Sumutherguy's page

A thought occurs to me: This question reminds me of Light Yagami from Death Note.

** spoiler omitted **

You might want to watch the series and/or read the manga to help answer your question.

You might want to read further, for this pretense is first never fully followed as he murders only those imprisoned (but for one exception), acting for the good of no-one but his own ego, and then abandons such motives entirely and attempts to set himself up as shadow-dictator of the world.

I'll give the whole thing points for trying to portray the dilemma of a utilitarian approach to morality, but it tipped its hand far too early and corrupted the main vessel of it's own ethical experiment incredibly quickly.

Adamantine Dragon wrote:

Funky Badger wrote:

Adamantine Dragon wrote:

Anyone who is seeking the most help for the most people is pretty much by definition "good" instead of "neutral" or "evil".

Since "lawful" or "chaotic" would potentially restrict their options for seeking that most help, then they would pretty much have to be "neutral" on the law-chaos axis.

So that pretty much leaves neutral-good as the alignment that would seek to help the most people.

The reductio ad absurdum of utilitarianism is killing 49% of the people to make the other 51% happy.

I suppose depending on the scale used for measuring good vs. evil this could be argued. But on a personally moral level, definately evil.

This presupposes that 51% of people would be happy murdering or allowing the murder of the other 49%. The likelihood of such a culture is so vanishingly infintesimal that it is, as you say, absurd on the face of it.

The point is, utilitarian thinking leads ultimately to this example.

There have been plenty of reigimes that were more than happy to extermniate a lower percentage of their population for the greater good (the Khmer Rouge for example, were they neutral good?)

Judged on a personal moral scale, they were all evil too.

This is a flawed example, for it assumes that the happiness of a person is equal in value to the life of another in the eyes of a utilitarian. you must remember that different factors possess different values as deigned by the utilitarian making judgement, and it would be nigh-impossible to justify equating making one person, or even hundreds of people, happy with utterly ending the life of another. This is why most utilitarians, when questioned, would proclaim the Khmer Rouge to be evil, as well as any similar historical examples of regimes/dictators exterminating minorities to enrich/"purify"/etc. the remainder.

I do agree with others in this thread however, that it is vitally important to at least have a rough sketch of the hierarchy of said individual's value system, and any "trump" values that they may have.

I was going with the arbitrary labels and D&D absolutist morality where certain evil acts are evil regardless of context. Take the example of stopping infections spreading by killing or ghettoizing plague victims, those victims are innocent and therefor in D&D morality killing them is wrong even if does stop the spread of plague. Similarly assassinating warmongering leaders or corrupt officials that are legally selected will always be chaotic.

Ah, i see. Probably starting LN then, given the inflexible nature of mechanical ethics in pathfinder, and probably undergoing numerous alignment changes to any of the possible alignments over the course of a campaign, as he/she acts for the greater good and gets slapped with various good/evil/chaotic/lawful labels on each act.

I am now imagining a utilitarian BBEG rebelling against the gods for creating and enforcing an absolutist system of moral judgement that declares him to be evil simply because he is too consequentialist for them.

I am flabbergasted at the prevailing attitude in this thread that a utilitarian approach to ethics is by nature impossible to be good. The ethical debate between teleology and deontology is by no means finished, and to presume that a consequentialist approach to morality and ethics is by its nature incapable of being righteous or good is both arrogant and narrow-minded.

OP, it could run the gamut, though it depends on how faithfully the character in question follows this approach. If he/she is willing to do whatever is best for the most in every situation regardless of the effect to themselves then I'd say likely NG, possibly LG. If his approach is clouded or corrupted by bias or imperfect application, or if he uses it simply as an excuse rather than a motive force, then the other alignments are all possible.

Good is out because he's not really altruistic in his approach to utilitarianism; sure he'll give his meal to a starving orphan if it somehow benefited the group, but if said starving orphan is just a mouth to feed whereas the character in question is about to help fight a battle, the kid's SOL.

