Krisam's page

How now foul Drow.

The pronunciation guide reprinted in the Dragon Compendium seems to indicate either is correct.

But if it's d-r-long o, then I can't say "How now foul drow".

Of course I COULD say...

There once was an evil young drow,
Who would murder wherever she'd go.
Her friends she did slay them,
To cause further mayhem.
She was not a nice person to know.

...well, I could just as easily flip that and ask why the words cow, how, now, etc are the way they are. or even better, why are there words like sow, row and bow that change meanings if they're pronounced differantly? it's just the way the languages evolved is all. and way back when, someone decided that drow rhymies with cow. that's all. it could ahve easily gone the other way. in fact it had a 50% chance of going the other way. but the world works in mysterious ways..

The big difference is the construction of those words.

cow
how
now
are missing a key infrastructure--the preceding 'r'--that should, if present, naturally result in a linguistic syllogism.

Throw and grow, for example, have a preceding letter or letter set followed by letter 'r' and concluded with letters 'ow.' They are always pronounced with an /O/ sound. Therefore, 'drow' must be pronounced /drO/...

Basically in any case were it might be motivated to kill someone, it is probably less evil to enslave them.

Well, as noted, I feel there are big holes in the argument "I could have killed you, and since I didn't, that makes it okay for me to do X to you instead."

X could be slavery. Or it could be rape, torture, dentistry... the point is that X can very easily still be evil, and if it is something evil, then having been an alternative to death does not make it particularly less evil.

My two coppers is pretty simplistic:

Slavery is Lawful Evil.

"Law" = Actions should be based on what benefits society.

"Chaos"= Actions should be based on what benefits each individual.

In the vast majority of cases slavery benenfits society, not the slave.

"Good" = Every sentient being is valuable. Whether thru Lawful or Chaotic means, the goal is to increase well-being for as many beings as possible

"Evil" = By heritage or position or simple selfishness, some beings believe themselves to have more value than others. Others' suffering is irrelevent, or even enjoyable.

The very definition of slave is a being which is "lesser" than yourself. It must be evil.

Of course there are rare exceptions when slaves are treated well and valued. But they are nonetheless... considered to be *less than* their owners. Their free will is irrelevent.

Throughout history, otherwise "good" people often performed evil acts, especially if it was a social norm. It doesn't make it less evil, and many of them seemed to know it, even while indulging.

In game play a Neutral Good Cleric may overlook a slave, depending on the "social norm" of the milieau, and how their god feels about it. Still it will probably make them uneasy.

Enslaving criminals is the only non-evil form of slavery.
In every other case it is an evil act.
If a society freely practices slavery it is almost certainly an evil society.

Not being familiar with the setting I would have to guess this is a LE kingdom? If a citizen in such an evil society takes slaves he has started down the path to evil. But then that is what this society encourages. If he treats his slaves well that is irrelevant. No one said evil has to always be cruel.

Slavery in almost any form is quite certainly evil, as it relies on the removal of a person's basic rights. While in real life things may be more subjective*, the Pathfinder game is one of objective morality. Ethics are empirical, and can be accurately and reproduceably tested through the use of magic. That being said, it doesn't mean that anyone who enforces, practices, allows, or is complicit in slavery is evil. In a place where slavery is the law of the land, for example, a Lawful Neutral constable would be obliged to adhere to that law. A Neutral- or even Good-aligned lawmaker might weigh the practice of slavery against the starvation of an entire nation and, having chosen slavery, emerge with an intact alignment, if not a clear conscience.

To return to your original post, you are asking two questions: one about roleplaying a cleric, and another about maintaining harmony at your gaming table. To answer the first, a Neutral Good cleric would almost certainly take exception to one of their companions taking a slave, quite possibly to the point of violence. Depending on the specifics of their faith they may or may not be specifically called on to oppose it. Your example of offering someone a choice between slavery or death is certainly non-Good, since the Good thing to do would be to save the person without thought for personal gain, such as might be had from their unpaid labor. Taking advantage of a situation in such a way is probably even mercenary enough to be considered evil. As for the second question, both PLAYERS are responsible for the conflict, unless they agree out of character that this situation makes for exciting roleplaying. The DM, in their role as mediator, is also responsible for making sure such conflicts don't disrupt the game. Other players are also responsible to the extent that making the game enjoyable is everyone's job. That being said, the lion's share of the blame for conflict must go to the player who's in-character choices are disrupting your group's status quo, which is probably the one taking the slave.

*It MAY be more subjective, but I would argue that it is not. While some forms of slavery may be more benign (indentured servitude) than others (American slavery), all forms are repugnant. People may sometimes choose slavery for themselves in preference to starvation or extreme poverty, but that does not justify the slaveowner in stripping them of some or all of their basic human rights. To do such a thing under any circumstances is predatory and opportunistic at best; it is malicious, sadistic, and evil at worst. The morality RPGs aside, slavery is one of the foulest crimes a human can be guilty of, perhaps second only to rape.

Slavery (meaning the ownership of a human being, or the fantasy equivalent of such) is evil, regardless of how the slaves are treated. Respect for others and their rights of self-ownership and self-determination is part of being good, and slavery is automatically treating people with a lack of such respect.

Remember, D&D (including pathfinder, as I understand it) is not one of subjective morality: things are objectively good or evil, and can be readily identified as such by spells. It doesn't matter if you consider yourself good: in my world, if you keep slaves, you are evil, and Detect Evil and Smite Evil will show this.

The point buy you give players is probably the LEAST disruptive to game balance of the following three:

Player experience
Number of players
Ability score point buy

If your players are relatively new to the game, you probably won't need to do ANY adjustment to an Adventure Path if you have 5 players and a 25 point buy.

If your players are experienced gamers, though... you'll probably want to do something along the following lines:

• Add more "mooks" to fights so that the monsters aren't as outnumbered.
• Use the Advanced simple template a LOT, especially on significant monsters.
• Try to push the players into making longer adventure days so that they'll need to spread their resources thinner—more wandering monsters and danger at camptime, essentially.
• Maximize the hp of some monsters, especially "boss" monsters. Giving them max hp doesn't really increase their power level that much but DOES keep them on screen a little longer.

And stay mobile. Watch how the PCs are doing, and adjust as you go.

Im a green leftist secular humanist and the son of a Germaine Greer following, the Female eunuch reading, Hellen Ready listening radical feminist. I find DV extreme and I am glad she is not in my game.

I'll gladly accept the "extreme" label if not nodding my head and going "oh, the sexism is ok because he's a decent guy in these other ways" is what's considered not-extreme. Hell, I'll accept it anyway, but I would hope that if you consider yourself a feminist you would, whether you agree with my methods or not, at the very least agree that he is wrong, he should be opposed on that point (even if no other), and someone needs to do something to make a change happen.

