Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ

pauljathome's page

FullStarFullStarFullStarFullStar Pathfinder Society GM. 1,185 posts. 20 reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 41 Pathfinder Society characters. 1 alias.


1 to 50 of 1,185 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade ****

Quadstriker wrote:

At what point is intentionally going against the wishes of the party at large opposed to the cooperate portion of Explore, Report, Cooperate? How do you judge this falling into "don't be a jerk" guidelines? How far does "I'm just playing my character" get you?

It is going to vary greatly by location, players, etc.

From your description, the other players were getting upset. For me, that is the key point where the player has very likely crossed the "jerk" line.

If I was the GM, I'd have probably taken the player aside and asked him to tone it down, to cooperate. I'm lucky in that we have a quite cooperative bunch of players up here so I've never had to take it past that step.

I think (emphasis on think, not sure and its a LOT easier to say this than do it) that if the player refused at that point I'd flat out tell him he can NOT do that. In the full expectation that would cause the player to rage quit.

Silver Crusade

I think a fair bit of the ACG errata falls into this category. I suspect many people would agree with that statement (while, of course, disagreeing as to which changes :-) ).

For one example, Pummeling Style is still a very good feat. I wouldn't dream of changing it for a different feat despite the nerf

Silver Crusade ****

Unfortunately, you can pretty much guarantee a lot of table variation with this concept. It can be VERY powerful so you can definitely expect push back.

Note that you absolutely can NOT expect to have more than one pet. So, no Animal Companion, no calling multiples, etc.

Silver Crusade

I know that this will be ignored. For whatever reason, getting the PFS session entry to be actually useable is either a really, really low priority or the implementation is so bad that changes just can't be made. But I failed my Will save and so have to tilt at this windmill. Again.

The interface for entering PFS games is utterly atrocious. No, thats not true. It would have to improve a lot to get up to atrocious. Its worse than that.

The one thing that is absolutely essential is better feedback from the website as to what the current state is.

Given that a Core game with Core characters suddenly becomes Regular if anybody is regular (which is about the stupidest thing I've ever heard of right there) I REALLY REALLY REALLY need to know when it is safe to hit enter.

I was entering a CORE game. When I entered one of the character numbers no name came up. I haven't a clue if this is just one of the reasonably regular glitches with the database or I'm misreading the number or what. I also haven't a clue whether the character defaults to Core or Regular if it isn't found.

So, I delete the character entry.

Turns out that is a REALLY bad idea. Now. NONE of the characters show whether or not they are Core.

Try reloading page. Nope. Same issue.

So I pretty much have to go back and restart the entire page. Oh, after logging in again, of course, since my bloody session has expired. AGAIN.

All to avoid a problem that may or may not be there.

I'm really curious how many Core games just aren't being reported since its such a royal pain to do so. I'm a volunteer and I REALLY don't like wasting my time like this. Entering games is an awful time consuming chore that I constantly put off.

Edit: Before somebody says something like "you don't know the problems" I'll point out that while I do not know anything about their particular implementation I DO know a reasonable amount about web sites interacting with databases (which is all this is). This is very, very much very, very significantly behind the current state of the art in useability. I don't know why it is but it inarguably is.

Silver Crusade

A one level dip into swashbuckler is one obvious choice.

Otherwise, it depends a lot on what you consider a swashbuckler to feel like.

Amateur swashbuckler is a pretty good start.

Cleric of Cayden with fencing grace (you can get this by level 3 if human). Maybe take a trait to get acrobatics.

You'd end up with a functional but far from overpowered character. Your biggest problem will be MAD and lack of skill points.

Silver Crusade ****

The game was quite enjoyable. It certainly shows very clearly the nyah nyah effects of high level play. Less rocket taggish tgan I expected. And how very, very variable things will be depending on how the GM and PCs handle things.

Man, shape change is a powerful spell (I was playing the overconfident druid. And I admit that was a quite accurate description). It is SO insanely flexible. When encounters don't look that tough one can do reasonable damage as a huge dragon.

That ring is definitely the best 6k I've ever spent. Admittedly, it WAS a 9th level spell and I do have 3 feats invested but even so its a LOT of healing and even a bit of damage.

