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. 6,651 posts (6,844 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 Pathfinder Society character. 2 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 6,651 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Andoran

Irontruth wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:


And I'd really like you to stop harping on the 'fetish porn' bit. It's deeply irrelevant. The important part is the 'Nazi' bit.

No, it's fully relevant. Because as you say, they could just be peddling war movies. Triumph of the Will, despicable as it's intention could be, is still a piece of history both as a record and point of perspective.

Pornography made in the 2000's, with people wearing Nazi uniforms has no historical relevance.

If the vendor's only purpose is to be a source of war movies and historical documents, why would they have Nazi fetish porn?

Because porn sells? Seriously, branching out from war movies to porn isn't exactly the greatest leap ever. It's the Nazi bit that makes the whole thing problematic.

Andoran

Theodor Snuddletusk wrote:

The problem with torture in Pathfinder is that while in this world you have your law and order, even in the smallest redneck town. And there is always some way to make things right.

In pathfinder there often is no way.

If the lord of the land is an evil greedy bastard, and he has enough money to give him the power of law, than it is not so easy to get the proof needed to make him drop.

And than who is to take him down, and even further what will stop his friends of not killing your good-aligned ass with law in hand?

This is where torture can (in the eyes of my inquisitor) be used. When proof is good, when you know he is evil, when there are none other than yourself to stand up for the weak and wounded.

Than you get the lord of the land, find the paper with all the accusations you have, and the proof you have gathered, and make him sign it. Because in court there will be no justice, if you just turn your back the weak will still be broken by the man. But with a signed paper in hand, and the proof to back up your claims, than even the highest, most powerful landlord can be sentenced to death.

If all that it takes is for one man to torture the final signature out of him, to ensure the safety of the land, to ensure the power of unbribed law, than it is needed.

In what universe is this preferable to just killing the guilty people? Because...vigilante justice isn't ideal, but it's sure as hell better than torturing people into signing the right papers.

Unless you're LE of course.

Andoran

Irontruth wrote:

Just curious, do we need to go through the step of proving that Nazis are racists?

If someone here thinks Nazis aren't racists, please speak up.

For the record, I'm not even arguing that Belle and Blade aren't racists, much less the Nazis (who are obviously the definition of racist).

What I'm arguing is that proving this particular group of people nowadays are racist is actually kinda tricky to do, and that people don't seem to be making very many formal complaints against them (and that last bit I might easily be wrong about, I just haven't seen any evidence of it).

Andoran

Irontruth wrote:

You're saying it's plausible that WW2 era Nazi's wore:

- modern style baseball caps
- modern style t-shirts
- modern style work shirts

Is this what you're claiming? That such a thing is even POSSIBLE?

No, I'm claiming they sell similar modern style clothing claiming to be members of the Roman Legions. Or a multitude of other military organizations, often ones with contradictory ideologies, which makes it hard to argue they are advocating any one of them.

Not impossible, mind you, and I even believe as you do that they're advocating it to some degree...but it's hard to prove given the nature of their business.

To reiterate: I am in no way saying these people don't seem to be doing some apologist/fandom stuff in regards to National Socialism. I think they are. However...I'm positive I couldn't prove it in a court of law. They're just a tad bit too subtle for that. Which makes it very possible that Gencon not stepping on them like a bug is a matter of legitimately not having seen the problem.

Irontruth wrote:
Go ahead, give me the "plausible excuse" for Nazi fetish porn. I really am interested in what the "historical significance" of Nazi fetish porn that was produced in the 2000's is.

They're a company that sells war movies and memorabilia. Or movies that feature war. Nazi fetish porn is a bit outside their wheelhouse, but not any further than Baron Munchausen.

And I'd really like you to stop harping on the 'fetish porn' bit. It's deeply irrelevant. The important part is the 'Nazi' bit.

Irontruth wrote:
People have to apply to be vendors at GenCon. Complaints have been issued to the powers that be at GenCon (both in 2012 and 2013). Their application was approved for 2014. Space on the convention floor is expensive, there are a lot of vendors who would pay for that space, so it's not like GenCon would have lost out by not approving Belle and Blade. Someone else would have purchased that space. By giving it to them, they are saying "It's okay to sell Nazi fetish porn here."

Really? How do you know about these complaints and could you cite some sources? The only complaints I found about them that were actually made to the staff was some stuff about sexist underwear in 2013...and they cut that out when told to. I haven't heard word one from anyone but you about complaints regarding the Nazi stuff. Did you make such complaints personally, and if not would you provide a link to someone who did? Because I haven't seen anyone.

I'm perfectly happy to believe Gencon seriously dropped the ball here. But some evidence to support that theory would be nice.

BigDTBone wrote:
How bout they walk the floor at their own damn event? Are you seriously implying that in 10 years of this company running a booth at gencon that not one single solitary event coordinator/volunteer has just happened to stroll by their booth? Not once? Really?

I have not seen their Gencon booth...but if it follows the example of their website, the Nazi stuff is only truly apparent if you look closely at precisely what various t-shirts say. No swastikas plastered over everything or full Nazi uniforms or anything as blatant as that. It's certainly there, but not to a casual glance at their site...and presumably not to a similar casual glance at their booth.

BigDTBone wrote:
Business have free right of association just lie individuals do. They could just decide to not renew the contract. I would be shocked if they had rolling or multi-year contracts and I would be even more shocked if they did have those contracts and they didn't have a "no implication of warranty" clause. Basically, if you don't want your business associated with someone else's, you don't have to.

True, but all this necessitates knowing that these people are anything more racist than they appear to be at a casual glance.

Andoran

If it goes by Wrath of the Righteous...

Spoiler:
it's actually gotten closed.

So...yeah, there's that.

Andoran

RMcD wrote:

The economy, I want to see how the world is affected by readily available magic and large bodies of pious church goers with direct commandments. Druids in every village/travelling around for plant growth?

How do prices stay so static when there seems to just be an exponential increase in goods produced a wizard can create more than they could ever possibly consume.

Really interests me because as far as I'm aware no one seems to have acknowledged there even is magic in the world from a peasants perspective.

I mean what kind of demographic split are we talking between those with class levels/npc levels and 0th level npcs

Demographics you say?

That's not official, but it's based on the Settlement Rules, which are, andit matches up pretty well with Golarion as presented.

Also, for the record, people aren't 0-level in Pathfinder, they just have NPC classes.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
RMcD wrote:
Neighbouring Kingdom sees this, but they're anti-Druid so they instead Craft a magic item that can cast plant growth 5/day or something and has a payback period of 5 years (if someone could actually work out how much 1 mile diameter circle of crops produces in a year that would be great (I mean seriously the spell seems designed in a way that makes it seem like the knowledge of that has to be somewhere otherwise how would a player ever use it)), and boom, that proliferates until every Kingdom and everywhere has 33% extra growth, this should happen in like every industry.

Who says this isn't ongoing and the prices don't take it into account? Seriously, Golarion is home to a huge amount of biodiversity and very large creatures, two things normally only found in extremely fertile climates...so who says this isn't a thing?

Andoran

Empiricist Investigator + Student of Philosophy = Int mod on all the mental skills. That and Investigators being scary combatants and I know what I'm probably playing next. :)

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:

The claim was made that he presented no evidence.