And just to be clear...I do hope everyone that's arguing with me knows I'm not talking about doing anything of the sort IRL, even if I despise sexism in all its forms just as strongly IRL as in game, right? Because things change a lot, at least as far as I'm concerned, when you have real, tangible proof that Erastil is a god, definitely exists and can be shown to do so, and believes these things and commands/strongly encourages/whatever his followers to believe the same and act on those beliefs.

Now, as for your earlier hypothetical...

Firstly, if the pimp is forcing/coercing the prostitutes, he needs to be taken care of, legal or not. And if it's a legitimate business he shouldn't need to do that, just treat them like employees in any other business.

Secondly, the picture you paint of the townsfolk makes them not very good Erastilians, at least on that point - they're teaching respect (and presumably equality) for both genders, and apparently matriarchy which is totally against Erastil's views.

Thirdly, if we make them "good Erastilians" instead of this...strangely lip-servicey Erastilian community that doesn't actually follow his ways in a pretty major aspect, again, I wouldn't just randomly go in and burn everything down, but let's say those goblins are attacking - where am I gonna not bother defending? The church. I'm still helping the town, just doing it with a different focus, and making sure the townsfolk know that hey, I'm not Erastilian and resent the old bastard, and hopefully they'll decide "hey, she saved us when Erastil didn't/wouldn't...maybe we should switch to her deity instead (or some other deity)!" Not terribly likely, perhaps, but maybe, and even if not, the church's influence is weakened and hopefully another one will move into its place (also, this is a town large enough to have multiple churches and nobility actively involved, so I think this town is more under Abadar's purview anyway, no?).

Fourthly...I wouldn't randomly depopulate a goblin tribe of (apparently exclusively) male warriors, specifically - it would depend on the context, but if I'm out adventuring against them, sure, I'll go after all of them, whether they have dangly bits or not. Apparently the farmers have left because they can't farm without Erastil's favor, so...it's probably becoming a trade town, if Abadar's church was influential enough to have the (seemingly important) nobility's ear. Still, farmers can farm without Erastil's favor - pretty sure Rahadoum and Cheliax both farm perfectly well without it.

Local rangers moved away because they felt persecuted, apparently? Maybe some female rangers (who, if this is a "good Erastilian community", would have been at least as persecuted as these rangers are...for some reason...I'm not seeing any persecution going on here, their church is just gone from the area) who didn't want to have people trying to browbeat them into being "good little wives and mothers" will move in. Well, again, this town has important nobility - they'll have military forces of some extent or other at their command, including scouts, and if hobgoblins are nearby, I'm sure those scouts are out keeping an eye on them.

Being that this is a sizable town with the nobles, (formerly) multiple temples, and presumably the support structure to maintain that kind of place, the hobgoblin raiders are going to have to be pretty sizable in number to be able to get past the forces a place like that can call up. If the scouts fail, then sure, but the rangers could just have easily failed (scouts would likely be rangers too, by the way).

But hey, I'm all ears if you have a better way to get rid of Erastil's sexism in a timely manner. Keeping in mind, of course, that simply providing examples that he's wrong doesn't work, and that he'll never die unless killed, y'know.

DrowVampyre wrote:

A "modest bump"? You think sexism is a "modest bump" - that would explain why it's not a big deal to you. Again, though, I suggest this: replace all his sexism with racism. Erastil believes that caucasians (or whatever other race you want to put in, but since he's Ulfen, caucasians would seem most fitting) should always be in charge, and non-caucasians never should and should always defer to them. Is that still a "modest bump"?

The fact remains that we're not talking about racism. Not all -isms are equal or equivalent.

...You seriously think sexism isn't as bad as racism? It's exactly the same thing, except for the qualifier that gets you taking the bad effects, and with sexism that bad is being applied to half the population. It makes me very sad to think that "sexism isn't as bad as racism" must be a widespread view among the posters in this thread.

My take on Erastil is pretty simple: He's not married.

Therefore, his views are completely loopy.

If he was married, had a family, and acted like he told his people to, yeah, he'd be valid...practicing what he preached.

He isn't, he doesn't. He's not a provider, he's just a hunter mouthing words.

If he truly was a LG god of community, he'd reflect his words. Therefore, I believe the view of him as portrayed is completely erroneous...either he has a divine family that hasn't been detailed (unlikely), or someone has a totally screwball interpretation of what a LG bachelor hunting god who wanders the world shooting thing is about.

The write-up on Erastil is a classic 'do as I say, not as I'm doing' justification which would be great if he was NG or CG, but being he's LG, it's totally contradictory and you should just ignore it.

Sorry, Sean.

==Aelryinth

Has anyone even read my post where I quoted the very writer of the Erastil entry in Kingmaker?

Here is the highlight:

Sean K. Reynolds wrote:

Erastil isn't saying women are weak.
Erastil isn't saying women are inferior.

He is saying that a woman's role is to be wife and mother... just as a man's role is to be husband and father. Yet he's not insisting that everyone get married at the start of puberty and start cranking out children just because they can.

If his attitudes about women are sexist, then so are his attitudes about men. Erastil would consider me (an unmarried, almost-40, childfree man with no land) very "unmanly." If I lived in a world where Erastil was real, would that prevent me from praying to him for prosperity in my farming or hunting? No. Compared to the gods, we are all inferior and inadequate.

Also, as a Lawful Good god, he would not put up with anyone abusing, harming, coercing, or neglecting anyone. I would dare say that he would be even more wrathful on someone who harmed a woman. A husband's duty over his wife is to provide and protect her and any children they have.

Sure, he thinks a "strong-willed" woman needs to be "tamed" but he isn't endorsing abuse, harm, or coercion. I like to think he is hoping for something like in "Princess Bride," where a strong-willed woman is tamed by the quiet "As you wish," love that Wesly gave to Buttercup. The strong patience and careful diplomacy that slowly softens a heart and makes it malleable to the loving will of a partner. And just like Sean mentioned, there isn't anything preventing the two from working together in a harmonious partnership to become a "power couple."

Now, would that be understood and properly taught and practiced by all followers of Erastil? Nope. In fact, the majority of them would go about it all wrong. Just like how the majority of any religion fail to properly follow the doctrine of their faith. In that, I can see husbands abusing power and women becoming second-class citizens in small, remote communities.

Edit: Not to mention that this all just a game and we are all able to change it to our liking. You don't like his views on women? Change them, house rule it, and move on to the next issue.

