Xanotos's page

The Pallid Plague scenario has been justly criticized as unreasonably dangerous to low-level characters. Simply put: a beginning first level character has very little chance of saving against the plague and NO CHANCE to obtain spell-casting services to remove it. One of the most frustrating aspects of the danger is that it ultimately hinges on a woeful lack of detail in the applicable rules on spending prestige points. Neither the rules, nor the scenario provide for any means of obtaining the services of a faction member while waiting immediately outside the gates of the nearest large city (even though this is the most obvious and economical solution to the problem). Consequently, unsympathetic interpretations of the relevant rules are likely to deny characters the realistic benefits of creative problem solving skills in a way that leads directly to character death. These circumstances are so likely to frustrate and kill characters that they directly conflict with Paizo’s stated policies in favor of avoiding character death, encouraging creative solutions, using common sense, and not being a jerk.
Although it seems that the rules do not specifically prohibit characters from securing the service of their faction from the city gates, the only provision that appears to allow it is one that locates the character inside a distant, smaller settlement. The relevant passage reads as follows:
“A character’s ability to spend Prestige Points is dependent on her being in contact with other members of her faction, and unless noted otherwise, most factions tend to have agents, contacts, or headquarters in settlements that are at least the size of a large city. To reflect the difficulty of contacting a faction agent in a smaller settlement, Prestige Point costs increase by 5 in communities with fewer than 5,000 people.” (emphasis added)
The loophole in this language allows uncharitable GM’s to assess the prestige cost of obtaining faction services while standing at a large city’s gates at the same exact rate as the services would command if the character were 7,000+ miles away (a bizarrely unrealistic and unjustifiable ruling). A simple and reasonable supplement to existing rules (or use of GM discretion) can resolve this conflict by allowing for the prestige purchase of heal spells using the scenario’s prestige points from the gates of the nearest large city. This interpretation does not actually contradict any existing rules but, rather, can be applied as a supplement to them or added to the instructions for the scenario, itself.
A brief survey of GM’s reactions to this scenario above reveals that (in some cases) the danger absolutely demands adjustment by GM’s in order for it to be brought within the limits of reason. Many of the solutions applied by GM’s have been direct violations of the rules and definitions from the scenario and the books. Given that the scenario is already found to require compromises of the rules, I suggest that it would be wise to address the problem as stated above; By specifically allowing for a 5 day journey by boat to the nearest large city, where characters are permitted to communicate their need for a heal spell to their faction from outside the gates. This is perfectly realistic and is not specifically prohibited by the rules. The CRB, itself says that circumstances where rules do not directly address a proposed action merit the use of GM discretion. Furthermore, GM discretion, itself, is modified by the stated policies of Paizo, as detailed above. Therefore the solution offered herein should be considered acceptable in relation to every single one of the community’s material goals and values.

based on system for analyzing alignment issues that I have detailed above, I propose a general alignment type that allows a paladin to select a particular domain from his deity's list that is considered exclusively in determining the morallity of any act. It could be called "Radical"

I am writing a guide that goes over how to set up, play, and challenge a paladin's code of conduct. One section of it will have real life codes that can be used to build custom ones for play.

What are some possible codes of conduct I can include in this guide?

Chivalry and Bushido are already going to be included. Nothing is too small or unusual to be considered, and fantasy codes are also welcome.

Please, do not dismiss other poster's suggestions or argue against them. Let me decide if something shouldn't be included. [/QUOTE ]

The militant religious fanaticism characteristic of Paladins almost inevitably implies a Utilitarian Calculus which favors the interests of their deity (as he or she understands them)above any others. That is why the most enjoyable Paladins are often those that push the boundaries of their code of conduct; making rash, quixotically insane decisions... all the time. When Paladins' code of conduct is implicated by a given situation, their reasoning should always reflect a comparison between 2 distinct values: 1) The value of promoting or preserving one or more of their deity's core interests (as defined by the deity's domains and interpreted by the player) and 2) The value of promoting or preserving one or more other interests that may or may not conflict with the deity (sometimes this includes other goals of that deity)(Ie, Respecting legitimate authority or stopping slavery). If a player is considering a possible strategy, in game, that is motivated by their code of conduct (or in conflict with it) it is important to have a coherent analysis of the competing values that avoids excessively sacrifing one of the deity's core principles for another. If your reasoning doesn't make sense or if it is offensive or even uninteresting to the GM, then you may have some alignment issues.

To avoid such problems, you should have an explanation that references the specific goals of your deity and emphasizes the superior value of one or more of your deities interests in comparison to others. The following basic formula can be used to support any proposed action:

1: This action promotes a certain core interest(s) of my deity.
2: The particular core interest(s) is/are more important to my deity than competitors because ...
3: Therefore: this action is consistent with my code of conduct.

If your duty to protect the weak supercedes your duty not to lie, then you can lie in order to protect the weak.

