|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
I have to point out that your alignment doesn't dictate whether an action is "evil" (or any other alignment for that matter). An action is either, itself, so blatantly good/evil/lawful/chaotic that it wouldn't matter who did it, or it's such a grey area that the only thing that matters is your intention and the results.
The reason why your character won't accept surrender determines the alignment of the action. If it's "because dragging around a bunch of 'surrendered' bad guys who might make trouble or try to escape is dang inconvenient," then you're looking at the south side of Chaotic Neutral at best.
Generally, it's at least considered bad form to bayonet the wounded, if not a war crime.
In the real world where "the wounded" can be out of the fight for weeks or months, it is pointless and immoral to target them. In a world where that same guy can get a pat on the back from a healer and be back to full fighting capacity in less than six seconds, targeting the wounded becomes an important tactical decision. Again, intention and result are what make the difference in the alignment of an action.
I know I'm late to the party, but I'd like an honest assessment of my item. I was happy to make the cull, but I never expected to get to Top 32. This is a learning experience for me. The first thing I noticed was that I should have added rage as a spell requirement.
Staff of the Beast Within
In addition, if the wielder of the staff of the beast within has her own rage class ability (such as barbarian's rage, bloodrager's bloodrage, or skald's inspired rage) she may spend 10 rounds of this ability to recharge one charge of the staff as if she had spent a 5th level prepared spell or spell slot. A calm emotions spell or effect has a chance to dispel any spell effect originating from the staff of the beast within in addition to its normal effects, and causes the staff to be suppressed as if targeted by a successful dispel magic for as long as the staff is in the area of effect.
Construction Requirements Craft Staff, animal aspect, aspect of the wolf, beast shape ii, savage maw; Cost 20,000 gp
JJ Jordan wrote:
My wife and my mother-in-law make up a third of my home game group. Yep, I'm on good terms with my mother-in-law.
Why do you feel the need to do it? Do you not trust your lodge players?
Tired of seeing this. Following the rules (which require exactly what this GM has been doing, not signing until the sheet is filled out by the player) does not mean you don't trust your players. Yes, many GMs handwave this portion. Yes, I'm one of them.
But when a GM decides to actually follow the rules, I'm not going to get my undies in a bunch because of it. Either I've got my stuff together, or I play a pregen.
Alternatively, the party face is a paladin, and they get directly asked "are you Pathfinders?" at which point either the paladin or the whole party are up a creek...
Paladins shouldn't lie, but they don't have to tell the truth. "Are you Pathfinders?"
Paladin should answer, "Are you kidding? Pathfinders would have to be crazy to show their faces around here."
Speaking as a GM, it makes me uncomfortable when I don't know the rules my player is using. If you want to say I don't trust my players, that's fine. Maybe I don't. Maybe I shouldn't trust the player that keeps asking me how [common rule interaction] works when they suddenly show up with something out of the ACG that I haven't had a chance to look over yet. And that's a common book! What about the myriad player companions that most people just dip one or two things out of?
And before you say "Well that player resource has been out for X monts/years/whatever" let me remind you that there are common rules (light and darkness spells, Take 10 and Take 20, Attacks of Opportunity, just to name a few) that have been practically unchanged since the year 2000. How many people do you trust to know those rules correctly without having to reference them?
So yes, on a practical level I often have to take my players at their word, even when I have cause to believe their word is suspect. It's better than letting my ignorance of their character slow the game to a crawl while I look up everything. That doesn't mean I have to be happy about it.
The Fox wrote:
Does this mean you also believe I should not be allowed to play this character? Would someone be justified to say, "Sorry, I don't like your character. Play something else or don't play at all."
I will allow any player to play any legal build, unless I have specific personal reasons that I would prefer not to game with that player. I will not, however, force other players to play with you if they don't want to. I also will not pull any punches (nor will I specifically target you, as some have said in this thread).
But, if you are so inept that you get other characters killed, I will be the first to suggest that they speak to the Venture Officer to try to get the deaths overturned. Your choices affect more than your own character.