Oh, I read it, but here's the thing - the actual writeup for Erastil doesn't just say that women should be wife and mother and men should be husband and father, it says men should be in charge. And his attitudes about men are sexist, too, but he favors them over women, clearly. You just, in fact, said all that needs to be said - "a husband's duty over his wife". Bam, that right there, sexist and worthy of condemnation.

I'm not saying he supports abuse, but he does support coercion. "Taming" is, by its very nature, coercive - you're trying to coax someone into being someone they're not so that they fit who you want them to be more. And sure, a couple could work together, and I'm sure many of them do...but Erastil, by what has been written about him, still wants the husband to be in charge. That is, frankly, unacceptable to me. When I say that, know that I don't mean it in an "Erastil shouldn't exist/OMG Sean's sexist!" sense, I mean that by my values, my beliefs, Erastil is worthy of nothing but scorn and destruction, and I take a special kind of glee in partaking in that destruction in-world.

Ask yourself this...if Erastil's writeup said, instead:

Old Deadeye is set in his ways and doesn’t take well to those who challenge his opinions or upset how things work. He believes the strength of a caucasian’s (or whatever the Golarion equivalent of that is) will makes him the center of a household, and while Garundi can be strong, they should defer to and support the caucasians, as their role is to look after the house and raise strong children (consequently, there are few Garundi priests in his church). Independent-minded Garundi, he believes, can be disruptive to communities, and it is best to marry them off quickly so their duties as servant command their attention.

would you defend them? I highly doubt it.

And yes, I don't like his views on women. In fact, to say I despise his views on women would be to grossly underrepresent them. To say I despise him for his views on women would likewise be a gross underrepresentation. But I don't begrudge having him in the setting - he serves a purpose, namely to show that just because something has a good alignment doesn't mean it deserves to exist or you should work with it, for it may well be more worthy of annihilation than the monsters you're used to facing.

Erastil is not a misogynist. He is a male chauvinist. While the two seem similar on paper, the practical reality of the two concepts are vastly different. Misogyny is the hatred of women, and nowhere is it suggested or implied that Erastil hates women in any manner.

A male chauvinist like Erastil believes women are the "weaker sex," and therefore it is the duty of males to lay down their lives to protect them.

A misogynist like Asmodeus believes that women are the weaker sex, and therefore it is the duty of men to dominate them at all times and use women solely for their own pleasure.

And I hate both and want both to burn in the worst possible way.

And no, it's nowhere near the same - one is a building and a faith, the other is a living, feeling person. Guess which one I have more sympathy for.

Unlike on actual Earth, on Golarion, temples are focal points of the power of the gods. So the destruction of a temple or a shrine can have devastating effects on a community, especially one that depends on the help of Erastil to keep them from starving through the winter. So while a temple is not a flesh and blood person, it is of more significance than just any regular building.

Then they can start worshipping a deity worthy of worship. Say, Desna, or Abadar, or Calistria, or Shelyn, or Iomedae, or Gozreh, or...the list goes on and on. When I say "watch his temples burn", I don't mean just the structure, I mean the faith entirely. It fills me with delight to excise belief in him from the face of the world, along with Asmodeus and all the other misogynist/chauvinist/sexist/etc. deities, faiths, societies, organizations, cultures, and individuals - I like nothing more than destroying them utterly, so thoroughly that even the memory of their names is lost for all time.

In short, because men are more expandable than women. Do you really consider bearing all responsibility a good thing?

If there is trouble, then the head of the house takes care of it and puts himself in danger. If there is legal problem, it's the head of house that's held responsible. If a lord requires work to be done, it's the head of the house that needs to answer.
Let the men take care of the hard physical stuff, the risky stuff, while the women take care of the household, raising children, and the educated work; herb lore and cooking in an age without refrigeration is about the most educated...

Which is still no reason they should always have the power. If anything, that's an argument for women to have more power, if men are more expendable. Now, my personal belief is that gender should have no bearing whatsoever on who holds power - fine, encourage men to do the dangerous things if they're "less important", but that in no way justifies "the man should always be the head of the household" and the like. That's just flat out sexist.

I don't think Erastil is sexist, it's more of a case of your views being too tainted by our living conditions.

What is life like? Hard, harsh, deadly. In Europe at this tech level children that are born had a 50% chance to live to adulthood. That's in an established country with working government. Without the threat of monsters, insane mages, demons, and other evil.

Clerics may blunt the death rate a bit, but as shown in numerous discussions about Crimson Throne, there's not enough divine magic around (nor is it cheap enough for most) to deal with disease. Or to heal every child that has an accident.

That means that everyone that can has to marry and have six children just to maintain the population level. In regions like the stolen lands that might not even be close to enough. Have less and your family may die out, there won't be anyone there to take care of you when you're too old to work.

Honestly, I wonder how the worshipers of some of the good gods survive in the harsh world. Many probably die in poverty.

So...how does that translate to "men should always be the head of the household"? Sure, I'd totally understand him being all for marriage and reproduction and strongly encouraging that, it's when he basically says "...and the men should hold the power!" that he becomes sexist.

And that's why I despise him, and even my good characters would rather see his churches burn that stop the goblins (contain them to keep from spreading, sure, but burn that cancerous faith out, you glorious green bastards!").

why would anyone use it outside of organized play?

1} It's fair.

In my experience point buy systems only lead to Min-Maxing and Munchkinism.

Randomized character stats aren't fun. If I want to play a class that really needs three "good" stats and I randomly roll only two then I can't effectively play the character I want to play.

More, in my experience point-buy does away with max/min because players are able to budget and design their characters. Playing a rogue? You can - with a decent point buy pool - ensure you've got enough Str, Dex, Int and Cha to make a useful, versatile and interesting character. With random stats... you stand a decent chance of something missing. Maybe you have to sacrifice being a decent face character because you can't justify the Cha. Maybe you have to sacrifice being very widely skillful because you can't justify the Int. Maybe you're going to get hit more often and can't rely on ranged attacks because you can't justify the Dex. Maybe there's no point in throwing weapons, swinging weapons, or using a composite bow because you can't justify the Str.

With point-buy you get to decide... a little here, a little there, or focus on fewer things. With dice rolls you can't decide.

It also encourages people to build to mechanics as opposed to character.

You may as well have said "it encourages people to wear blue socks." So what? Why hasn't 32 years of gaming taught you that this game is multifaceted and there's no wrong way to play it.

Chess doesn't have any role-playing. It's 100% about the stats of the pieces. Strangely it's a fun game. Well, surprise... this game can work that way too. Yes, role-play is fun, yes it's a healthy part of the rules, and yes, I personally like a balance between the two. But your point is being BLIND to the fact that some people have fun in different ways than you do.