I counter that he did. I made a stronger case than he did, to show it more conclusively, but he still made the same claim.

Actually, you didn't notably. You provided an impetus for outside research, but that's about it.

And no he didn't. He accused the GenCon staff of condoning the behavior, not just it existing, and provided precisely zero evidence of that.

Irontruth wrote:

Feel free to either...

1) prove he didn't talk about the issue and link to an outside source
2) it didn't happen
3) GenCon didn't authorize these people to be there
4) Nazi's aren't racist

I need prove none of these things: His accusation was that GenCon did nothing about and thus condoned such behavior. That does seem at least somewhat true...but there's literally no way to reach that conclusion from any of the 'evidence' in George's article.

Irontruth wrote:
This is a company that sells Nazi-fan apparel. Not war re-enactment apparel, fan apparel. They've been at GenCon as long as I can remember, which my first time was 2005, but I get the impression from others that they've had vendor booths a lot longer than that.

That's...a tricky thing to prove. I tend to agree with you (as noted above) but there's enough other stuff they sell, and in such a format that it's very difficult to prove that.

Irontruth wrote:
It doesn't matter if someone made complaints about them or not. They're there. Every year they're allowed to come back and offer up their Nazi-fan apparel and Nazi fetish porn.

Uh...if nobody complains, exactly how are the people who organize Gencon supposed to know? That's not what Belle and Blade bill themselves as, business-wise, after all...you need to look closely to see it. Maybe not as closely as all that, but I did a quick search on Gencon and Nazis and found only a handful of articles on it...and that was specifically looking for it.

Irontruth wrote:
1st Amendment, sure, they can offer this stuff up as their business model, but that does NOT mean that GenCon is required to offer them space inside their convention to do so. GenCon is completely within their right to say "No."

Technically true...but Gencon has a lot of businesses renting floor space. How are they to know this specific one is so much worse than the others if nobody speaks up?

Irontruth wrote:
If a Nazi comes up and asks to use your front yard to sell wares, do you really need to wait until someone complains to ask him to leave?

Sure. But it's not quite that clear cut. They don't, at a glance, look like Nazis, and even at a second glance, they have a plausible excuse for their Nazi stuff so it's tricky to accuse them of actual malfeasance even then.

Besides GenCon is much closer to a business than a private residence, which makes the rules on what they're permitted to do somewhat different. They can refuse service, but to do so without getting sued they pretty much need a plausible reason.

Andoran

Starlord is an Archaeologist Bard with a level of Gunslinger (for Dex-to-damage in a high-gun setting).

And I'd support Groot as a Druid of some sort of custom plant race, and a full party member, though Treant works too.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm currently running a modern supernatural game using AFMBE, and a Pathfinder game. That's probably around the standard Pathfinder to non-Pathfinder ratio in terms of games I've run since Pathfinder has existed...so getting burned out because you've not played any other systems is an alien experience to me personally.

But then, I pretty much skipped 3.0 and 3.5. I mean, I played a couple of games of them...but it was just that, a couple, and brief at that. So, during that whole era my games were exclusively non-D&D. Pathfinder is what got me playing a D&D-like game at all after years of not doing so.

But basically, I think switching game systems is perfectly reasonable, but don't think it has a lot to do with the age of the system, more to do with fatigue from dealing with only one. Mixing it up is a pretty solid plan, IME.

Andoran

Bill Dunn wrote:
Goebbels may have commissioned the production of the 1943 version of Munchhausen, but a Hungarian directory named Baky actually made it and dodged politics in doing so (apparently to great success as people were looking for a diversion from the bad news on the Soviet front).

Sure...but the person that particular site cited was Goebbels.

Bill Dunn wrote:
But as far as being a remake, it seems to have clearly influenced Gilliam's version according to this blog on the Munchausen films: PSYCHEDELICATESSEN. So calling it a remake? Bit of a strong term, more like influenced some of the forms and scenes.

Which makes calling it a 'remake of a Goebbels movie' even more...odd. And suspicious in context.

I mean...who brings up something being associated with the Nazis when it's only debatably true and they don't have to as part of marketing it? We're talking a two sentence blurb where that's the first thing said about it, not a long in-depth review. That's...rather indicative that either they think being linked to Goebbels is a good thing, or think their customers do. Neither is a good sign.

Bill Dunn wrote:
But evidence of whoever posted that on the Belle and Blade site is Nazi sympathizing? That's a pretty tenuous argument too.

Eh...that was an example, not an argument. Their WWII German memorabilia outweighs their other memorabilia (and doesn't have any indications of being intended ironically or anything like that...and a lot of it is SS stuff, not just German), and the way they talk about several movies featuring WWII and even other stuff (like the Baron Munchausen thing) just gave me a very unpleasant vibe.

I noted it as me personally being inclined to believe in it, and specified that I lacked proof, after all. And heck, maybe if I met the people behind that site they'd have a perfectly reasonable explanation...I'm just doubtful of that until it happens. Or something else to convince me my suspicions are unfounded.

Andoran

Oath wrote:

Fair enough.

Other thoughts:
Would 18 Dex be a good option to make staying in light armors worthwhile?

Possibly. In the long term, a Mithral Breastplate or maybe Celestial Chain is the way to go, but more AC never hurts and they'd both allow an 18.

Oath wrote:
How can I optimized survivability and stay effective as a "rogue"? Chain Shirt? Breast Plate? Leather?

If you want to minimize armor checks, which is reasonable, Studded Leather, then a Masterwork Chain Shirt, then a Mithral Chain Shirt. Followed eventually by the armors listed above.

Andoran

Coriat wrote:
Wait now, you were criticizing my examples of locating loot stashes or victims corpses or hidden evidence or whatever as tiny subset corner cases, but clandestine operations against terrorist cells is such a universal, everyday part of the law enforcement experience that it merits all three of your examples? :p

Sorry, most people agree that in day-to-day police work torture isn't warranted, so I'm using examples from situations where people would argue it might be. Though they weren't terrorism per se (they could just as easily be against enemy soldiers), but intelligence operations in general, which are different from police work. And primarily what I've been talking about.

Police work is different, not least because when dealing with something like organized crime, the police usually have most of the real intelligence they need, they just lack proof. And when dealing with individuals there's no organization to deal with at all. That's a very different scenario from intelligence work.

Coriat wrote:
That's not a counterpoint, LazarX, because we both already seem to agree that torture kind of sucks for the usual contrived terrorist scenarios and for US counterterrorism more practically, in the real world.

Yay! Agreement!

Coriat wrote:
It strikes me that we seem to have reached substantial agreement about what we were debating before, though. We've agreed that torture works in certain circumstances, and I'm certainly not interested in trying to establish comparative efficiencies of torture vs. alternate means. We're now just disagreeing about whether counterterrorism is more typical than homicide, or whatever. How common the required circumstances (mostly, verifiability) are in the real world.

Well, all my arguments are from the perspective of intelligence work. For police work, torture would work fine, as long as you're fine with giving the police the right to torture anyone they feel like. And assume they are incorruptible, since once you're allowed to torture people, you can either do a full and thorough investigation, or you can just torture the first person you see into confessing and not worry about who really did it...and guess which is less work?

