. Something tells me if this was an ancient Liche we wouldn't be having this conversation.

I'd like to note that I've never referred to the wyvern as anything but a sentient creature and never denied that it's attack was unwarranted.

And the difference with the Lich is that you know, by the nature of becoming a Lich and having an Evil alignment, that this is far from the Lich's only crime. You know nothing of the sort about the wyvern.

Sub_Zero wrote:
Then again that entire point is predicated upon my understanding of good, which is again the point.

Indeed. :)

Sub_Zero wrote:
Anyways, my overall opinion on this is that it is poor form to make someone fall because they aren't falling you're standard of good, unless this was made explicitly clear to them early on. Doing so just ruins peoples times and makes people play lawful stupid (or in this case Chaotic stupid) since that seems like the only way to play the Paladin.

I agree with this to some degree. Definitions should be made very explicit from the beginning. But...killing a helpless foe over the objections of the rest of the party is pretty egregious.

.
.
.
I'll probably post a couple more responses to a couple of other posts in a bit.

Andoran

Scavion wrote:
By arbitrarily deciding that the Paladin cannot take even slightly ambiguous actions you have stolen player agency.

Uh...of course he can. He can eat babies if he likes, but it'll have repercussions like the loss of Paladin powers. And killing unconscious people who were in the process of negotiating with your allies, over said allies objections, is not particularly ambiguous.

Scavion wrote:
Homicidal and Immoral? Hardly.

That seems a fair description.

Scavion wrote:
Can you ensure that they'll be able to keep the Wyvern without endangering others? Can you ensure that when the guard comes to give the Wyvern his daily gruel that it doesn't plant a spike through his chest? Do you think years of imprisonment won't leave the Wyvern feeling vengeful?

Prison is only one option. Community service is another one. I've always wanted a wyvern mount...

And with some Diplomacy (which you ought to have, being a Paladin) you can probably even convert the creature onto the path of righteousness, if you play your cards right.

Scavion wrote:
You have decided that the Paladin doesn't get to justify his actions. You have painted certain rather ambiguous actions as ALWAYS BAD MUST FALL.

Killing unconscious non-Evil opponents when other options are available is not an ambiguous situation.

Scavion wrote:
The world is far more diverse than that. He didn't know they were parleying he couldnt understand them. The Dragon could have been taunting them or his allies begging for mercy. They were just attacked without warning with lethal force.

His allies caught the falling wyvern and asked him to spare it. The situation stopped being ambiguous at that point and became "Whoops, sorry guys." only that's not what he did...

Andoran

gnomersy wrote:
Except we can't really decide on the morality since you're applying present day morals which aren't necessarily applicable to the universe.

Except that universe's morals are based on those of the present day.

To quote:

Alignment Rules wrote:

Good Versus Evil

Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.

Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.

People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent, but may lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others.

Bolded some relevant sections there.

gnomersy wrote:
On top of which your assertion that it is better to beat the crap out of something then leave it to bleed to death slowly in the woods is somehow more just than ending it's life makes roughly no g@# d+&n sense.

I never made this assertion. Leaving it to bleed to death would also be morally objectionable. On the other hand, the other PCs were going to save it...so that was never going to happen. And thus hasn't been discussed.

Andoran

Scavion wrote:

If all the paths point to loss then you're really taking the virtues of tabletop gaming and stomping them to death. I'd rather play a video game because I'd have more player agency than that.

The whole point is to give players loads of options because "You can use your imagination to accomplish whatever you desire!"

I thought RPGs were meant to be conclusive to ideas. But apparently we should punish players when they make decisions we don't like.

Uh...all paths didn't lead to loss. There were lots of ways out of that situation without falling. The PC didn't pick one of those. He picked the convenient, homicidal and immoral, option. That's a valid choice for most PCs...but if you're playing a Paladin, you've taken the conscious choice for that kind of option to have additional consequences.

It's not like I'm arguing he can't go get an Atonement or that his Alignment changed or anything, he totally can and it didn't. But, well, that action was not Paladin safe.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scavion wrote:

Basically one side is arguing "No theres only 1 way for a Paladin to play this situation, this Paladin didn't so he must fall."

The other side is "Things aren't so cut and dry and there are tons of justifiable ways to play out this situation."

One side limits characters the other side diversifies them.

Diversifying Paladins into "I can kill people for pissing me off." isn't really something I consider a positive...

Andoran

Usual Suspect wrote:
Actually, yes it is. Two wrongs do not make a right. Murder is evil.

How are you defining murder? the usual definition is illegal killing, and I'd disagree that such is always immoral or evil. Often, but not always.

Usual Suspect wrote:
What motivates you does not change your alignment if your intent is still morally corrupt.

What do you mean by 'morally corrupt'? If my intent is 'to make the world a better place' is that morally corrupt?

Usual Suspect wrote:
If you are motivated by revenge for somebody's unspeakably evil acts; killing them is still evil if there is another way to punish them. Crimes of passion are still crimes. They are still moral failings.

How is this morally different from being a state-sponsored executioner? In both cases you are killing someone to punish them for a crime, after all.

Usual Suspect wrote:
And as a retired solder, I am offended that you take such a cheap shot. Killing enemy combatants during active combat is not murder. Killing enemies that surrender is. These are very different things and have varying motivations. Snipers taking out active combatants and legitimate targets is not evil. Snipers taking out civilians just for fun is evil. We have been forced to deal with the latter far too often in the military and it is always an ugly situation.

Um...that wasn't a cheap shot. That was me making the point that in no way do I believe being a soldier makes you Evil. And that, thus, some circumstances must make killing not Evil. That's all.

And I definitely agree that the things you list here are Evil.

Andoran

Scavion wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:


Uh...it was unconscious. From lethal damage. So...they had at least 24 hours to figure something out. If a PC group can't rig up a sled and some rope in that time, they're in serious trouble.
And then pull it through untamed wilderness?

Sure. Nobody said being Good was easy.

Andoran

Rynjin wrote:

And then what do they do with him?

Keep him chained to a post in the middle of town or something?

As mentioned, they likely have a dungeon at this point...

EDIT: And even if that's a bit cramped, they can store it there until they have some large sized cells built (probably a good idea anyway).

Scavion wrote:

Claws, teeth and a sharp stinger require quite a bit of rope. I would imagine transporting the Wyvern would also be quite difficult.

Much likely beyond what a 5-7th level party could realistically accomplish on short notice.

I'd imagine my current PC group (who are level 7) could do it quite easily, actually. It'd be slightly harder if they were lower level, but hardly impossible.

Scavion wrote:
No, I'm saying that the party is likely not to have that much rope and a cart laying around on hand to do so.

Uh...it was unconscious. From lethal damage. So...they had at least 24 hours to figure something out. If a PC group can't rig up a sled and some rope in that time, they're in serious trouble.

Scavion wrote:
What do you do when you can't take someone prisoner and letting them go is too dangerous?

You kill them. But that's not remotely the situation here.

Andoran

Scavion wrote:
I highly doubt that 5-7th level PCs have the required tools to take a Wyvern prisoner.

You mean rope and a cart?

1 to 50 of 3,949 << 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.