I'm not into BDSM but what's it to me if someone else is?

the social ability of the system in question has become the "dump-stat" because too few GMs build social challenges into their games

Again, tough. This is a condescending viewpoint. Have you seriously never encountered players who don't want, don't enjoy, and won't participate in RP-heavy content? I certainly have. I refuse to tell them they're wrong. Instead I design my game for my audience. There's enough RP content to keep the RP-lovers entertained and there's enough combat to keep the tacticians (or the simply embarrassed-to-role-play) happy.

We tried point buy when it was introduced in 3rd Ed. and didn't care for it, finding it far inferior to Method one,

Inferior. Hmmm.

and (especially when I am DM, I admit to a certain level of harshness here) a far higher rate of character mortality.

And yet.

And yet you claim it leads to max/min. Interesting. Interesting and contradictory. How odd that when your players had the opportunity to design their characters in a more optimal fashion they ended up dead more often. Must have been the plethora of social challenges that whittled away their hit-points. Or maybe you were just being a good GM and penalized them to death for role-playing a higher social ability than the characters "should have".

Something's rotten in Denmark here.

Leo... what are you trying to achieve with this thread? You've clearly made up your mind. Your opinion is clearly and strongly stated and I don't see much sign that you're open to being convinced that any other position is valid. Do you really think by posting this anyone else is going to suddenly feel guilty about the way they (allow their players to) generate their characters and start playing the game the One True Way? I'd just like clarification as to your motive/purpose in this post 'cuz I'm kind of unsure.

Some of us don't roll worth s&+$.

4, 7, 10, 10, 12, 13 isn't a fun array. Swap out one with a 16 and its still mediocre.

I did the random thing in my youth. I got over the one sided romance of it.

DrDeth has some apt concerns. It's true, the DM is the 'god' of their story/world/campaign. They have the absolute final say. Ideally they should be a courteous, considerate god who bears in mind the concerns of their players (and the players should do likewise in return for the 'god', of course). If you want a less loaded word, then 'owner' can easily replace it and the analogy becomes one of the players and characters being in the house (the campaign) by the owner's permission.

Nonetheless, one has to bear in mind that a character is primarily the product of the player's imagination and time investment. DMs should be careful about doing things that may come across to the player as cheapening that character's value and impact. Some players won't mind, others will, it's the sort of thing you have to gauge as you learn more about your players. Their character exists in the DM's setting under the DM's permission and authority, but it remains the player's character.

The player does cede some creative control inherently by the existence of effects like Dominate, Charm Person, and so on. Outside of these things, it's still nice to bear their character ownership concerns in mind. It can otherwise leave some players feeling that they're just puppets with no true creative input on the story (or whose desires/interests can be completely hijacked), and that often leads to resentment.

The DM/Player relationship is one best built on mutual trust and respect for the story you're coming together to tell. The DM owns it (clarifying edit: 'it' being 'the story'), but they need talented players (addendum edit: with solid character designs) who work together with you and feel that their ideas are respected in order to really make the tale work. Addendum edit: Toward that end, while I cannot cite a page and paragraph that legally state the player owns their character, it strikes me as intuitive. The character and player are valued guests in your 'world.' (end edit)

Getting back to the main topic, others have offered the same advice I would. If you're going to go for this kind of shocking swerve, you need to build it up. This is one thing pro wrestling back in the 1990s got right; you would sometimes see two 'face' ('hero') characters work together for a while, and the story showed one of them gradually becoming jealous of the other's perceived greater success. They would work this jealousy story for a few months, have the 'greater' character try to make amends and show their partner is a valued friend/ally who really is important, and the jealous character would have none of it.

When it was done right, this eventually lead to a swerve very similar to what JiCi is aiming for; the jealous character turned on his partner in violent fashion, leading to a series of matches that had their climax at a major pay-per-view event. Depending on the writers and wrestlers/characters involved, this could end several different ways... but it did yield the desired emotional pay-off. Edit: I phrased that a tad poorly. The pacing involved is somewhat different since the 'swerving' characters in question are dead/undead, but hopefully the basic idea comes across. (end edit)

Obviously you can't follow pro wrestling writing conventions in Pathfinder to the letter, they are different mediums. It is nonetheless a fine example of the benefits in working a storyline; building it up over time, letting us see some things in progress (MC Templar offered some great examples!) before going with a sudden twist with the appropriate emotional impact.

This has been bugging me for a long time really.

For a setting with an actual god of redemption in it, that particular example of Good at its best doesn't seem to get much love, or at least it feels that way much of the time. Whenever I've asked "where are the non-evil _____ tribes when they have free will and Sarenrae exists", the general answer is along the lines of "that's what the PCs are for", but that doesn't really get a lot of love either.

Most of the time redemption is mentioned in APs, it seems it's to say that so-and-so is beyond it or that characters interested in pursuing redemption for an NPC are just taking the bait for a trap.

I got to thinking about Council of Thieves recently, specifically the matter of

I read that AP after we wound up not playing it and went with Kingmaker instead. I remember thinking that that would have been an awesome opportunity to finally getting to have a PC that managed to redeem a character, and that certainly presented an interesting opportunity that my character concept for CoT certainly would have pursued. But thinking on it further it likely would have blown up in his face like most every other attempt in the past I've made with my characters simply because the possibility of it suceeding wasn't even mentioned in the text.

And that's the frustrating thing. Far too many GMs simply will not deviate from the text, so if the possibility isn't mentioned, it isn't there for them.

The one actual NPC that I can think of that actually had redemption written in as a possibility was actually

This isn't confined to the APs either. My all-time favorite fey, the Forlarren, was presented in Tome of Horrors(where I first learned of it) as a creature ripe for this sort of thing. It was as if that creature had been made for the sort of player that would be interested in redemption rather than just Detect Evil-Smite Evil. Then in Bestiary 2 and all of that richness and possibility is lost because it's now presented as a gleefully evil creature that's all about the evil, and where before there was depth there's now just a mechanical debuff.

Could we see more support to let good characters interested in redeeming evil characters, be they player race or monster? I mean surely there's enough room in Golarion for that form of play as well, right?

Could we have opportunities to have a hand in the redemption of a fiend? Could we have opportunities to lead orc tribes out of the darkness of their evil cultures? Could we see redemption actually given full attention and love once and a while rather than just lip-service?

It would just be nice to be able to play a good character in an AP, ask WWSD?, and actually have a decent shot at it working.

If this comes across as gripey, sorry. Just been fighting some burnout on this issue for a long time now.

If it becomes a patter on behavior over time then move him towards DC chaos then evil or evil then chaos. I think shifting slowly towads chaos works better.