Coriat wrote:
Which is not important enough to the original topic that it seems worth continuing, to me. It would be different in a fantasy world, anyway.

By all means, let us do so. :)

Chengar Qordath wrote:
I think part of the problem with your argument is that a lot of the issues you're bringing up with torture are really just issues with interrogation in general. Suspects are perfectly capable of lying or giving out bad information during a humane interrogation. False confessions happen all the time even without torture being a factor. You would still need to verify any information a suspect provided under humane interrogation, and so on.

Depends on the methodology. Again, the best ones the subject probably doesn't even think of what's going on as interrogation, and don't usually have most of these problems. For harsher methods (even standard police interrogation), you're right, but IMO torture makes the problems notably worse.

Chengar Qordath wrote:
Then again, that might be the best indictment one can level against torture. If it has all the same problems as normal interrogation methods, then that suggests that in most cases any possible increase in effectiveness is minimal at best. And that's not enough to justify doing something morally abhorrent.

Eh. I think the evidence supports a reduction in effectiveness vs. other methods, but yeah, basically.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zark wrote:
There are jerks in all camps, but it is perfectly possible of being sober and helpful and correct without pointing fingers at people. That is why I like people like wraithstrike and Deadmanwalking. Both are good examples of how we all could behave (and I wouldn’t label them as being in team good or evil). Does TEAM GOOD have cool people? Sure they do. Blahpers and Jiggy have been around for a long time and I can’t recall seeing them posting anything mean or condescending.
Tels wrote:
Blaphers, Jiggy, Deadmanwalking and Lord Wraithstrike are also all on Team Awesome!

Aw, thanks guys. I always have trouble knowing how to respond to compliments, but I do always try to be friendly, helpful, and polite, and it's nice to hear I'm meeting with some success and people are actually noticing. :)

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:

Just so we're clear, he does have evidence.

I re-added the relevant link into the quote.... but here it is again, just in case you missed it.

Not that he presented. The article he links barely touches on merchandise, focusing on one person dressed as a Nazi who wasn't even inside GenCon. That's not evidence. Not of the GenCon management being responsible anyway.

Irontruth wrote:
So, now I've shown that his article DOES contain evidence. I suppose you could try to argue that Nazi fetish porn isn't racist and deserves to be at GenCon.

Okay, I don't entirely agree with your evidence (though I mostly do), but let's leave that aside for a moment. Assuming your evidence is completely compelling and accurate, that doesn't change a damn thing about what I said above. Evidence existing =/= Presenting evidence.

George never listed anything resembling evidence but the one article, which mentioned Nazi merchandise, but instead focused primarily on the 'Nazi Cosplayer' who wasn't actually at GenCon per se...and could've even been seen immediately after getting kicked out. The Belle and Blade stuff was something of a sidenote, and it wasn't at all clear from the information provided whether anything had been done about it.

So...even if he's absolutely right about everything, my point in no way changes: He presents no evidence. This presents huge problems with his argument, and makes critiques of it valid. Larry Correia could've done some extensive internet research and found evidence to support George's point...but he shouldnb't have had to. When making a substantive argument, it's on you to provide evidence to back it up.

Now, onto my (relatively minor) issue with your particular evidence:

Irontruth wrote:

This is the GenCon vendor map from 2014.

Note the second column, 5th one down: Belle and Blade.

So, after complaints were made LAST YEAR about these guys. They were allowed to come back.

This is true. I'll note that you posted no evidence of it either, but I did a little internet research, and it is. I'll note, however, that all the complaints I could find that were actually made were about the sexist underwear, not the Nazi stuff, which is actually a highly disturbing...but means GenCon did do something about the complaint, since the sexy underwear seems to be gone. GenCon isn't entirely to blame if nobody complains about the Nazi stuff as strongly.

Irontruth wrote:

I don't want to link directly too them. I don't think Paizo deserves links to these guys on their website. But here are some things for sale:

- Triumph of the Will
- baseball caps with swastikas on them
- a work shirt with a Death's Head emblem with the words "Gott mit uns" common Nazi imagery from the period
- Nazi fetish porn

Neither the work shirt or baseball cap are authentic to the WW2 period, but rather reflect more modern designs of clothing. They are not intended to be historical recreations.

Their website is pretty easy to find if you search Belle and Blade.

In fairness, they present themselves as a war movies and paraphernalia company, and have similar items for everything from the Roman Legions to the American Military (if perhaps not as many)...which makes it difficult to single them out as 'Nazi sympathizers' or anything like that in any public or legal sense. This makes it really hard to blame GenCon for not banning them, they could sue and maybe win, after all.

Now, reading over their website a little, I'm inclined to believe there actually is some Nazi sympathizing going on there (Who the hell refers to Gilliam's Baron Munchausen as a remake of a Goebells film?)...but I couldn't prove it, and GenCon's policies on that sort of thing are indeed a rather grey area, making the aforementioned legal action a possibility. Oooh, I'll also quote Larry Correia's opinion on this here:

Larry Correia wrote:

Yeah, just not seeing this as an epidemic of racism to indict the other 50,000 people, and I really hate Nazis. My grandmother’s family is from Poland and her maiden name was Byreika. I don’t think I have any relatives left there. I’m all about shooting Nazis in the face. I had an incident earlier this year where I had to physically leave a place because there was a guy there with a swastika tattooed on his face and it was taking too much of my self-control not to draw my Benchmade and cut it off.

...

Welcomes? B@#~~%+%. Out of the tens of thousands of people there, somebody did something you don’t like, and you have absolutely no idea what the management did about it, if they even knew. Profits? You mean out of the hundreds of booths and millions of products, somebody brought in something obnoxious and you make it sound like a chemical company profiting off the production of Zyklon B.

So, he notes (in support of my above points) that from George's article it's literally impossible to tell whether the management did anything about Nazi stuff (as a matter of fact, they did basically nothing...but he'd been presented with no evidence of that). So yeah. Now, personally, I feel like banning these people is a good move for GenCon...but I'm not at all sure Correia would disagree with that. He just doesn't see it as endemic of general racism. I'm not sure if I do, but am more inclined to do so, but that doesn't mean he's a bad guy or wouldn't potentially support getting rid of these people (if convinced they had legitimate Nazi leanings).

In fact, clearly, if you want Belle and Blade to go away, the thing to do here is organize. Get a bunch of people together to go next year if they're back (and I suspect they will be), and all complain to the GenCon organizers. I'd bet there are at least a couple of hundred people being made uncomfortable by that company, and if they get that many complaints, GenCon will almost certainly listen.

A handful of complaints seem inevitable to come every business's way every year at GenCon...you need something more than that, enough to make a splash in order to draw the attention of the people running things actually onto the particular problem at hand (which really is small enough on an absolute scale that I doubt they've noticed it...certainly not without complaints).

So, in short, I think it's hard to blame GenCon for the actions of one booth that people don't even seem to have been complaining about that much (not in this context anyway). It's more reasonable than doing so without the evidence that this booth is an ongoing problem, of course (which is what George seemed to be doing to anyone who didn't do some research on this specific topic separate from his article). But really, the complaints should be about the booth in question. Lets actually set about doing something about it, shall we folks?

Andoran

Secret Wizard wrote:
Qinggong is going to be a baseline feature for Monks - you can trade stuff out for powers.