He is certainly altruistic in his approach; he gives himself no more value than anyone else, and is willing to do what he believes to benefit the world the most regardless of his own reputation, image, or well-being, nor that of any individual that he may have affection for. He does what he feels is best, denying himself the luxuries of acting on sympathy or emotion, and in doing so arguably sacrifices far more for the sake of his moral code than anyone who simply lets benevolent whimsy direct their actions.

He didn't like laws because they applied constrictions that interfered with the greatest benefit to the most people and he was neutral because he was not motivated by good or evil, but instead by pragmatism.

But he WAS motivated by good, that is the entire point, that he worked toward the good of the world. What is "good" and what is "nice" are not and have never been synonymous, just as "terrible" actions and "evil" actions are likewise not synonyms.

Now such a character would likely commit evil acts he would also likely commit good acts.

How exactly would be operating for the good of everyone be an evil act, unless we are speaking of such things as the arbitrary "always evil" labels on stuff like raising undead?

Iirc a half-orc paladin would be pretty neat for sundering with the Adept Champion feat. Unless sundering a target's armor or weapon causes the smite to fizzle.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9uILn0iCUs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKv1lzePA6M
There's your dual-shield style.

As far as sword-shield finesse fighter, a paladin with a weapon bond perhaps? Would add some nice damage to each hit, or some nice AC to your shield.

The knockout sniper:

Goblin Sniper Rogue 10

20 Point Buy:
10 STR
22 Dex (28 mod)
11 Con
10 Int
10 Wiz
10 Char

Feats:
Skill Focus: Stealth
Stealthy
Point Blank Shot
Sap Adept
Sap Master

Talents:
Weapon Training: Shortbow
Bleeding Attack
Combat Trick: Rapid Shot
Combat trick: Bludgeoner
Stealthy Sniper

Relevant skills: 10 in stealth for a +42 standard bonus (10 ranks + 3 class skill + 4 goblin + 4 small + 5 cloak + 9 dex + 3 focus + 4 stealthy)

Alternate favored class option: +1 to first sneak attack/level

Equipment: Shortbow +2, Sniper Goggles, Dex gloves +4, blunted arrows, cloak of elvenkind

Basically here we use our bludgeoner feat to give our arrows nonlethal damage, and use the sap tree to steroid that single attack. Sap Adept adds 2 to each sneak attack dice, sap mastery doubles the number of dice, and sniper goggles add a further 2 to each.

A snipe attack at 30 ft. with this build will be at +20 to hit, doing 1d3+10d6+20(goggles)+20(adept)+10(favored)+2(enhc)+1+10(bleed) for a total of 1d3+10d6+53+10(bleed) nonlethal damage on a single arrow. This is a min of 64 and max of 116, plus 10 per round of lethal bleed. At level 10, this lets us 1-shot most mooks and some minibosses into unconsciousness, who then bleed out over the next few rounds. Our goblin then makes a stealth check at a +32 (-10 for sniping) to remain stealthed.

If we want to go full-attack with rapid shot, it becomes +18/+18/+13 for 3d4+30d6+159+10bleed, a 189 min and 348 max if all hit, enough to toast any level-appropriate BBEG that can take nonlethal damage.

Do we want religion to be dumbed down to the point of "pray, get buffs"? I feel it would be more true to the setting to have rewards from gods based upon player actions that fit within their portfolio and are done in their names. Helping farmers with goblin raids near one's home in the name of Erastil, for example, may get rewards from the diety, either temporary or permanent. Otherwise, deities and religious devotion may be reduced to a chore that folks do before hard dungeons.

UR4? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dD9CPqSKjTU

I wish....

We can dream.

I'm hoping for entrepreneur, banker, pioneer, mayor/civil administrator/party boss, or a combination of those four. An enterprising halfling, goblin, or human, ready to strike out into the world to settle new lands, live free, and make money. Class will be secondary, maybe rogue or fighter.