Have her show up at night when he'd on guard duty and distract him. He doesn't have to betray the party and she doesntvhave to do anything but offer what he wants. Provide enough 'innocent' papas in judgement. Maybe then treasure starts going missing becausevhes making gifts to her.

Basically just provide him lots of opportunities to damn himself.. its really up to you if you want to tell him he's shifting alignment, though give the other cha acters chances to notice persdonslity changes as it happens.

Basically I'm saying don't use it as an alignment hammer, use it for story.

I would be interested in:
-a Norse/Viking themed AP. I know that Jade Regent had some of that. I want MORE!

-An Underdark type themed AP. I would even be interested in one that focused on the Political Intrigue aspects of Drow culture.

-An Underwater AP. We could explore Atlantis, take on the Aboleth Consortium, or something like that.

-A Prehistoric AP. Flavor the weapons to be primitive, flavor the races to be primitive, put the adventurers up against dinosaurs and other prehistoric beasts.

That's just my 2cp.

-Aaron

Seconding an AP dealing with dragons (or at least one, at the end). Instead of the dragon being the Big Bad's mount or scary minion, the dragon *is* the big bad, and the standard 'spellcaster at the end of the module' is his half-dragon kid.

Also seconding an AP designed for unusual races. I'd love to see one that is built around accessibility for an 'iconic' party consisting of a goblin, a hobgoblin, a bugbear, a gnoll, an orc and a kobold, or a similar oddball group.

One of the challenges Paizo has set up for themselves is consistently running games on the Medium XP track. The 3.5 APs essentially ran on the Fast XP track, which allowed them to go to higher levels in the same amount of time.

While I'm a fan of the Medium XP track for story purposes, a Fast XP track could represent a more action-movie oriented campaign with a save-the-world ending.

The elephant in the room is that Paizo seems to shy away from writing adventures over 16th level. They've introduced villains for 20th-level characters, but only in sourcebooks. I understand that high-level writing is a challenge; however, that would be why I would want Paizo to give me some material in that direction - they are, after all, the professionals.

Nine out of ten parts of the Paladin's version of Lawful Good is emphasis on the good.

They don't 'detect chaos' and they don't 'smite chaos' and they don't suffer any sort of approbrium (or possible loss of class abilities!) for hanging out with chaotic folk. Mechanically, since the Paladin class was invented, 'lawful' has been a distant afterthought, at best, and there's no reason why your paladin PC has to put more attention into his 'lawful-ness' than the creators of the game did.

If the quandary of the day puts the Lawful at odds with the Good, the Good wins every time, IMO.

That depends on your Paladin code, to some degree. Each one's gonna be a bit different, after all. That said, if it comes down to violating the law, or allowing injustice, you actually have to break them out of jail.

A jailbreak (as long as you don't harm any guards permanently) is not an Evil act. Nor is it necesarily disrespectful to a legitimate authority, respectful disagreement is entirely possible after all. You can even leave them a polite note about how you regret the necessity of this, and will turn both him and yourself in, once you've proven his innocence.

Allowing an innocent man to die when you have the power to save him? That's an Evil act, and not allowed for Paladins. And a failure to help someone in need, so it actually causes you to fall twice. You allow him to die, and you cease to be a Paladin (until ou do some serious atonement, anyway).

So, in short, the Paladin code actually requires you to break the law in this case. Hardly a unique situation, but always one people seem to have trouble with, despite the extremely clear statements throughout the Paladin codes and class writeup in general that, while Paladins must be Lawful, they are first and foremost Good. You don't lose your Paladin powers for Chaotic acts after all, only Evil ones.

3.5 dungeon masters guide had this: Buying Buildings

which may be helpful for purposes of comparison.

"Grand House" with a markup for being built in stone instead of wood sounds right. Perhaps 7-8 grand. I would price out the magic door separately, perhaps as a wondrous item based on arcane lock.

Good evening, Ladies and Gentlemen.
I’m a GM looking to start a play by post game. I’m new to PbP, and relatively green at GMing in general, mostly due to a lack of interested friends. I’ve heard good things about this so-called “internet,” and I’d like to try a game on it.

This isn’t like a normal recruitment thread where I post up the adventure premise and rules and accept submissions. I legitimately have no idea what the adventure will be about, and the crunch(numerical) parts of characters are later steps. Here’s the plan:

1. The general setting is canon Andoran in Golarion.
2. The adventures will be crafted according to players’ friends, foes, and goals.
3. That’s actually about it. Everything else will be worked out from there.

So, this is your chance to get your character some personal action. I really, really, don’t have any idea for an adventure on purpose so that I can tailor the party’s adventures to the party’s goals. My job is to make this fun for you. The first party goal will be a pre-determined team goal that essentially serves as a jumping-off point and character prompt. You can give your character whatever goals he wants within the boundaries as long as you can give him a reason to want to complete the first goal.

Team Goal: A small band of raiders is trying to sneak a shipment of slaves from Isger to Cheliax, and is known to have picked up some Andoren stragglers along the way. Your party has encountered the slavers on the road just south of Piren’s Bluff. You have to free the slaves!
When submitting characters, here is what I am looking for:

1. Class/profession
This is what you character does. His/her job, trade, livelihood, etc.

2. Rough outline/description
This is who your character is. His/her nature, soul, persona, etc. As a note, your character must be likeable. No dark, gruff loners, psychopathic munchkins, or kleptomaniacs. He/she has to be able to function as a member of a team. In crunch terms, this basically eliminates evil alignments and strongly suggests good ones only.

3. Rights and wrongs
These are the polarizing issues that you character cares about. What does he/she fight for? Against? Where does he/she draw the line on killing, lying, stealing, etc? Each character must have “slavery” as a wrong, just so that they all have a reason to work together.

4. Backstory
Keep in mind the rights, wrongs, friends, foes, and goals as you work on your character’s story. Try to give a decent rationale for most of them.

5. Friends and foes (and woes)
Two of each. Friends can be family, mentors, informants, patrons, etc. and foes can be family, rivals, authorities, traitors, etc.
BONUS! A woe – a problem afflicting the player serious to merit conflict with a foe – will make for a vastly more enjoyable roleplaying experience.

6. Goals
What does you character want to do? 3 Short goals, 1-2 medium, 1 long goal. Short goals are things that could potentially be completed in a standard session or two, medium goals would be more of an adventure scale, and long goals are crazy, over-the-top campaign scale goals.

7. Quirks and mannerisms
Easy. A one-word descriptor of temperament, a mannerism, and a role-playable (fluff) weakness.

8. Crunch
The character sheet. Level 1, 25 point buy, max HP first level, HUMANS ONLY, any class within reason, no archetypes, no traits.