That seems very reasonable. Those recommendations (plus Zen Archer if willing to go t 6 Archetypes) still stand, though. All are effective on their own, and make very different kinds of Monk.

Secret Wizard wrote:
I don't think Guide works with Infiltrator, does it? You don't really have Favored Enemy. I know Ranger's Focus is a pseudo-FE, but there is nothing by RAW that states as much, and it doesn't make much sense from a flavor standpoint either. I'd let the Master Hunter thing slide, but I don't think level 20 is going to be part of the equation anyhow.

You're right, I totally didn't read the new features closely enough on that one. Either or both on their own are still good choices, though.

Secret Wizard wrote:
Also, I think Rake + Sanctified Rogue is outshone by the Sczarni Swindler, which has a similar package but more power (scaling bonus to Will, rerolls, etc.)

You're probably right here too. Sczarni Swindler is pretty awesome as Rogue Archetypes go.

Andoran

Sphinxes come immediately to mind, as do Rocs, prides of Dire Lions or Manticores would also work, though those are lower CR individually.

Deadfall Scorpions, Gorgons, Young Blue Dragons, Bodaks, Titan Centipedes, Efreeti and Hellwasp Swarms all seem appropriate as well.

Andoran

Oath wrote:

I wanted to keep Cha non-negative because I'm taking Disguise in case I have to appear human (The Players Guide suggested something to that effect since the Technic League sees Androids as property).

But with the -2 to Cha from Android, maybe I'll just let go of the idea and add to my combat stats.

Making it an 8 only gives -1 as opposed to an 11. It's not like I'm suggesting ditching it entirely or anything.

Andoran

So, here are the corebook classes. More to follow.

Barbarian: Invulnerable Rager, Invulnerable Rager + Urban Barbarian, Invulnerable Rager + Drunken Brute, Mad Dog,

Bard: Archaeologist, Dawnflower Dervish, Thundercaller, Court Bard, Archivist,

Cleric: Go with Gods rather than Archetypes. Seems simpler and there aren't a lot of Archetypes anyway.

Druid: Urban Druid, Animal Shamans or Terrain Druids of various sorts,

Fighter: Lore Warden + Martial Master (All the maneuvers forever), Mutation Warrior (by itself, probably), Archer, Two-Handed Fighter.

Monk: Qinggong + Tetori, Qinggong + Flowing Monk, Qinggong + Sohei, Qinggong + Sensei, Martial Artist,

Paladin: Oath of Vengeance + Divine Hunter, Oath of Vengeance, Warrior of the Holy Light, Hospitaler, Sacred Servant,

Ranger: Guide + Infiltrator, Trapper, Divine Tracker, Urban Ranger, Shapeshifter,

Rogue: Knife Master + Scout, Ninja + Scout, Rake + Sanctified Rogue, Trapsmith + Underground Chemist,

Sorcerer: Bloodlines, like you said.

Wizard: You might want to consider Thassilonian Specialist, that's basically School specialization taken up to 11 with pre-set opposition schools.

Andoran

Why the need for Charisma? Mechanically, you'd be better off dropping it and raising something else (Cha 8 will net you Str 17, for example).

Unless aiming for Empathy, I guess, but then you should have more than an 11.

In terms of fighting style, you could go two-handed, you could also go TWF (though I'm not 100% sure I would)...and finally, you could go switch-hitter. You'll have the stats to be good at it, plus the Feats with Slayer talents, since you can burn every Talent from 4th to 12th on it if you want to, plus maybe a Feat or two.

Sample switch-hitter progression:

3: Power Attack
4: Combat Style (Rapid Shot)
5: Quickdraw
6: Combat Style (Manyshot)
7: Deadly Aim
8: Combat Feat (One of your choice)
9: Another of your choice
10: Combat Style (Any Archery style Feat)

And so on and so forth.

You could also go pure archery, but that didn't seem to be the route you'd be happiest with. A version of this with a gun of some sort is also possible, though it'd probably shift Feats around a bit to afford an Exotic Weapon Proficiency, and might well just not be as good in many ways.

Andoran

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:
Regardless of the aggregate, the original article is sharing HIS perspective on GenCon. I bet the guy overall has a good time at GenCon. But he's also experiencing these things and is sharing that experience. You can disagree, but that doesn't change HIS experience of these events.

But here's the thing: He doesn't just share his experience. He also tries to claim objective, fact based, validity and throws an accusation of the people in charge condoning hate speech to boot, all with no evidence.

Personal subjective experiences are fine, and talking about how they've effected you is fine, but arguing them as objective and universal truth and using them (and only them) as a basis for accusing people in aggregate (ie: all the GenCon organizers) of unpleasant things is, in fact, inappropriate and requires people to respond and dispute it.

Irontruth wrote:
There's another thread around here about being a black nerd. I recommend checking it out. George is not the only person experiencing these things.

Sure...but I don't recall anyone there accusing specific groups of gamers of being racist with no real evidence.

Irontruth wrote:
Instead of taking offense, like Larry did, at someone sharing these experiences, why not try to understand them better?

I suspect a lot more people would be willing to do so if he hadn't singled out GenCon and it's organizers for baseless accusations. A post about racism in gaming in general, even one citing a Gencon experience or two in an 'even at GenCon, normally a very accepting environment, these things happen' kinda way wouldn't have drawn this kind of objection.

In short, by accusing specific people of specific offenses, George gave up the right for his experiences subjective reality to take precedent over the objective evidence. People are not inherently at fault when you take offense to their behavior, they can be, but it's not universal. George's subjective experiences may have legitimately been of racism, and that's a valid discussion to have, but he didn't keep his argument in that category, he brought in accusations of objective wrongdoing, and thus brought his entire article into the type of discussion requiring actual evidence...which he notably lacks.

Andoran

BigDTBone wrote:

The core line as been fraught with these issues since the beginning. The first run of the APG let the playtest version of the summoner through, Ultimate Magic had the cantrips hit the editing room floor but left all the references to them in the book. Every book in the core line has had big to major issues with editing, and many many smaller issues with term alignment and other consistency issues. Overall, they just push the books out too quickly.

For this reason I stopped buying first run core books after Ultimate Magic. I just don't trust their process enough to shell out the cash. I just get the PDF now. If some other company were ever to unseat Paizo as the premier TTRPG company this would be the avenue to pursue.

Eh. There've been a few problems certainly (and, IMO, inevitably...any book written by as many different people as an RPG book is gonna wind up with some errors), but nothing like as bad as the ACG. Which is bad enough to be a serious problem.

Andoran

BigNorseWolf wrote:
I don't think the slayer will stack with the rogue

You can stack levels of them (and need a level of Slayer for this anyway). I guess it's debatable if the Sneak Attack would stack, if it won't just make it Slayer 1/Rogue 3, same number of levels, all the Sneak Attack from the Rogue.

David_Bross wrote:
The prereqs of stunning fist withou further taking a level of monk is Dex 13, Wis 13, Improved Unarmed Strike, base attack bonus +8..

My progression plus one level of Monk was what I was thinking.

David_Bross wrote:
It actually is worse (or better depending on how you look at it). The caster casts save or die, they make the save or die. This build has to hit you 1) then has to land the stunning fist 2) then you get a fort save on the CDG.