In order to correctly identify the most relevant and material conflict of interest at hand, any good Paladin must negotiate the tension between what he must do and what he must not. Day-to-day decision making always includes two types of moral constraints: prohibitions, and affirmative duties. Some of the paladins duties constrain his behavior by prohibiting certain acts: Ie, lying, disregarding legitimate authority, harming innocents, committing an evil act, etc.) Other duties entail the affirmative performance of good acts (ie, protecting the weak, fighting evil). Usually, potential conflict emerges when a Paladin considers committing a prohibited act that happens to fulfill one of his affirmative duties. (Ie, torturous interrogation of an evil enemy who has surrendered and is unarmed, Speaking half truths, littering when you are in a hurry to save lives) The best resolutions of these conflicts are those that reflect value systems that are consistent with the deity's goals, the party's goals, your goals, and most decisively, the GM's goals (preferably, to have fun and not be a a-hole).

In contemplating your Paladin's value system, it is helpful to consider that there are infinite possible opinions concerning which of a deity's values should predominate. Although the code of conduct lists the Paladins duties specifically, its wording is very broad. (Ie, "Good" "Evil") Making accurate comparisons between values in a paladins code of conduct can thus be almost as technically complex as making such judgments in reality. Simply put, no single value system is or ever was officially, universally recognized as correct in the real world. Therefore, there is no official authority concerning what is good or evil in the Pathfinder Universe, apart from the GM's discretion and the "most important rule." Sometimes we want to bring justice to the unclean in a way that weak-bellied comrades find "inhumane." Sometimes, that would be very fun for everyone involved. Thats when you remind them that a Deity's core values can sometimes be interpreted in ways that compel its followers to compromise some of the its values in favor of others. (Ie, the crusades, suicide bombers, and many soldiers) There are abundant logically valid (if unsound) arguments that can and have been used to justify apparently evil and irrational acts by reference to religious duty. Paladins everywhere can usually have more fun by remembering that in Pathfinder (as in life) they can be anything from a christ figure to a pedantic psychopath without explicitly violating their religion's core values, as written.

My paladin gave a mighty roar as he exploded into a sprint toward the cluster of undead over the hill, then failed as badly as he possibly could have in his attempt to jump over a 5 foot gap in the path through flooded fields. He fell face first in the mire, then was trod over by all of his companions.

Ok thanks a lot for explaining. I was looking for those answers for a long time so that is extremely helpful.

loooool kalenz

1) While the stigmata are bleeding, the vindicator gains a sacred bonus (if he channels positive energy) or profane bonus (if he channels negative energy) equal to half his class level.

2) The vindicator's class level stacks with levels in any other class that grants the channel energy ability.

Various terms used to denote level: "Character Level," "Class Level," "Vindicator's Class Level." None of these are clearly defined and its quite annoying. I appreciate your input Rynjin but I'm afraid that Im just too frustrated by this to want to think about it any more right now.

We may be reading different versions, I will paste what I'm looking at and please let me no if something is missing.

Class Features
The following are class features of the holy vindicator prestige class.

Weapon and Armor Proficiency: A vindicator is proficient with all simple and martial weapons and all armor and shields (except tower shields).

Spells per Day: At the indicated levels, a vindicator gains new spells per day as if he had also gained a level in a divine spellcasting class he belonged to before adding the prestige class. He does not, however, gain other benefits of that class other than spells per day, spells known, and an increased effective level of spellcasting. If he had more than one divine spellcasting class before becoming a vindicator, he must decide to which class he adds the new level for the purpose of determining spells per day.

Channel Energy (Su): The vindicator's class level stacks with levels in any other class that grants the channel energy ability.

Here are some more questions about the meaning of the following 2 pertinent excerpts from the rule book, followed by a brief observation, then another question:

Excerpt 1) Channel Energy (Su): The vindicator's class level stacks with levels in any other class that grants the channel energy ability.

Excerpt 2) Spells per Day: At the indicated levels, a vindicator gains new spells per day as if...

Does the placement of these rules under the heading of "Channel Energy" or some other class feature limit the effect of the rules to actions or abilities that involve the indicated class features?

Is Stigmata considered energy channeling, given that the nature of the bonus granted by the stigmata is determined by the type of energy channeled?

Will my class level for the purpose of calculating the sacred bonus during stigmata be the sum of all energy-channeling class levels (as the literal interpretation of the "channel energy" rule implies) OR the Vindicator level only.

One thing that I think bears noting is that the distinction between "character level" and "class level" introduced above may only apply in cases where the character has levels in a non-channeling class. The channel energy rule explicitly states that channeling class levels all stack with Vindicator class levels. It seems to me that "vindicator class level" therefore means "total channeling class levels gained by a vindicator, unless specifically stated otherwise."

Then what does it mean when it says that the "The vindicator's class level stacks with levels in any other class that grants the channel energy ability?" The implied meaning of that phrase is that Vindicator class levels stack with Paladin levels, period. If that is the case, then I intend to just rack up paladin levels after getting stigmata so that I can have a well developed divine bond AND a nasty stigmata sacred bonus. This thing really should have at least been written clearly enough for it to be POSSIBLE to derive a coherent interpretation from it.

I am wondering if paladin levels will increase the potency of the "Stigmata" spell. If I take only 2 levels in holy vindicator as a paladin (in order to gain "stigmata"), will my Paladin levels count toward the "class level" when it comes to calculating the sacred bonus? For example: If I have 6 levels in Paladin and 2 levels in Holy Vindicator will my sacred bonus/bleed damage be 4 (8 total levels divided by 2) or 1 (2 Holy Vindicator Levels divided by 2).