9. Starting equipment
You equipment will be extremely minimal to start. We’re talking a dirt cheap weapon and maybe some armor. No special gear or fancy weapons. Of course, items necessary to your class are available to you, although it could be interesting for a wizard to start without a spellbook…The idea is that your characters are talented, but un-established. The stats are high, the gear is low. That way, it’s exciting when you get your first good sword.

Here’s an example character, abbreviated for abbreviation’s sake:

I will be interacting with folks who post solid character concepts to help further define or clarify their characters, and I will accept a character into the game as soon as he/she is ready and approved. This means that you can make your character more appealing by going for synergy with already selected characters. This also means that, as long as you are cooperative, I am operating on a first come, first serve basis.

I’m really pumped about this game, and I hope that I can garner some interest. I know that the character submission process seems like a bear, but realize that it’s for your own good. This way, I can know that my adventures will appeal to your characters instead of you hoping that your character fit with my adventure.

As a final remark, don’t be intimidated by the requirements, even if you are brand spanking new to roleplaying. Post with a good start, and I’ll help you grow it (first come, first serve). I really want this game to be about you, the player, so if there’s something I can do to help you enjoy this more, tell me. In fact, I'm probably a little partial to new players, so this is great chance to test the waters. If you decide you don't like it, I'm sure we can slip you out and integrate someone else. To the old veterans around here: please give it a few minutes before you post to let the new kids play.I’ll be online for a few hours this evening, and then more later tonight.

Thanks,
Jacob

Open Design also has you covered with the Party of One adventures. :)

Expeditious Retreat Press has got you covered.

So... I just did the preliminary stats for the revised Xanesha for the Rise of the Runelords hardcover, updating this much-beloved NPC to the Pathfinder rules while toning her down quite a bit from her over-the-top incarnation in the original adventure. So I thought as a quick preview for folks... I'd throw her stats up on these boards!

Enjoy! Hope she's still mean, but not as mean as she used to be! (I'm thinking she MIGHT still be too powerful... but that there might be some new ways you can do things before in the adventure to prep yourself against her...)

As far as I'm concerned, this question is as appropriate as asking if you've ever run a table for all black people. What gender someone is doesn't change anything about how they play the game, just as it doesn't change if they're of a different ethnicity. If we wouldn't tolerate racial trolling on the boards, I don't see the need to tolerate gender trolling as well.

I think the question of running games for women to help overcome the stereotypes about women in gaming (or lack thereof) is a valid topic of discussion, but supporting those same stereotypes (by citing specific members of the community, no less) is what I have issue with here.

Eh. Here's something I whipped up:

Map

A map is a sketch of an area, ranging from crude drawings of a town on cheap parchment to exquisitely drawn and detailed continental geography on expensive vellum. With a map, a character gains a bonus to survival checks to keep from becoming lost or avoiding natural hazards while in the area the map covers. The character can also make knowledge geography checks with a bonus regarding the area the map covers, even if untrained. If untrained, the character can only succeed up to a certain DC using the map. Most maps are available for populated and semi populated areas at the rough and standard qualities. At a DM's discretion, maps may also give circumstance bonuses to checks based on large scale operations such as trade, war, and governance.

Map(Rough) 10 gp
A rough map is typically charcoal on cheap parchment and only sketches the largest terrain features accurately. A significant amount of the map is guesswork, especially scale. Adventurers tend to be surprised by what a rough map leaves out. A rough map grants a +2 bonus to survival checks to keep from becoming lost or avoiding natural hazards. The caracter can also make knowledge geography checks with a +2 bonus, even if untrained. If untrained, the character cannot exceed DC 12 difficulty on knowledge(geography).

Map(Standard) 100 gp
A standard map, typically ink on good quality parchment, catchs all major and some minor terrain features. Most distances are somewhat accurate. Most traveling merchants have a map of this quality. A standard map grants a +3 bonus to survival checks to keep from becoming lost or avoiding natural hazards. The caracter can also make knowledge geography checks with a +4 bonus, even if untrained. If untrained, the character cannot exceed DC 18 difficulty on knowledge(geography). A standard map also grants a 10% bonus to daily travel speed.

Map(Detailed) 500 gp
Most detailed maps are used by governments, churches, and large organizations. They tend to have some color, show all major and minor terrain features, and be very accurate. A detailed map grants a +4 bonus to survival checks to keep from becoming lost or avoiding natural hazards. The caracter can also make knowledge geography checks with a +6 bonus, even if untrained. If untrained, the character cannot exceed DC 23 difficulty on knowledge(geography).
A detailed map also grants a 20% bonus to daily travel speed.

Map(Exquisite) 2000 gp
A Master Cartographer's masterwork. These full color microscopically detailed maps are incredibly rare. Only royalty, merchant princes, and high church officials typically have access to such maps. In fact, such maps are often considered state secrets. They show all terrain features in a stunning amount of detail to a an exacting degree of accuracy. A detailed map grants a +5 bonus to survival checks to keep from becoming lost or avoiding natural hazards. The caracter can also make knowledge geography checks with a +8 bonus, even if untrained. If untrained, the character cannot exceed DC 28 difficulty on knowledge(geography).
An exquisite map also grants a 30% bonus to daily travel speed.

Most maps only show relatively small areas. Larger maps or bundles of maps are available, but as size increases, so does price. For the area you want covered, multiply the price by the following multipliers. If the area has never or only partially been mapped, the price may increase as well at the DM's discretion, not to mention the time required to explore and map the area.

Local x1
Regional x3
National x6
Continental x12

I've been putting together a few mapping tips and tricks and posting them on G+ and facebook at lunchtime 2-3 times a week. If you're interested, you can find them here:
• tips on facebook
• tips on Google+
• collated tips on the blog (every Saturday more or less)

I hope the tips come in handy to people, and let me know if there's something you'd like to see covered.

Tips so far (from the last 3 weeks):
• Drawing top down hills
• City design - start with the roads
• Dungeon design and adventure flow
• Simple hatched city district styles
• Using the Shape Tool to create quick simple icons in Photoshop
• Hand drawn mountains
• Turning a map into an aged paper handout
• A classic gatehouse design for guarding your front door
• Creating isometric dungeon maps
• Quick and Easy Dungeons using Grids
• Using layer styles for attractive dungeons.
• Using paths to create pretty dungeon maps
• Old School Mapping in Photoshop and Maptool

Ignorance isn't a reason for an alignment shift. Her intentions are good and she is displaying compassion for life, not greed or any kind of personal gain.

Now, as I remember it the devil was severely weakened and had permanently lost a ton of levels. Obviously its going to need something on the order of a wish or a miracle to bring it back in any short term.