That last one is almost meaningless...but yeah, there's an attack and then a Save, making it worse than most Save-or-Die effects.

Andoran

Quickest build:

Brawler (Snakebite Striker 1)/Slayer 3/Ninja or Rogue 1/Sleepless Detective 1/Inner Sea Pirate 1, for 7 levels and all the prerequisites. You then need Stunning Fist to make this combo actually work, so it comes online at 8th level at the earliest, and then only with a bizarre class combination...and still isn't any worse than many Save or Die effects spell casters have readily available.

Andoran

Coriat wrote:

These are distinctly not the goalposts I was aiming at. A reminder:

Coriat wrote:
I think it's hard to show from history that torture is so ineffective in producing accurate information.

and

Quote:
There are too many similar instances of torture producing true information
If you want a case which would have been insoluble without use of torture, that's something different from a case in which torture can be shown to have provided true information.

Right...but here's the thing: Torture didn't produce true information in either of those cases. If torture had indicated that Guy Fawkes was below Parliament with gunpowder and then he was, that would be evidence it worked, since it revealed verifiable information...but nothing remotely like that happened.

Coriat wrote:
In fact, I seem to be rather hemmed in between conflicting requirements of yours. If you reject a case because alternate routes of inquiry lead to the same conclusion as the torture (thus rendering the torture unnecessary), then how am I to convince you that the torture provided true information?

Oh, I'm fine with alternate information methods leading to the same info...my issue is that torture didn't lead to actionable or useful information at all. Also, if torture leads to real-world places or events (ala the Guy Fawkes example above) then it's verifiably true even if other info led to it, too.

Now, other methods leading to the same info is evidence of the separate point that torture was completely unnecessary...but that's a slightly different matter.

Also, see below about the order that information is obtained in.

Coriat wrote:

Fawkes was revealed due to an informer, and initially claimed to be acting alone. After days of torture in the Tower, he broke down and named a number of his fellow conspirators.

The fact that they were caught elsewhere in England the next day due to developments independent of his naming them may show that torture wasn't necessary in this case, but it is precisely that which allows us to know that the torture provided true information.

Here's the thing, getting people who have been tortured to confirm info you already have is easy (and means nothing): They'll say whatever you tell them to say. It's not the same as getting useful info out of them. It's exactly the same as getting a confession, and exactly as reliable (ie: not at all). If your evidence is already overwhelming, it'll be true (just like a confession extracted the same way), but all that means is that you knew the truth and can make them repeat things you say to them verbatim.

Coriat wrote:
Quote:
You're missing a third necessary prerequisite: There must be no meaningful cost to the act of verifying the information.

I consider that covered under "can verify." It's a spectrum. Some cases may be easier ("we know you hid the subversive manuscripts somewhere in this apartment!") some cases might be moderately easy ("send someone from prison out to the house the prisoner lived in twenty years ago, to find out if he really hid his old Tsarist officer's sabre under the floorboards in the bedroom"), some might be rather laborious ("the prisoner confesses to dumping murder victims in Silver Lake - go start dragging the bottom") and some might be too difficult or time-sensitive to be verifiable at all (ticking bomb).

The easier the better, naturally, but if you can't verify something without risking likely death, it's probably far enough along that it doesn't really help. What matters is whether the prisoner believes a lie will be found out and thus not help to avoid more torture, not how much effort it is for the investigator do so.

If all the guy has to do is wait thirty minutes till the nuke goes off, then yeah, sure. He can lie his pants off and be confident that it will all be over before he gets called on it. But I think we all know 24 is awful, and if Jack Bauer would flunk out of any self-respecting LE fantasy organization, that's fine with me.

You're right as far as it goes, but the vast majority of interrogation is not "Where do I find this object?" Torture does indeed work okay for that. It's more like these questions, and how painful verifying them can be:

"Where is the rest of your cell?" (Victim tells you where a group of violent criminals unrelated to his organization are, lets you pick a fight with people you didn't care about and get some of your people killed.)

"What are your passwords?" (Tells you a wrong password, getting your operative killed. If their organization is smart all their operatives will tell you the same one, an 'I'm an enemy' signal to others of their sort.)

"What are you planning?" (Gives the wrong plan, leaving you looking in the wrong direction when the real one happens.)

And so on and so forth. Yes, you can use torture to find out where people hid physical objects fairly well. That's a tiny subset of interrogation, though, and even there they could send you to somewhere booby trapped.

Andoran

Anzyr wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:

For a real gritty feeling, consider E6, or alternately banning all full 9-level casters. The latter is actually very good for limiting class imbalances and enforcing a lower magic world.

You can theoretically do both, but I'd go E7 instead of E6 in that case.

I recommend highly against odd leveled Epic. It basically forces people out of the Sorcerer progression casters, in favor of those with Wizard progression. I also recommend against attempting to make E6-8 low magic. Just embrace a world with weaker magic, not less magic. Also you'll need to rework magic crafting, I limit magic crafting in my PF E6 game by requiring a magic crafter have blueprints for the item they want to make.

Uh...did you miss that I only suggested it if ditching full casters entirely which eliminates the problem you mention?

Besides, even with full casters, you can mess with spell progression and make it work (I've got a systematized E7 setup that never lets anyone get 4th level spells, for example), though that can get a little complicated, I admit.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.

For a real gritty feeling, consider E6, or alternately banning all full 9-level casters. The latter is actually very good for limiting class imbalances and enforcing a lower magic world.

You can theoretically do both, but I'd go E7 instead of E6 in that case.

Andoran

Honestly, my advice if GMing is to not have a character of your own. It can be pulled off in theory, but it's really tricky and I don't recommend it.

An NPC to help the party? Sure. But nothing you think of as 'your character'.

Andoran

Kobold Cleaver wrote:
cnetarian wrote:

Would it be rape to polymorph into a woman's husband and have sex with her? The spell isn't be used on her, only it's effects which seems to be OK.

Suppose a woman with a really high bonus to bluff were to use ito convince a male paladin that last night he got drunk, converted to Calistria and married her. If she demanded he fulfill his martial obligation, would this be rape? Would the paladin fall for acting in accordance with his code under false information?

I'm gonna ignore the gratuitous "would paladin fall?" here and say, yeah, pretending to be someone's S.O. is rape. And convincing someone they have to have sex with you to be a good person is so squicky I can't even.

This. What Kobold Cleaver says here.

For the record, I don't think "convincing someone they have to have sex with you to be a good person" (to quote Kobold Cleaver) is rape per se...it is however incredibly messed up on almost every level and deeply immoral and cruel.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
AxiomOfAnarchy wrote:
According to the spell descriptors, charms and compulsions are neither ethically nor morally aligned. Based on how the PF alignment system is supposed to work, compulsions really ought to carry the lawful descriptor, because they override the subject's free will. Charms don't directly override the subject's free will, they skew its perceptions, which in turn skews how it exercises its free will. Good and evil, as defined by the PF alignment system, don't enter into it.

This is because there are many scenarios where using them is entirely moral and ethical. Using Charm Person to convince the Evil Overlord's guard to tell you today's password is legitimately not Evil in and of itself. The same would be true if you slipped a drug in his drink. Both are Chaotic...but Evil? Nah. Charming (in the magical sense) or drugging them into having sex with you? Then it's Evil.