Alexander_Damocles wrote:

You can play without paying. You just can't level. Training time costs money. Already confirmed, per the blog. Of course, you can buy training time with in game money, so if you grind like a madman...

where is the correct place to suggest a multi step system?

free: no level up
discount: NPC levels
standard: PC levels
premium: Prestige Class levels

Seems a mite pay-2-win, that. Though, then again the whole thing would be if there aren't enough alternate means of attaining in-game power beyond level alone.

If I can be a powerful character in some sense (wealth, influence, etc.)without paying, and acquire such power at a low level, then it's fine by me. If not, what's the point of giving free players PC classes at all? 's not like they'd be able to do anything your above-average commoner NPC couldn't.

Dunno about all you gents, but I am not a wealthy man, only being able to afford the oh-so-small kickstarter donation of $5. It would be neat if I were able to fully enjoy this game without destroying my wallet, or watching the more financially endowed surpass me with no means of catching up.

Doctor Carrion wrote:

Fore example:

Human Peasant Pikemen: 4 points each

Light armor proficiency: 1 point per man
Proficiency with some martial reach weapon: 3 Points per man

Elite Elven Archers: 7 points each

Light armor proficiency: 1 point per man
Longbow Proficiency: 3 Points per man
Improved longbow training: 3 points per man

Each point could represent 1 gold or something similar: Leaders of kingdoms could pump out troops to their specifications, raising and training them on base and paying for them based off their numbers and skill.

You are missing a huge opportunity IMO. Pay should be based of their training specialty and experience. But they should only come with very crappy weapons related to their profession.

Rather than equipping them through the point system, I would like to see armor-smiths, weapon-smiths etc. creating their gear, ammo, food, etc. That is going to help drive the crafting economy.

This is an excellent point, and would create a more realistic economy within the game, as opposed to the max-quality-only economy that exists in most MMOs, where no blacksmith will create simple gear. Maintenance should be a realistically proportional cost of fielding an army, while manpower, training, and equipment should not be lumped into the same value.

You could just tie currency to an actual commodity value and stop giving it out from random drops. This would require non-infinite natural resources. Give it value only from its use in commerce as a substitute for the goods it represents and fix or keep the supply within a certain value/player.

Or one could not make a fixed currency and allow it to develop organically from player-run banks/nations.

I feel that if one wishes to field NPC armies, they must be directly drawn from an NPC population, and that losses in manpower will not be easily recuperated. If warfare does not carry great risk of depopulation and ruin to a ruler, there will not be enough weight to one's decisions int he same and armies will be thrown away to quickly. This would additionally make population bases into valuable resources, to be fought over, traded, and rented out. (making possible such entities as mercenary companies) Additionally, players will be encouraged to guard these assets of soldiers, as a tool to be used rather than as a currency to be spent.

These together would lend weight and realistic stability to warfare, making it a thing to carefully prepare for and keeps its nature as a massive wealth-destroyer. A nation which enacts war unsuccessfully numerous times should not have anywhere near the economic strength or population of its more peaceful neighbors afterward.

Then the Monk name can be used to describe a non martial divine caster. people who want to make a monk who is someone in a monastery who illuminates manuscripts and conserves knowledge are now stuck with names like Cloistered Cleric, Priest, others....

I hope this helps

Well, I'm actually looking for a very specific character RP-wise here. Specifically, the idea was for him to be a dominican-monk-like devotee of Erastil (or another neutral/lawful good diety, probably not erastil now that i think about it given his decentralized religion, so whichever good diety has a highly structured hierarchy in their church.) who was rejected as a potential cleric early in his life for political reasons. Not being trained as a divine caster or channeler of divine power, he nonetheless devoted his life to study of Erastil's book as well as general scholasticism, community service, and seeking to perfect himself according tot he doctrine of Erastil. Thus, he isn't a divine spellcaster, but rather gains power from his own self-discipline and meditation on divine doctrine, while being incredibly knowledgable and a source of wisdom and advice for others. Additionally, he wouldnt wear armor, believing his faith in Erastil sufficient to protect him. He's basically an old, wise ascetic who doesnt directly wield divine power, but is a fount of wisdom, is incredibly disciplined, and does what he can to embody the doctrines of his god. I felt that operating within the monk class while taking these three archetypes fit that character image the best. He may end up taking cleric levels as he progresses, if the DM chooses for the Church to offer him a "second chance", but I don't want him being a spellcaster off the bat.