Silver Crusade ****

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
Gamerskum wrote:
So when do we stop roleplaying in order to get the mission done?
When an alternate interpretation of your character leads to better table harmony than another.

Within reason.

Lots of people seem to be taking extreme positions. PFS is a roleplaying game AS WELL as a goal oriented game.

It is a team game AS WELL as an individual game.

NEITHER the necromancer NOR the Inquisitor get to decide what the other character does.

Etc, etc, etc.

The answer lies in everybody compromising and acting like adults.

Silver Crusade ****

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Arilon Shieldguard wrote:
pauljathome wrote:

If that happened to my paladin I'd certainly try to convince you and the GM to disallow it as a violation of the PVP/don't be a jerk rule.

At the character level I made my position VERY clear at the beginning of the session.

We should not equate the PvP rule with the "don't be a jerk" rule. Those two things are not the same. As well, this doesn't fall anywhere inside the "no PvP" rule. The text of that rule is quite clear - using infernal healing on your character against your wishes, explicit or otherwise, isn't the same as "intentionally kill[ing]" your character.

While you're technically correct up here we've sort of merged them into a single rule. Its pretty much a semantic quibble whether we've extended the definition of PVP or come up with some reasonably specific examples of what we consider jerk moves.

Seems to work for us too. I've NEVER seen a problem with this at the table that wasn't amicably resolved by the players. Of course, we're Canadians and so renowned for our willingness to compromise :-) :-).

Silver Crusade ****

Talonhawke wrote:
pauljathome wrote:
Talonhawke wrote:
If my party's paladin ask that Infernal healing not be used on him and I agree but come end of a battle he is down and that's the only chance of saving him , by Moradin I'm saving him.

And if you do you can expect at least some characters AND players to be very pissed.

If that happened to my paladin I'd certainly try to convince you and the GM to disallow it as a violation of the PVP/don't be a jerk rule.

At the character level I made my position VERY clear at the beginning of the session.

And if it goes to that point I'll stop. But if you ask why I'm doing it I'll point out its for the sake of the mission. I may have to pay for it down the line but I need your ass standing to wrap this up. No I wouldn't continue to force it but I'm damn well gonna try.

Thank you for that (the internet being what it is I'll explicitly state that is sincere). From my characters point of view, almost no mission is important enough for him to potentially damn his soul for (About the only exception I can think of off hand would be The Waking Rune).

I'd also almost certainly not push the point IF it was necessary for the other characters to survive. Not sure what I'd do if it was necessary for them to get the XP/Loot (which I think much more important than the 1 or 2 prestige).

Compromise. Its a wonderful thing :-)

Silver Crusade ****

Talonhawke wrote:
If my party's paladin ask that Infernal healing not be used on him and I agree but come end of a battle he is down and that's the only chance of saving him , by Moradin I'm saving him.

And if you do you can expect at least some characters AND players to be very pissed.

If that happened to my paladin I'd certainly try to convince you and the GM to disallow it as a violation of the PVP/don't be a jerk rule.

At the character level I made my position VERY clear at the beginning of the session.

Silver Crusade ****

Talonhawke wrote:

Looking this I really want to know if that Zombie made a difference in getting the job done? If the goal wasn't obtainable without it being there would people feel differently about this situation?

From the character POV it probably depends a lot on the mission. Some missions my character is heavily emotionally invested in, others they're just in it for the bennies (loot, exp, prestige, lols, whatever).

Silver Crusade ****

Seran Blackros wrote:

Your character can dislike it, but you need to Cooperate at the table or play a different character.

BOTH players need to cooperate. It is unacceptable for one player to say "I'm roleplaying. Now YOU can't roleplay, you must cooperate".

Not being at the table, its very unclear but it seems to me that BOTH players likely failed to cooperate.

The rule in the guide is vague because it HAS to be. Only the people at the table know who is being the jerk. I can trivially envision either player in the OP as being totally blameless or either or both being jerks.

The one key thing I tell every new player is that their character HAS to be flexible enough to handle most other characters and it is essential that player and character be willing to compromise. BOTH characters must be willing to compromise.

Silver Crusade ****

Sin of Asmodeus wrote:

That's your call. I admit I'm chaotic neutral. It's no more being a jerk than letting someone die that you could save.
But than I've saved characters that would have refused healing from a certain evil spell.