And that's why they don't have Alignment descriptors, because it depends on how you use them.

AxiomOfAnarchy wrote:
As for trying to apply real world moral or ethical judgments to the game world, it's generally a bad idea. In the game world, the "heroes" are constantly killing other intelligent beings, without any semblance of remorse, nor any hint of post traumatic stress afterwards; PCs are psychopaths.

This is basically b~#**###. PCs are precisely as psychopathic as you play them as. No more and no less, you have complete agency over that kind of thing in regards to your character.

Additionally...not all soldiers get PTSD. Are you calling the ones who don't psychopaths? Because that's a pretty messed up attitude if so. But I don't think you'd actually say that...which makes a group of 4 or 5 people who don't have such issues statistically unusual, but by no means inherently unbelievable or psychopathic.

The PCs in most games are soldiers, warriors, mercenaries, people experienced with violence and killing. This makes them different from most of us in real life, but not inherently morally inferior. They can be very moral by almost any non-pacifist standard you'd care to name, which makes bringing in real world morality eminently appropriate.

Andoran

Doomed Hero wrote:

Want to really get into the moral grey area?

Try this thought experiment with Sow Thought.

Which is worse? To use magical coercion to convince someone to sleep with you, or to use magical manipulation to make someone think that you are the most attractive thing they have ever seen?

That's not grey, that's different shades of black. Both are Evil enough* that distinguishing between them is basically academic.

*Actually, I could see the Sow Thought one being okay with full informed consent...but that's clearly not what's being talked about.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:

Being friends is not the same thing as lust. There doesn't exist a scale of a sexual attraction to alter with spells or diplomacy.

Grapple doesn't have any listed action to do that sort of thing. Any mechanics for it have to be made up.

Y'know...I'm not gonna have this argument.

Rules or no rules, rape and similar subjects should only be brought up in a mature group where it's clear everyone is okay with that subject mater. I think that's the important bit, and one I think we all agree on.

Andoran

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Kain Darkwind wrote:

Making the argument that boozing someone up and sleeping with them the same as rape either false, or changing the definition of rape to lose the meaning that invests it with the emotional context its connotations imply.

Voluntarily impairing your judgement does not render your judgements null and void.

Actively getting someone really drunk while you remain sober, for the specific purpose of sleeping with them...is rape by most reasonable definitions.

As the situation becomes less clear-cut that line blurs a bit...eventually to the point where two equally drunk people having consensual sex is not rape by basically all reasonable definitions...but that's not the situation being discussed here (since there's no reciprocal Charms going on).

Besides, if we're talking equivalents, Charm Person is spiking their drink without their knowledge and consent, anyway. And that's clearly not okay.

Andoran

Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:
I may view letting yourself get sexually violated as "obviously harmful/self-destructive orders" which means all these spells and even the skills wouldn't let you force sex with someone.

Eh...you think they're your friend. Unless you're married or something, I'm not sure that qualifies as self-destructive from your perspective. It is, but so's fighting their enemies, and Charm Person can make you do that. It's unpleasant, but speaking logically...

Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:
I also wouldn't allow the grapple rules to be used that way either.

Ugly as it is...logically, this too should work.

Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:
In my opinion Pathfinder doesn't have explicit mechanics for rape and for good reason. Rape isn't fun and the game rules shouldn't support it. If a darker narrative requires it, then the GM should do it through narrative elements. The game/fun side of pathfinder should have nothing to do with rape.

Depends on the style of game, and level of simulationist/narrativist play your group is comfortable with. If they require the rules to be the 'laws of physics' well...

Obviously, you should never include anything in a game everyone isn't comfortable with including.

Andoran

Yup, what Kudaku says. Those Feats/Racial Abilities let you make friends real quick and win over your enemies with charm...but don't actually help the 'Request a thing' part of Diplomacy. They make people like you, not obey you.

Andoran

thejeff wrote:
Or to prevent combat when the alternative is killing them.

Absolutely. Or several similar scenarios.

Andoran

Undone wrote:
There is nothing stating you can't use diplomacy more than once.

Uh...

Diplomacy wrote:
You cannot use Diplomacy to influence a given creature's attitude more than once in a 24-hour period. If a request is refused, the result does not change with additional checks, although other requests might be made. You can retry Diplomacy checks made to gather information.

So yes, there is.

Undone wrote:
So other than GM fiat what is to stop me from convincing someone to go from torag to abadar to azmodeous? Change their values by making high enough consistent diplomacy checks. Diplomacy done 60 times in an hour could slowly convince someone of just about anything unless the GM fiat rule comes in.

Diplomacy can only do two things by the rules:

1. Make people like you.
2. Get people to do things that don't violate their values or nature.

There are no rules for convincing people to change their beliefs. At all.

137ben wrote:
Haskol wrote:

Ummm...I get the feeling that you have one idea of what a number of those spells are good for and are implying that there are no other methods of utilizing those spells.

Suggestion, Dominate Person, Charm Person, etc. all have many other uses which are probably far more likely to see table use than getting the local tavern wench into the sack. Unnatural Lust is its normal form lasts all of one round and the Headband of Seduction costs 40,000 to push that up to 10 minutes when there are likely far more useful items to purchase.

If you don't like those spells because of their potential use to be creepy toward non-existent people, then don't use them at your table. But please don't think that is the only reason to ever have those spells prepared.

Using evil methods to accomplish non-evil ends is still evil.

Is mind control more Evil than stabbing someone repeatedly in the face? Probably not usually (though it can be if you mind control them to do certain things). That being the case, it seems a reasonable thing to use in combat against people trying to kill you.

Andoran

Undone wrote:

My point is simple.

A sufficiently high diplomacy score is indistinguishable from charm person.

If I have +50 diplomacy I functionally have charm person attached to my every word. I can convince people to kill their family, get into bed with me, or make me the sole inheritor of the fortune they're about to leave behind.

Nope! Let's quote Diplomacy's 'asking favors' section:

Diplomacy wrote:
If a creature's attitude toward you is at least indifferent, you can make requests of the creature. This is an additional Diplomacy check, using the creature's current attitude to determine the base DC, with one of the following modifiers. Once a creature's attitude has shifted to helpful, the creature gives in to most requests without a check, unless the request is against its nature or puts it in serious peril. Some requests automatically fail if the request goes against the creature's values or its nature, subject to GM discretion.

Emphasis mine. People can't be convinced to do things against their own values with Diplomacy. Period. They retain free will.

Undone wrote:
Charm functions as though you had an obnoxiously high diplomacy score.

Nope, see the Charm Person rules I quoted above. With Charm Person, they not only count as Friendly, they also perceive everything you do in the most favorable possible light, and can be convinced to do things that violate their own moral code, just not suicidal one. You violate their free will and make them do things they'd never do without magic being involved.

Undone wrote:
My point is mechanics wise diplomacy is functionally similar to controlling the persons will.

Nope! Again, they can always refuse requests they feel are wrong.

Undone wrote:
I agree domination, probably even suggestion, geas, and similar which if they fail a will save they are COMPELLED to obey are different but charm isn't that much different than diplomacy.