I realize that the "monk" class refers specifically to the shaolin-style unarmed fighter, but I'm not actually seeing any better way to fit mechanics to my specific character image. I know that mehcanics to fit the character's existance as an RP entity aren't really neccesary, but I like them to fit as well as possible.

And Marus, the Sensei archetype gives all knowledge skills as class skills, so I think I've already got that.

Alright, so I've been looking at the monk class for awhile, and have really wanted to play a monastic character lately. Unfortunately, the Pathfinder monk class only really works, mechanically, for the eastern shaolin variety of monk. With the advanced player's guide and ultimate combat, however, I think that I may have come up with a passable non-martial-art based monk build, who focuses his ability scores in mental stats rather than physical and is much more conducive to a pacifistic monk of a western tradition. My only question now is whether or not I will be useful to a party with said build, and with this I require your sage advice. I'm not aiming to have the greatest build in the world, just to be a character that will actually contribute to a party in a standard campaign. So, here goes:

My DM is likely to go for a 20-point buy score system, and im not sure if he would let me start at middle age. If he does, my statline for a human monk should be 10 12 12 14 18 14 at level 1. If he does not, it will be 10 10 10 14 18 14.

I will be taking the Ki Mystic, Sensei, and Monk of the Lotus archetypes. These three will sacrifice most of my offensive unarmed strike power, while giving me bardic performance, knowledge and skill check bonuses, the ability to let other party members reroll their actions, a larger ki pool, and a more pacifistic replacement for stunning fist as compensation. Additionally, I will take the vows of celibacy, cleanliness, fasting, and peace, as they fit with the intended western-style monastic character and further increase my ki pool. I would take poverty, but fear that such would be a headache for my DM, who would be less able to balance my character via loot drops.

So, at level 4 i will be a monk with a +7 to hit and 1d8 unarmed damage, 12 ki, 16 AC, +1 Inspire Courage, +2 to knowledge checks, +4 to skill check ki power, 28 skill points, no flurry of blows, a no-damage stunning fist that prevents moving or attacking at a higher DC, and 4d8+4 HP. Decent enough as a support/skill-monkey to not be a liability?

The goal is really to be a support/tank with some decent melee capabilities able to keep my teammates alive if they get over their heads, and from what i've been able to tell being a high-hp character who is able to take damage for others and heal is a good way to do that. I was thinking of taking the Battle Mystery, but the options there just don't seem nearly as useful as being able to life link and channel.

Oh, and it was supposed to be a 3 barb/3oracle/xRP, my bad.

So, I'm going to be a PC in a campaign soon with a bunch of folks who are just getting into pathfinder, starting at level 4, and am thinking that I'd like to try out a rage prophet, both to see how it plays (in-combat and RP-wise) and to avoid being the dominating party member due to my experience advantage. Our party is already going to have a dedicated healer/protection cleric, so I was thinking that I would tool my prophet to make her job even easier.

The plan is to go Vanilla Barb 2/Life Oracle 3/Rage Prophet X, grabbing the channel energy and life link mysteries, as well as the extra rage and channel feats. This will allow me to concentrate damage taken by the party onto myself, making it easier for the cleric with her empowered cure spells to keep up with enemy damage output by focusing on a single healing recipient. Meanwhile, I'll be able to heal a bit myself if things get hairy, take some hits with the high HD I get, and do some ok melee damage. The statline I've rolled up is 18,14,18,13,12,14, and im gonna be putting my next two points into Charisma.

So, good idea? Terrible idea?