I love how Fox's Int 9 Wizard (barely) contributes to the party by *gasp* casting spells. Maybe he could, I don't know, be better at spellcasting if he didn't have to rely solely on magic items?
I just flat out don't get it. Someone with an 18 Strength and a 9 Intelligence just isn't going to be a Wizard. They just aren't suited to it. They're not going to spend years as an apprentice without learning a single cantrip. The Master isn't going to waste the time on someone clearly not capable of casting the simplest spells. How do they even know that they're a wizard, and just not someone really good at UMD?
Ferious Thune wrote:
I have a character who has been killed once and charmed two more times by harpies. I would hope if someone says the word harpy, by now he'd be allowed to put in earplugs without making a knowledge roll.
But it's not you making the knowledge check to identify the creature as a harpy. You can't put in the earplugs just because you see a flying humanoid creature that starts to open it's mouth. Well, you can, but that could be a gargoyle and a wasted action.
Similarly, if you want to say your character knows that blunt weapons are better against skeletons, that's fine. But is that a regular ole' skeleton over there, or is it a skeletal champion? A lich? Sometimes your characters should make the wrong decision based on past experience. If you're only metagaming when it helps you, you are cheating.
Unless you put your experience into knowledge skills, you haven't retained the information you've encountered. There's a huge difference between playing a pick-up game of football, and watching game tapes and studying playbooks and working out to make yourself the best football player you can.
No one is expecting the Wizard to be better in melee just because the fighter told him how to swing the sword better. Thusly, it is not reasonable to expect the 8 Int fighter to remember more than the DC 5-10 basics just because the Wizard gave him a lecture about the monster in the heat of battle.
I start with the town, and I play it by feel how "into it" the group is. If they're the type that just want to "get down to business" then I usually make it pretty easy to find the entrance and get to it. If they really seem to dig exploring the town, it can be a while before they even remember they're there to delve a dungeon.
I've never had the first part run longer that 4-5 hours, though. And we only came up on that with a fairly "talky" group.
Master of the Fallen Fortress (replayable module), followed by the Confirmation or First Steps (replayable scenarios), followed by the other. That will get all the characters to second level without "wasting" any non-replayable options.
For future characters, there are also several replayable modules that grant a full level (3xp).
But my all time favorite "first" scenario is Silent Tide (Season 0, Scenario 1).
Jeff Merola wrote:
What intelligence score denotes Sentience? 2, 3, or higher? 5 is the lowest a PC could possibly have, so somewhere between 1-4 is okay to eat, but 5+ is right out. Torturing sentient creatures is certainly evil, and I could see ruling that hunting sapient creatures is evil, but eating dead flesh is no more evil than eating dead plant matter. If we weren't meant to be part of the food chain, we wouldn't be made of food.
As for the desecration of dead bodies, desecration is a crime of intent, and the intent determines the alignment. Carving a cow into different cuts of meat is not desecration of the dead cow, unless you are doing it to purposely offend someone, or to express your hatred of cows in general or that cow specifically.
I declare knee-jerk reactions in alignment threads to be evil. I'm making a notation on all of your chronicle sheets. :P
Speaking as a GM, I would rather someone point out the correct rule every time. That way I learn to do better, the player learns to do better, and I learn to be on the lookout for other people using that rule incorrectly. New players are the perfect ones to correct, because you need to get them playing the right way before their mistakes become bad habits, which then become "I know it works this way. I can't find it, but that's how we've always done it."
Everything else, I'm pretty much right with you. In combat may not be the best time to tell your epic tale of victory (unless you're a bard). Contributing nothing to the scenario from fear of spoiling it can be just as bad as spoiling it if the players are truly stuck and your character could come up with a solution.
7th level Kyra killed Rodrik, my 8th level Invulnerable Rager, in one hit! (And it was awesome!)
Two weekends ago at Play On Con, I had the privilege of playing my dwarf barbarian at a table of 5-13: Weapon in the Rift. It was the most entertaining round of PFS I've had in quite some time, which is saying something since I had said the same thing about my first ever session of The Confirmation that I had played the night before. All in all, it was a great weekend.