But it is. Please, actually look at the rules for both. They are quite different in what they let you talk someone into.

Andoran

Kain Darkwind wrote:
*Will* Will get you killed. Verifying false information could always get you killed.

Very rarely for "Where in this house is your money?" or similar things. For other stuff...the risk goes way up if you use torture, making it inefficient and less than useful in most intelligence or military contexts.

Kain Darkwind wrote:
And for the evil overlord, an expendable minion is no meaningful cost.

This is potentially true in games. It's very rarely actually true in the real world. Minions aren't as easy to get as all that. And even in games, it's a waste of resources.

Kain Darkwind wrote:
I'd say that provides the fairly large subset of areas which caused me to rate it at 5, personally. I think everyone knows 24 is bunk. But the pendulum swinging all the way left isn't that accurate either.

Eh. Even for the areas where it's potentially effective other varieties of interrogation are more so, generally speaking.

Andoran

Undone wrote:
Honestly when I think about it these spells are no different than diplomacy or bluffing your way into bed. A failed will save is no worse than a failed sense motive.

No, that's not how that works. Bluff can't actually get you into someone's bed on it's own, and you don't use Sense Motive to oppose Diplomacy. Neither is how the rules work at all.

And Will Saves are you actively resisting a magic that forces you to behave a certain way. Note the term 'force'. You aren't convinced of anything, you aren't given reason to like the person, your will and judgement are forcibly impaired for a finite period of time. The analogy of drugs is pretty much perfect. Now, Charm spells are a pretty benign drug, say the equivalent of getting someone drunk...but if you get someone seriously drunk and then have sex with them, that's rape.

Undone wrote:
The only exception for me would be dominate because they know they're being forced you've just controlled their body.

Okay, at least we agree on something.

Undone wrote:
Charm is more than mind control. It makes them like you as a diplomacy check. Some of the spells might fall into that category but charm definitely doesn't seem worse to me than being a smooth talker.

Let's quote Charm Person shall we?

Charm Person wrote:
This charm makes a humanoid creature regard you as its trusted friend and ally (treat the target's attitude as friendly). If the creature is currently being threatened or attacked by you or your allies, however, it receives a +5 bonus on its saving throw.

Okay, so far you look like you might even have a leg to stand on, that's not so bad, right? But wait! The description goes on.

Charm Person wrote:
The spell does not enable you to control the charmed person as if it were an automaton, but it perceives your words and actions in the most favorable way. You can try to give the subject orders, but you must win an opposed Charisma check to convince it to do anything it wouldn't ordinarily do. (Retries are not allowed.) An affected creature never obeys suicidal or obviously harmful orders, but it might be convinced that something very dangerous is worth doing. Any act by you or your apparent allies that threatens the charmed person breaks the spell. You must speak the person's language to communicate your commands, or else be good at pantomiming.

Oooh...those bolded parts imply some serious impairment of their judgement going on there, don't they now? It's not 'mind control' in the strictest sense, but it definitely impairs their ability to make their own decisions in a way very similar to mind-effecting drugs. Which makes using it to get someone into bed pretty much rape.

Undone wrote:
It's effectively a bonus to diplomacy. Bonuses to diplomacy are nothing more than speaking fluently, dressing nicely, being courteous, and being friendly.

This is true of bonuses to Diplomacy. It is not true of Charm spells. At all. For reasons gone into above.

Drock11 wrote:

I'm of the opinion that charm spells and similar things don't become de facto cheap domination effects just because a charisma check is made. It's a very badly worded vague portion of the spell and that part of it should never have been added into it if for no other reason than the confusion and arguments it can create.

I would still consider somebody that's diametrically opposed to something or has other extreme problems with an action or thought not going along with them even with a charisma check under a charm effect. I see it more as convincing somebody to do something they aren't opposed to on a philosophical or moral level, but also wouldn't feel up to doing even for a good friend.

Right...but as noted it impairs their judgement and forces them to behave in a way they would not otherwise (ie: as if you are their friend, and to actively believe the best of you no matter how you behave). That's, once again, at least as much impaired judgement as getting someone drunk...and is thus rape if you use it to convince them to have sex with you, every bit as much as intentionally getting someone very drunk while you stay sober to take advantage of them.

Haskol wrote:

Ummm...I get the feeling that you have one idea of what a number of those spells are good for and are implying that there are no other methods of utilizing those spells.

Suggestion, Dominate Person, Charm Person, etc. all have many other uses which are probably far more likely to see table use than getting the local tavern wench into the sack. Unnatural Lust is its normal form lasts all of one round and the Headband of Seduction costs 40,000 to push that up to 10 minutes when there are likely far more useful items to purchase.

If you don't like those spells because of their potential use to be creepy toward non-existent people, then don't use them at your table. But please don't think that is the only reason to ever have those spells prepared.

Uh...nobody is suggesting this. We're just discussing which spells are, well, 'rape-y' if they are used to convince someone to have sex.

Andoran

Coriat wrote:
Cinadon.

Uh...at least according to wikipedia, that plot and its leader was revealed by a willing informer. All they got via torture were names of 'co-conspirators'...which easily could've been fake. There's literally no proof every single person executed with the exception of Cinadon wasn't innocent. Heck, there's only one man's word (plus a meaningless confession under torture) that the plot existed at all, since nothing was ever actually done.

This is not compelling evidence.

Coriat wrote:
The Gunpowder Plot.

Again, the plot was revealed by an informer. Plus, according to wikipedia, torture wasn't even used very extensively in the interrogations of most of the people involved...and was only used after the plot was smashed, once again meaning there's basically no evidence it helped in any meaningful sense.

So, again, not actually very good evidence of torture's efficacy.

Coriat wrote:

*shrugs*

The generalization lies when you a) have plenty of time and b) can verify the information you get.

It doesn't really matter whether you're trying to find out which cornerstone they buried the gold under, or the murder victim under, if you're willing to dig it up and check.

You're missing a third necessary prerequisite: There must be no meaningful cost to the act of verifying the information. If verifying false info could get you killed, you can't rely on torture-based information even if you have all the time in the world. That's a really specific set of criteria.

Andoran

Kudaku wrote:
Anytime! I've been meaning to thank you for compiling that, actually. I think pointing out the errors in a clear and non-confrontational way is a much better way to handle the ACG editing than some of the more vitriolic comments that have been made lately.

You're quite welcome, and I feel similarly, though I'm mostly doing it just to have a coherent list in one place. For my own use, as well as that of others.

Kudaku wrote:
Your list also really helped my groups with hammering out solutions for some the problems the book pose while we wait for FAQs and erratas.

Yay! I'm glad it's been actively useful to someone. :)

Andoran

UnArcaneElection wrote:
LessPopMoreFizz wrote:

Master Chymist is covered in all of the Alchemist guides; since Alchemists are the only class that can qualify, there's no real reason for it to have a guide of it's own.

{. . .}
Wait -- doesn't Investigator with the Mutagen discovery also qualify?

Nope. You need Infused Mutagen or Feral Mutagen, which the Investigator never gets (though an archetype that did would be pretty great).

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:

Alignment when used that way is great. It's an RP enhancer, a guide, a helping hand if you will.

The problem comes from the devs imposing their moral worldviews, sometimes in a contradictory fashion, on the actual RULES of the game.