What I would do? I'd leave a telepathic link open between the two so that they could converse. Devils do trade in souls and evil pacts and the best way to get one started is to have someone gullible think they are your friend and a high level PC would be a great ally. Now of course the devil itself may have other allies in the outer planes and news of its return could cause old pacts to reawaken ie. its servants and for all purposes its still looks like a pit fiend. So it could barter out its services to the PC in exchange for sacrifices or a binding contract.

Heck, you could even have it reversed and have the pit fiend call upon the PC for aid! I mean this of course could just be some kind of plot to get the PC believing that the pit fiend really needs help, but is actually a plot to get the pc deeper and deeper involved with it.

Take a look at the Succubus, its got the profane gift it gives its minions, you say some of these players aren't power gamers? Try that out, give the PC the profance benefit in exchange for a future favor.

Baleful polymorph's duration is Permanent (meaning that the spell remains on the subject with no set expiration) and there is no text preventing dispel magic from working on it, so it can be dispelled.

Instantaneous (the spell does its work and goes away, leaving the subject changed and no longer magical) is the deal-breaker that you may have been looking out for.

Since this thread is now in the Rise of the Runelords subforum, I am going to skip the spoiler box.

First, for the posters who worry about the justice being detectably evil, the character description says that he casts Undetectable Alignment on himself every day.

Do the player characters know that Justice Ironbriar is associated with the Skinsaw Cultists, or do they merely know that the justice is unfairly persecuting them for killing alleged murderers during their vigilante investigation? If the party could link Ironbriar to the cultists, he will want to slit their throats immediately. I am assuming that the party has no solid evidence against Ironbriar, but might have guessed or overhead that he is with the cultists.

Let me elaborate on a plan to exile to party to Fort Rannick as a convenient way to end their investigation. First, if Xanesha knows Lucretia's plans for the fort, then she sees this as a permanent solution. Second, Ironbriar knows that executing the heroes of Sandpoint is likely to backfire. Sending them away for a year without a public trial gives him plenty of time for a cover-up.

And we can make this personal. That night in prison each character is in an individual cell. The GM asks each character to roll a Perception check to wake up when someone opens the door to his or her cell. If the character fails to wake up, have him or her roll a Will save--no other information given, but it is against Xanesha's DC 21 Charm Monster spell-like ability. If the character instead wakes up, he or she sees a masked lamia matriarch, who says, "A struggle would leave marks. Maybe tomorrow night." She casts Silence and closes the door.

The next morning, they are herded before a justice. If they don't suspect Ironbriar, he can be the justice; otherwise, it is another justice. The justice is accompanied by Ironbriar's assistant, Xanesha in human form under an assumed name and under Undetectable Alignment. Tell every character who failed the Will save that they automatically trust the assistant as if she were an old friend. The players will guess what that means.

The justice offers them the Fort Rannick deal: one year serving the Black Arrows at Fort Rannick and protecting the province from ogres in exchange for dropping the charges against them. The assistant urges the party to accept, which will affect the charmed members. If any had awoken to see Xanesha, the assistant can hint that no-one knows the outcome of a trial--or what might happen before the trial.

If the party accepts, send them to Fort Rannick. If the party refuses, go ahead with a trial. Ironbriar's assistant might attempt to influence the charmed individuals to undermine their testimony, but have them declared innocent in a fair trial to continue the adventure.

After that, Xanesha can be an enemy that they hate personally rather than the unseen manipulator behind a series of murders. Defeating personal enemies is more fun.

I think it's awesome that your Paladin turned himself in. In my opinion he deserves his day in court for that alone. Instead of having the BBEG try and kill them, have the BBEG gloat and be overconfident. He can't believe this idiot just played right into his hands.

Then, let the Paladin have his day in the spotlight. Let him come up with an inspiring speech to address the judge and the audience. Let him have the satisfaction of seeing his words have an effect...he starts to see a glimmer of hope in the commoners' eyes as they're inspired by his words...

...and then the Judge breaks the spell and pronounces a sentence of death. There's outrage in the courtroom. The protestors are quickly and brutally put down. The Paladin and his crew are dragged back to their prison cell and will be hung at dawn. Now they have to escape. Maybe now the old woman comes. Or maybe it's a whole "crew" of commoners, each who was so inpsired by the paladin's speech that they have decided to take the ultimate risk and help him escape. They're all pathetic commoner-1s but they each have one special skill...a blacksmith to cut the bars...a tavern wench to distract the guards...whatever.

And when the characters successfully escape, they become folk heroes.

Paladins are awesomeness wrapped in cool. Let him be heroic, man!

Hey all, I just noticed my little guide was taking up some discussion space from Treantmonks ranger guide. I don't want that to happen to his thread so I'd like to present you with a guide I've written after running a similar character in several campaigns.

It is my opinion that you don't need to switch hit or worry about melee if you do archery right, and this is my guide with that concept in mind:

Lastoths Guide to Archery Rangers

I look forward to your feedback.

It has been thoroughly discussed.

There is no continuum with Role on one end and Roll on the other.

There are two axes: rules-heavy to rules-lite, and narrative-heavy to narrative-lite.

I've met people who were excellently deep into rules play and narration, I've met people who couldn't seem to get a handle on either and they're still welcome at my table. It's a game, it's a hobby, it's not an exclusive club.

Player: "I'm going to break the game."
Game Master: "No you're not."
Player: "Yes I am."
GM: "You can't play then."

Final Score
GM: 1
Player: 0

I think any player, outside of playtests, who sets out to "break the game" is probably being a total douchebag. Be prepared to boot him. He sounds like trouble.

First we need to look at what does evil mean.

I am Evil and generally it means....
1) I am concerned with my needs above the needs of others.

2) I am concerned with my wants above the wants or rights of others.

3) I have no personal issues with Killing/Stealing/Lying/Assulting/ect... to get what I need or want.

Evil does not mean.....

1) I ignore the concept that there are ramifications for my actions (going to jail, being killed, having people hate me).

2) I do not plan ahead and refuse to look at the big picture.

3) I do not care what people, even my friends think about me.

As an Evil Individual, I know better than to flaunt my evil. That is a quick way to loose friends and allies. Even us evil people like to have friends and have feelings for people. Evil is capable of love and caring about people even if in a very selfish possesive way. I still value my companions company though never more than himself.

I realize that I will sometimes have to do things these softhearted friends/allies of mine what me to do even if I dont get immediate compensation for doing it. After all I need those allies to cover my ass later when there is a large payment waiting for a task to completed.