The party was hopelessly outclassed by everything we encountered. From the very first hallway, to the very first puzzle, through the very first encounter took nearly about 3 hours of slapstick fit for a Three Stooges film. I was brought below 0hp 3 times that fight, while everyone else tried to keep the other [redacted] away from our only healer, the traitorous Kyra, curse her very name.
Skipping ahead a bit, my barbarian has had some... bad experiences with haunts in the past. So when he walked into a room and felt the temperature drop, he advanced to the rear as quickly as he could manage. It turned out not to be a haunt, but instead a dastardly [other redacted]! As his companions stood there, transfixed by it's arcane mumbo jumbo, he took it upon himself to unlimber his bow and fire upon the creature with specially prepared arrows. Clearly no marksman, the arrow went wide and he drew another hoping for a clear shot. The next round, I threw caution to the wind, and had him charge in wielding one of the specially prepared arrows. After a direct hit for what seemed like fairly low damage, I realized that I had not remembered to RAGE! (I'm telling you, the whole thing was a comedy of errors.) The next round (remembering that I had Ghost Rager, and no need for those silly arrows- hey, I don't get to play very often. Cut me some slack), I punched the [other redacted] in it's face with my cestus, dropped my bow and drew my "real" weapon, a dorn-dergar. We traded blows for about three rounds total, while most of the party either babbled incoherently or smacked themselves in the face. It was just me and the monk, toe to trailing ectoplasmic vapor against this seemingly unkillable thing! Each time Rodrik took a hit, I could feel his sanity cracking. After the third hit, my Barbarian was on the ground, unable to form a coherent thought (some would say that was no great change). It was then that Kyra revealed her true colors...
She claims that she confused my prone form with the enemy that had been trying to kill all of us. Seeing "it" helpless on the floor, she did the only thing she could: A coup-de-grace*! Seeing the mistake, the monk easily disarmed the cleric. That didn't stop her, though. She reached down and snapped poor Rodrik's neck! (Well, in actuality she only managed to deal 1 point of damage past my damage reduction, but it was enough to force a Fortitude save.) As I rolled the dice, I said the magic words "I can only fail on a 1." And sure enough, I look down to see a 1 staring back up at me. It was glorious.
And that is how an 8th level "Invulnerable" Rager was killed by an unarmed, level 7 pregen Kyra. And yes, I paid for an atonement to clear my "Ex-Barbarian" status after that scenario. The cleric and monk eventually brought down the [other redacted] at which point they decided it was better to cut their losses than to go on without my help (such as it was). Even after being brought back with a breath of life, Rodrik was unconscious with 12 Wisdom damage and Kyra didn't have a Restoration prepared. It was a failed mission, but for me it was worth every second.
*To be clear, the coup de grace was actually my idea. The GM said he was fine with it, and the player of the cleric thought the idea was hilarious enough to give it a shot. I don't want anyone to think this was some jerk GM or player who "did this to me".
Thinking on this a little further, I'm not sure I support the rule change. I don't like the idea of preparing after the fact. I don't like the idea of being pressured to solve other people's problems.
Another character's lack of planning should not be an emergency that I have to solve. "But it's okay, I'll pay you back" just doesn't make up for you not being prepared in the first place.
Michael Brock wrote:
Two points and I'm going to let this go.
I appreciate the reply, and the confirmation of what I had already figured out on my own. As I said, my gut reaction wasn't rational and I've had a chance to think things through. Keep doing the good work you've been doing and don't let posts like mine discourage you. :)
Well, I pride myself on being able to see issues from the "other side" so with that in mind I've waited a while before I replied. There are a lot of comments I'd like to discuss in more depth, but I know that discussion doesn't really belong in the PFS section. The posters who thought I needed to calm down, or wanted to make sure that I wasn't offended by their replies were particularly amusing. Maybe we can revisit the issue on the General boards?