It morphs it from an enhancer into a detractor, from a guide to a rule, a helping hand to a RESTRICTION on your roleplay.

I generally agree, though I'm cool with some acts being categorically Evil (torture, for example, is not okay).

Rynjin wrote:
No, your necromancer can't be a good guy. Because rules.

This is true, though I don't personally have much of a problem with it.

Rynjin wrote:
That otherwise nice fellow who ritually imbibes his opponent's blood out of respect for them? Evil, because alignment rules.

Actually...not by the rules. If he gains magical power from it it's Evil by the rules, but only then. And even then, it's only an Evil act, and could be overcome by enough Good ones anyway.

Rynjin wrote:
Got turned into an undead? Want to RP your character fighting his new urges, struggling to remain good? Screw that noise, undead are always evil, and your alignment explicitly shifts to evil upon becoming one.

Uh...this is actually categorically untrue. Neutral and even Good undead explicitly exist in Golarion, so this is pretty clearly allowed.

Rynjin wrote:
THAT is the part of alignment I hate, and do without.

I can definitely see where you're coming from.

Andoran

I basically agree entirely with Thelemic_Noun's list of 'rapey' spells, for the record.

Thelemic_Noun wrote:
Buuuuuuut....Which of these, if any, are just fine, which are dishonest, which are tasteless, which are creepy, which are sleazy, which are immoral, and which would be illegal in most nonevil kingdoms? (Note that many of those overlap).

Okay, let's look through these and see, shall we?

Thelemic_Noun wrote:
What about spells like seducer's eyes and tap inner beauty?

Things that do nothing but give you a bonus on a Diplomacy check are pretty categorically morally okay, and not tasteless, sleazy, or creepy at all. That's no different from dressing nicely or wearing expensive perfume (Masterwork Tools for Diplomacy), or using something like a Slayer's Studied Target. The spell targets you, making you better at this, not the person you're trying to seduce damaging their free will.

Thelemic_Noun wrote:
What about items like the circlet of persuasion?

See my discussion on Seducer's Eyes and Tap Inner Beauty above.

Thelemic_Noun wrote:
What about using polymorph or glamer effects on yourself (and where your goal is not to impersonate another individual)?

Creepy, possibly tasteless and/or sleazy. Not immoral anywhere or illegal most places. Again, it effects you, not them, which is usually not morally problematic.

Thelemic_Noun wrote:
What about using detect thoughts or witness?

Immoral, creepy, and probably illegal. It is not, however, 'rapey' per se...more like a serious invasion of privacy.

Thelemic_Noun wrote:
What about using timely inspiration, embrace destiny, gallant inspiration, or brilliant inspiration on a Charisma check or Charisma-based skill check, or making a Charisma-based skill check using someone else's ranks via borrow skill or bestow insight?

Again, see my discussion on Seducer's Eyes and Tap Inner Beauty above.

Thelemic_Noun wrote:
What about using spells like eagle's splendor and heroism, or spells or items to boost Charisma or ability/skill checks keyed to it?

And once again, see my discussion on Seducer's Eyes and Tap Inner Beauty above.

Andoran

Kudaku wrote:
There are numerous threads debating various problems presented in the book but rather than link you to all of those, I'll just give you the highlights. Deadmanwalking (who I think I can safely say is a fan both of Paizo and the ACG) has been doing an excellent job of compiling the trouble spots as he reads through the book and posting them in the "potential errors in the ACG" thread.

Aw, thanks man. *blushes*

And yeah, for the record, I'm a big fan of Paizo and think the ACG is mostly quite good.

Also...I'll hopefully finish up with the remaining chapters in the next week or so. This week's been busy.

Andoran

Kudaku wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
This is why my House Rules include switching Mobility's effect to a +5 bonus on Acrobatics checks to avoid AoO (+10 if you have 10 or more ranks of Acrobatics). Seems more sensible and workable in many ways.
I think that's a very reasonable change, I just cut Mobility as a prerequisite. God, my house-rule document is getting so long. :(

My logic had to do with the math of tumbling through opponent's threatened squares getting harder as you went up in level unless you took Skill Focus. I preferred to make there a useful Feat to take instead...and one useful in a lot of prerequisites seemed to qualify.

Andoran

Kudaku wrote:
I think it's the requirements, actually. Canny Tumble lists Mobility as a prerequisite, but the Acrobatics skill and Canny Tumble in particular are all about avoiding AoOs, while mobility gives you a benefit while provoking AoOs. Thematically Mobility might make sense as a prerequisite, but it's an incredibly annoying feat tax for what's already a fairly underwhelming combat style.

This is why my House Rules include switching Mobility's effect to a +5 bonus on Acrobatics checks to avoid AoO (+10 if you have 10 or more ranks of Acrobatics). Seems more sensible and workable in many ways.

Andoran

Kain Darkwind wrote:

Ok, that explains things a bit better, DMW, and I'll read your posts in the future under that understanding. So to summarize your position...

Torture is great for hurting people, making them afraid, making others around them afraid, and for ultimately breaking them into shards of the human (or elf/orc/dwarf) being they used to be. Of these qualities, making others afraid is probably the only useful one to interrogation.

Torture is of minor use in interrogating someone, because it eliminates more effective and efficient methods, produces unreliable info, and is only slightly more revealing than doing nothing at all or just asking a question.

Torture is evil. There are interrogation techniques that are mean and of dubious ethical quality that are not torture.

That solid?

Fairly solid, yeah. :)

Coriat wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
phantom1592 wrote:
Still totally Evil!!! But the idea that it's 'useless' isn't something I believe.
Then you are, quite simply, wrong.

I think it's hard to show from history that torture is so ineffective in producing accurate information.

The conquistadors in America wanted to lay hands on as much native gold as possible, but, problem! - what about when the natives would try to conceal valuables? (As people often do in times of strife).

Using torture to find out hidden stashes filled more than one of the treasure fleet galleons sailing back to Europe.

Asking "Where in this room is X?" when you don't have a time limit is one of the few situations where torture is actually pretty useful and reliable. It's a pretty good tactic specifically in situations where you can immediately, and with no cost to it not being true, check whether what they say is true.

That does not make it useful in most interrogation scenarios, since that's a pretty rare and specific condition. And one I've noted previously as a corner case where torture's actually potentially useful.

Coriat wrote:
Were such actions the optimal method, of greatest long-term benefit to colonial administration of the New World? It doesn't seem necessary to establish that. The conquistadors certainly weren't worried about it - and it certainly did work well enough for their purposes, whether or not it was the most efficient of all possible approaches.

This is true, but again that's a very specific situation.

Coriat wrote:
There are too many similar instances of torture producing true information scattered throughout the historical record to palatably name even all of the most famous ones.

Really? Cite some. I'll bet a lot of them are either not entirely plausible or fall under the same very precise corner case.

Coriat wrote:
(Along similar lines, Solzhenitsyn also tells me that the NKVD got hold of immeasurable loot by torturing the locations of stashes of various wealth, concealed during the Revolution, out of prisoners. That's a circumstance where it's difficult for a prisoner to save himself by making something up; do they find the stash where you said, or not?)

And again, the same very specific corner case.

1 to 50 of 6,651 << 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.