I care about my personal safety. Your damn right I surround myself with good aligned allies rather than evil or neutral ones. Good allies wont sell me out. Good allies wont murder me in my sleep and take my stuff. Good allies will risk their lives to rescue me. Heck even when I screw them over, my Good allies will not immediately kill me, their stupid morals say killing is wrong. They have to trap me and try to convience me to change or at worst throw me in jail until I have paid my debt. As long as I dont force them into a corner and threaten them with serious bodily harm they arent allowed to kill me. Even if I try to escape they have to try to catch me without killing me first. Why you ask? Cuz they are good. Heck if I can get them to like me and care about me enough I can even get them to cover for me when I do something bad that they know is morally wrong. Why? Because their sad little soft sappy hearts dont want something bad to happen to a good friend and they know that deep down in side I'm really just a confused scared person that needs love. Excuse me while a vomit.

Basically, I am evil, I sure as hell wouldn't trust me and so I don't trust anyone like me either. So I make sure all of my friends and companions are sappy soft hearted saps. I sleep better at night knowing that.

Silly, silly PF players. As always we should turn our gaze to comic books:

Paladin or Lawful Good = Superman/Captain America

Ranger/Chaotic Good = Batman/Spider Man

I won't bother with the other potential classes/alignments; you get the point.

Did superman once tell a half-truth to get Mxlplct to say his name spelled backwards? Sure he did. Did Captain America once work alongside the Hulk, at the time an outlaw of the federal government in the first few issues of the Avengers to take down some major bad guys? You know it! Nuff Said.

A buddy of mine played the best paladin I ever saw just over a year ago. We were in town investigating some shady business and a fair was in progress. All the rest of us players were really serious, slightly nefarious, slipping in and out of crowds, eavesdropping and adding Bluff to Diplomacy to get townsfolk to tell us about the bad guys w/out getting pinched. The paladin didn't ask a single dark question; instead he went about the fair asking people how they were, what their troubles were, investigating seemingly mundane details.

My friend did it in a way that was both elequent and unobtrusive. He waited patiently for his turn at the table and was usually wearing a smile when speaking in character. By the end of the inquisition phase the paladin was able to guide us to an NPC that could fill in the blanks on all our questions w/out making a single roll.

The GM said he made the townspeople feel more real; when acting as said folk the paladin took them seriously and made them feel better and genuinely helped them in their lives.

That to me is a paladin; selfless dedication to the betterment of everyone else while at the same time adhering to a certain code of honor and ethics. Is this the Bushido code, Courtly Love and Chivalry, perhaps a handfull of laws modeled after the 10 Commandments? Who cares as long as its consistent, honest, fair and contributes positively to society. Superman.

I disagree.

Paladins acting above the law — with detect evil giving them all they need to self-appoint themselves as judge, jury, and executioner — doesn't solve what you describe as your problem.

Pathfinder has gone as far as to include a clause about working constructively with evil PCs in the party if it is to the greater good. That seems (to me) to be steps toward a greater solution.

But the #1 thing to bear in mind is not to allow people to play paladins as jerks. Paragons of virtue don't act like jerks, even to evil. That's what sets them apart from evil and chaos.

It depends, as has been said. Generally a single event isn't enough to trigger an alignment change, but the sheer scale of it as described here isn't really a single event.

This isn't "I got drunk and killed someone." This is "someone insulted someone I know, so I went on a city-wide killing spree, offing anyone who got in my way."

Each murder is an event. Just because it seems to have played out in one session doesn't change that. The PC went off the deep end and found pretty much the most illegal and most evil thing to do, and did it. Repeatedly. The only things missing are rape and torture, I figure.

Smeg it... Chaotic Evil, enemy of the state, wanted individual, bounties abound. Unleash the dogs.

This is the first time I'll announce our upcoming app, Combat Counter Mobile for Android (and eventually iOS, I hope) by Treasure Trove Software. I thought this might be a good opportunity to ask people what features they'd like to see in a hand-held app for GM's (or whomever be the Keeper of the Initiative in your gaming group). So far I've either implemented or am working towards the following:

- Initiative and round count
- Hit point counter option for all combatants
- Condition tracking and effect durations
- Enter combatants in any order and sort descending or ascending.
- Choose static initiative values or use bonus + die roll.
- Option to re-roll initiative each round (Ex: 2nd edition)
- Condensed stat block entry including Ability Scores, Armor Class, attack bonus, relevant skills, saving throws, etc.
- Save and load encounter data to file system
- Support for multiple rule sets: 2e, 3.x, 4th, Pathfinder, and possibly d6 (ala Shadowrun) and d10 (ala Whitewolf) systems.

Two preliminary screenshots:

Screenshot 1
Screenshot 2

Any other suggestions folks would be willing to offer?

If you don't want epic content than don't use it. No need to say you don't want it. It's like saying I don't want to eat a burger. If you don't want it than don't eat it. No need to jihad against all burgers because you don't like them. .

Where is his spare bow?

I know it hurts- I mean REALLY HURTS- to have the GM break your favorite weapon, but there are lots of ways that could have happened. It could have gotten stolen in the night by a Goblin Rogue with +40 stealth. It could have gotten sundered. It could have gotten disarmed. All of these things, the players have access to as well by the way- maybe your local spellcaster could pick up Charm Monster and go around dominating succubi (woo woo).

My point is bad things happen, it isn't the GM's fault that you weren't prepared when he had a monster make what is a very logical move versus a fighter. Succubi have a decent WIS, one should be able to exploit your weaknesses.

It does not seem like a dick move.

Remember you are adventerures and it's supposed to have consequences. Sometimes a character dies and now someone lost an expensive bow; unless the DM is somehow systematically targetting some of the players there is nothing wrong with this.

Paladin schmaladin. No good character I've ever played, paladin or barbarian, would be cool with baby murder.

Either there's some church/organization/whatever that can take them in or my character does it himself. If doing the latter would derail the campaign and the former can't be found anywhere, then that character goes through with it anyway and I say goodbye to it, roll a new PC.

A Paladin, as an exemplar of Good, Honour, etc. would not kill a helpless foe, regardless of it's alignment. To arbitrarily slaw being on the basis of their potential would also be a horribly evil act. Kobolds have the capacity for moral choice and thus are not like, say Demons(who are 'evil' intrinsically).

Indeed, if the Kobolds 'surrendered' the Paladin would have to accept that surrender. The idea that a Paladin is just a killing machine pointed at beings who are wearing the 'Evil' Team Jersey is a bit ridiculous and kind of removes much of the 'point' of the character and it's alignment restrictions in the first place. Being a Paladin is suppose to be hard, not in the moral choice you make, but that those choices make your life and the lives of others more difficult in the name of upholding higher ideals.