As for the original issue, on the advice of PFCBG and Mike himself, I've taken another look at Mike's post to see if there wasn't something else that prompted my reaction. First of all, Mike, you clearly said
Michael Brock wrote:
Please do not bring any form of firearm to a PFS session.
You may not have meant that as a Ruling from the Global Organized Play Coordinator, but that's what you are. Your word is law as far as PFS is concerned. Even when you think you're posting your own opinion, the weight of your position makes people take your opinion as a ruling. It's not much of a stretch to imagine someone pointing to your post at saying "Mike said so." even if that wasn't your intention. But is that what provoked such a strong reaction from me? If I really stop and thing about it, no.
Over the last few years, you've done an amazing job as Campaign Coordinator. You've grown PFS into something huge, something that I was thrilled to be a part of. I never really "got" organized play until I was introduced to PFS, and it's been a pleasure to help my local VC grow his events while also getting my home group involved, many of whom were brand new to tabletop gaming. But lately you've made some rulings that seemed to me to be knee-jerk, where other issues that could have been resolved quickly were left to linger. As Sior mentioned, perception is reality, and my perception of some of your recent decisions left a sour taste in my mouth that apparently clouded my understanding of your post. To add to that, the fact that you posted in a closed thread struck me as someone who "had to have the last word." Looking back, I'm certain that is not what was intended, but that is what I read into it at the time.
To add to the issue, it seems I'm not immune to stereotyping. Speaking quickly of stereotypes, I actually own a light pick-up that gets a respectable 20mpg. I have a college degree, and still have all my teeth. ;) Sadly, it's been my experience when it comes to the private ownership of firearms, that law enforcement officers like to cite their experience and training as a reason that only they should carry. I brought the weight of my prior experiences and unfairly applied a stereotype to Mike based on his former profession. When I responded to him, I was really responding to every police officer I have ever seen post an unfavorable opinion of gun owners. It caused me to read far more into his words and tone than what was actually there. For that alone, I owe Mike an apology. And speaking of apologies, as an aside to The Fox, I apologize for saying that your thread was in poor taste. I had no right to make assumptions about your intentions. After reading your post, I intend to send you a message regarding your local issues. If you don't hear from me soon, hold me to it.
So, after taking a step back and recognizing the faults in my original post, I'm left with the core of my post. I want to emphasize that I've never made an issue out of my firearm at a PFS event. When I carry to a game session, it's because I was already carrying. I don't think to myself "I'm going to roll some dice, better strap up." I agree that would be ridiculous. As Brandon Cecil points out, bad things happen to good people, and they tend to happen when least expected. I don't carry because I think the people I game with are "out to get me", I carry because I can't know what will happen to me from the time I leave my house in the morning to when I get back. If I was able to predict when and where I would need a gun, I wouldn't need one at all. I just wouldn't go to that place at that time.
As I said before, I always follow the laws of my state, and the policies of the owners/managers of the properties I visit. Thank you, Mike, for trying to save me the trouble of gathering the policies of the cons near me. However, I was already aware. I make a point to find out those sorts of things before I commit to going somewhere so that I can make accommodations. For instance, if I were to ever fly out for PaizoCon I would find out first the laws of Washington, including whether they reciprocate Alabama's permits (for the record, they don't), whether they offer a non-resident permit (they do), if Seattle has any more stringent restrictions, if they are allowed at PaizoCon (they're not), at the hotel I would be staying at (if not, I would pick a different hotel). That is all part of being a responsible adult, much less a gun owner. If a store owner, or the game day coordinator wants to allow or disallow firearms at their store/event then that should be their independently reached decision. As ShakaUVM rightly pointed out, this has nothing to do with playing Pathfinder. I just object to the idea of this going from being one person's opinion, to being a requirement of PFS play. "I'm sorry, we can't sanction your event because you didn't include the firearm disclaimer." It sounds silly, unless you've seen that sort of thing happen. Then you learn to expect it.