I'm not totally sure that this applies but it seems to.

I have had several characters tell their companions at the start of the game "Please do not use infernal healing on me, even to save my life". If the player then did so I'd most certainly consider that a jerk move.

In the case described by the OP, I think (its hard to be sure without being at the table) that the mistake that was made was in continuing AFTER the rogue died and the necromancer raised the zombie. I think that, at that point, the inquisitor should probably have stated something like "My oath to the Society means that I cannot treat you as I wish. But I will not adventure with you. Bye".

Inquisitor continues at that point its his problem.

Silver Crusade ****

Knowledge skills is an area where the game is generally acknowledged to have issues. That said, in theory (this varies a LOT by GM) you can know a fair bit with a knowledge check of 10.

Low level characters cannot excel at too much. That is the nature of the game. That said, a skilled character can be quite effective in their specialties even at level 1. What they can't be is good at a wide range of things.

One thing that might interest you is the human specific feat improvisation. It let's you be moderately competent in EVERYTHING. NOT expert, mind.

But as others have said it is impossible to be good at everything in Pathfinder, especially at low levels. That is the nature of the game. If you can't accept that then perhaps Pathfinder isn't the game for you. That is NOT meant critically, Pathfinder absolutely is NOT the game for every taste.

Silver Crusade ****

TetsujinOni wrote:

My hexcrafter magus with Butterfly's Sting carries a hooked lance to hand to a beatstick PC to have x4 2H weapon to hand crits off to.

It's called "building for teamwork", and it's not cheesy at all.

Rather depends on ones definition of "cheesy".

Silver Crusade ****

I played this and as far as I recall that was all the GM told us. But that was more than sufficient to make it crystal clear that we should do something about the situation.

Silver Crusade

Serisan wrote:

I have a build saved that I've decided not to play at the local store because it would be similarly disruptive due to having a minimum Diplomacy result of 32 and no cap on attitude improvements at level 1.

OK, I'm curious. How the heck can you get a +31 diplomacy at level 1?

Silver Crusade ****

Chris Mortika wrote:

Just checking: do most characters have the spell deathwatch up and running for free? Have they taken a Feat that allows them to make a Heal check as a free action to determine a character's current hit points?

If not, I'm with Myron: keep the numbers out of the tabletop discussion.

As a table GM, if someone just announces "I'm down to 2 hit points" to the party at large (or, worse, "I'm down to -9, guys") I keep private track of the character's hit points from that point on, giving the player a general sense of his PC's wounds.

Player: "I drink a potion of cure light wounds."
Me, as GM: "You feel a little better, but it doesn't feel as powerful as other draughts of the potion."

So you think that, in world, people have no idea how badly wounded a comrade is? How damaged they are themselves?

While I also don't like people sharing hit point numbers you are going WAY too far. If I ever had a GM tell me that I didn't even know my own characters hit points, that he was going to track my hit points, I'd refuse to play with them (I presume you tell people something that significant BEFORE the game).

As I'm sure you know, deathwatch is a joke. And there is no PFS legal way to know this information. So some meta knowledge is pretty much necessary. Descriptions do NOT work since people are VERY inconsistent

Silver Crusade ****

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Coming into this late.

In considering how some of my characters would react to the situation :

My CN cleric of Calistra would turn the helpless BBEG over to the surviving villagers for their revenge. They get to decide the punishment. Whether that be torture or freedom.

Most of my Good characters would also do this, but they'd step in and execute the prisoner if the villagers were going to torture him to death OR let him go. He needs to die, but he should die cleanly.

This is one of the few cases where I think killing a helpless prisoner is actually justified. No authorities with jurisdiction to turn him over to, he has shown himself so evil that letting him live to kill again just isn't an option.

Silver Crusade ****

Various improved familiars have telepathy. Even some Core ones.

And you can always write in the sand.

I've found that I can get a LOT out of "roar" said in various ways (with a question mark, angrily, with a toss of the head, etc). Combined with the pre agreement of one for yes, two for no.