"Before 'ANY' attacks are made is too late, as some have already been made, somewhere, sometime."

This is sound reasoning, DesolateHarmony. Your polite candor is much appreciated. I would be willing to pay you to give Skylancer4 some lessons in rhetoric and common courtesy.

I must acknowledge that the literal interpretation of the rule's phrasing prohibits any use of lunge (except one executed by the first person who ever attacked in Pathfinder, and only until the end of his or her turn).

Given that fact, it is obvious that the rule can not reasonably be interpreted according to the dictionary definitions of its own terms. Consequently, the rule must be treated as ambiguous and given a modified interpretation that is reasonable.

I would, of course, accept any ruling on this issue from my GM. However, the obvious ambiguity seems to call for some supplemental provisions from Paizo itself. Absent that, it falls on the community to devise its own alternative interpretation of the rule's language. I propose that the criteria for judging a good interpretation should include approximation of reality, consistency with the original language, entertainment value, and consistency with the intentions of the game designers. The above criteria can be applied to the case at issue as follows:

1) I have already expressed my opinion concerning the extent to which lunging attacks of opportunity approximate reality (see my previous post). 2) Consistency with the original language must be compromised with respect to the term "any attacks," as mentioned above. 3) The intentions of the game designers requires some official clarification. 4) Therefore, The only remaining proposed criteria to be addressed is entertainment value.

EldonG very helpfully pointed out that:

"Lunge means you still have to close with me...I don't have to close with you...and I can break it off and run when I feel the need. I can typically back up my 5' step, and take you to where I want to fight you...and if I have a reach weapon, and you don't, you need to make a 10' move...AoO. Lunge can rock if you play it right.

This is an accurate and well-stated analysis of Lunge's value as a combat feat. Lunge is useful and brings undeniable entertainment value to the game. However, my arguments are not actually motivated by concern for the efficacy or entertainment value of Lunge, itself. Rather, I am concerned about the apparent irrelevance of attacks of opportunity (in general) and (most especially) of Combat Reflexes as a combat feat.

(At this point I must admit that I have not played long enough to be completely familiar with combat dynamics with respect to the frequency of Aoo triggers so please explain if the following sounds foolish)

If attacks of opportunity can only be made against character's moving out of a threatened square, or acting "recklessly" therein, then they basically will never be made unless one of the following events occur: 1) A character acts in a way that is patently irrational or otherwise unrealistic. 2) A character uses a weapon with reach. or 3) A character executes a lunging attack of opportunity. EldonG correctly observed that a lunging character with a reaching weapon can realistically induce an Aoo trigger. However, a reach weapon seems to be the ONLY thing that can be used to do so. Decades of interpretation of contract provisions in American Courts have resounded with the astute judgment that provisions in a document should be interpreted in a way that avoids rendering other provisions irrelevant, contradictory, or superfluous. The overall effect of prohibiting lunging attacks of opportunity seems to be a total evisceration of Combat reflexes as a viable feat. Lunging attacks of opportunity can breathe life into Combat Reflexes in a way that I have to believe was intended by Paizo.

I once again admit that I am not intimately familiar enough with the gameplay to have a good sense of how frequent or realistic Aoo triggers tend to be, overall. Therefore I will conclude this post with a question: "Who in their right mind would take Combat Reflexes as a feat if it were impossible to execute lunging attacks of opportunity?"

I have an alternative interpretation of this rule that allows for lunging attacks of opportunity until the end of the lunger's turn:
The language does not simply say that "you must decide to use this ability before you make any attacks." It's plain meaning has a much broader application, denoting that your intention to use the feat must be decided (and therefore announced) "before ANY attacks are made" (emphasis added). This means that the intention must be announced before the first attack occurs during the round (whether or not the lunger is the first attacker). The rationale for this condition is quite apparently to simulate the distraction and vulnerable bodily positioning inherent in a character's preparation for, execution of, and recovery from a lunging attack (or series of lunges). The AC penalty would consequently apply from the time the intent to lunge is announced (before any attacks are made during the round) until the lunger's next turn. This application of the rule seems to realistically simulate consequences of the mental and physical commitment that lunging entails in reality.
The same mental and physical commitment involved in executing one lunge could conceivably be sustained for a prolonged period of time and applied to multiple lunges. Assuming that a person has selected combat reflexes and is not flat footed at the beginning of the round, it seems reasonable (in light of the very lenghty and sustained AC penalty that is imposed) that the lunger should be able to apply the benefit to every attack that he makes as well.
The relevant phrase in the feat description reads as follows: "You can increase the reach of your melee attacks by 5 feet until the end of your turn..." Furthermore, attacks of opportunity are defined as "a single melee attack." None of this phraseology can be interpreted either implicitly or explicitly to prohibit multiple lunging attacks. Assuming that a person announces his intent to lunge before "ANY attacks are made", and assuming npc's trigger before the end of his turn, the rules allow him to make lunging attacks of opportunity "until the end of (his) turn."