In conclusion, I've decided that my first instinct was right. I probably should take a break from PFS public play. I've been getting unduly frustrated about things that don't really matter, and I've lost some of the drive that I originally had. Maybe some time away from the boards will do me some good. :)
I know, I know. Big whoop. But for anyone who cares, here is my reason.
User "The Fox" just made a thread asking if/why anyone would bring a firearm to a PFS game. I thought the thread was in poor taste and was not intending to reply until I noticed Liz had locked the thread (as I'm sure this one will be). Right after that, Mike Brock posted that he didn't want anyone to bring a firearm to any PFS event at all, ever. And cited his experience as a law enforcement officer as to why he didn't trust us to act as responsible adults around firearms. I can only assume that a rule so far reaching will make it into the next version of the Guide, and that is why I will no longer associate with official PFS events.
I don't know that I have ever carried my personal firearm to a Pathfinder Society event. I carry my firearm so often, to so many places, that I really couldn't tell you for sure "Yes, I had it on that date." I follow the laws of my state regarding open and concealed carry at all times and the wishes of property owners who make their policies known to me. I have never once been disruptive nor been asked to leave a location, and I certainly have never whipped it out and started playing with it or showing it to anyone. Quite frankly, Mr. Brock, you don't have the authority to tell me where I can and cannot carry my legally owned firearm. But, in the interests of cooperation, I will follow your wishes by no longer hosting or participating in a public PFS event. If you want to come to my home or my privately hosted events and tell me that I can't carry there, I will ask you to call first so that I'm expecting company.
With sincere regret,
If they would rather kill themselves than do what their "friend" is asking, I think it sufficiently meets the definition of harm so that there would be no chance of them doing it. Succeeding at a Charisma check should not make a charmed person do without question something that a dominated person would get a new save against (Kill your family) or flat out wouldn't do (Kill yourself instead).
Lower level spell should be weaker than their higher level equivalents, or you're doing something wrong.
Every question that has been asked in this thread can be answered by downloading and reading the most recent copy of the Guide to Organized Play. For someone who focuses so heavily on the RAW in any Rules Forum thread I've seen you post in, I'm blown away that simply reading the current rules never occured to you.
He was wrong*. That dichotomy (kill your loved ones or find a way out of it) has never been how charm worked. That would make it stronger than dominate which only allows a new save against things contrary to the creature's nature and flat out can't make them kill themselves.
*Obviously, he's the lead designer so he can't be "wrong." But I feel it was a bad ruling that caused more confusion than it solved.
What would your friend do for you? If I asked my friend to help me murder his other friends, best case he laugh it off and tell me I needed to see a shrink. I could try to convince him (opposed charisma check) that it really was a good idea, but even if he fails the check, he's just going to be convinced that I'm nuts.
At least that's how it would go at my table.
You have a torch. 20ft of bright light, 20ft further of dim. You have 60ft. Darkvision, then you see perfectly out to 60ft, and see in color out to about 40ft.
You also have low-light vision? Suddenly you see bright light out to 40ft, and dim light out another 40ft. You still see perfectly out to 60 ft. and then see with concealment out to 80ft.
Seems like a pretty good benefit to me.
A GM cannot force you to not use a legal part of your character. A GM can force you to actually follow the rules for your character if he finds you are not doing so. A GM can refuse to run for problem players.
I'm not saying you are a problem player, SIRHITMANHEART, or that you aren't following the rules. I wouldn't know, because I can't understand you.
If I'm ever in the situation of playing under a GM who abuses and misuses the rules, I'm going to be a "rules lawyer" and tell them how its supposed to be. They may overrule me, but at least my obiection was made. If even one other player looks at the rule themselves instead of just blindly taking someone's word for it, then it was worth it.
If that means I'm not welcome at your table, then please let me know that up front. It will save us both time better spent elsewhere. But I will say it makes me... nervous? It doesn't sit well with me that someone with a "Venture" position would make such broad sweeping generalizations about who he considers "jerks" and that aren't welcome at his tables. Maybe PFS is expanding too fast, and needs more quality control in who they let be the face of organized play.