You could use speak with animals twice. Cast it on yourself, you speak to your animal companion, it speaks to the friendly bard. As an aside, this spell should really be an hour per level duration.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
bookrat wrote:

I ain't no computer programmer, but my programming colleagues tell me just the opposite: dice are more random than computer generated random number generators. All of them have told me that if I want true randomness, find a balanced die rather than using a program.

Edit: got a link for those machines? That sounds really cool, and I can't find anything on the net with a few quick searches (only people talking about theoretical machines).

I am a computer programmer and your friends are only partly right.

A GOOD random generator is going to be pretty darn random, certainly WAY more random than dice rolled in a hand the way gamers do. There is a reason when money is involved (eg, craps) dice are shaken very vigorously.

Bad random number generators are still quite likely better than most dice rolled at most tables.

Really bad generators and programmers do, however, exist

Silver Crusade ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
GM Lamplighter wrote:

If you are spending a feat (or any other resource) to improve your day-job roll, you are in effect screwing your colleagues, since they expect you to put your effort (i.e. that feat) into something that will help the group during the Pathfinder mission.

Be an adventurer, not a greengrocer.

I vehemently disagree.

This is tantamount to saying "if your character isn't totally optimized you are in effect screwing your colleagues".

I may or may not have a social obligation to bring a competent character to the table but I most certainly do NOT have an obligation to bring a highly optimized character using all of his feats to extract the greatest mechanical advantage.

One of my characters is an artist. He has invested considerable resources into his craft painting skill. Far more than just the skill focus - craft painting feat that he has.

He is also a witch WITHOUT the slumber hex.

Despite all that he most definitely contributes and is most definitely more than just competent.

Silver Crusade ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I appreciate it when a GM points out a pattern of alignment related acts. Points out, NOT noting it on the chronicle sheet.

It causes me to reevaluate the character, to see if I think the alignment on the sheet is still accurate.

Alignment is SUCH a fuzzy thing that I really prefer that I just get to decide my alignment. In an ideal world, that WOULD include how evil I am. But PFS isn't ideal, the "no evil PC" rule is necessary, so noting evil infractions makes sense. Noting other infractions doesn't.

Silver Crusade

Petty Alchemy wrote:

One of the things I notice in most games I play in (and sometimes the ones I run) is that sometimes there'll be a thieves guild (usually to antagonize the PCs), a church (for the divine PCs to have meaningful interactions, provide restorative spells), often times a mage's guild (for the arcane PCs to have meaningful interactions, copy spells from). But it's hard to write in some sort of martial guild.

You can put in a mercenary group, but the PCs usually aren't looking to hire, they're the heroes of the story after all.

So what kind of organization would you like to encounter when you're playing a martial character (or have enjoyed encountering in games)? What quests could this guild/dojo offer?

What if you could broaden your skill at this organization, like Wizards can copy spells, a character with all martial weapons could spend some time (and gold) to learn an exotic weapon, or expand Weapon Focus to another weapon?

Some of the prestige classes require memberships in organized martial groups. If you're looking for mechanical aspects I'd start with them.

Silver Crusade

Uh, if the GM wants to win then "rocks fall. Everybody dies". Sounds like that was essentially what happened (assuming your account is basically accurate).

But the level of brutality is very much up to the participants (GM AND players). Different groups differ radically on what level they want.

If the group doesn't come to some agreement the group disbands.

Silver Crusade

BigNorseWolf wrote:

You laugh, but different philosophies on how to handle animal companions can get some wth moments when different camps meet.

Absolutely agreed. Which is why you can expect massive table variation whenever you go outside the normally defined tricks.

I mostly go by "If the situation is unclear in the rules I go by what makes sense to me, ie what I consider reasonable for an animal of the appropriate type".

Which sometimes means I'm quite liberal (I allow appropriate animals to climb things with no hassles) and sometimes quite conservative (cannot push an animal you can't communicate with to deliberately fail a saving throw).

If you're planning on doing something weird
1) Expect Table Variation
2) Tell the GM up front what you're planning on doing. You're MUCH more likely to get a result you'll like when the GM has time to consider your arguments
3) The GM IS right, even if you disagree with them
4) Expect Table Variation

Silver Crusade

BigDTBone wrote:

I think the worst (ie, most harsh) interpretation against you would to be require you to "push" (DC 25 handle animal) twice. One to fail the save, one to do whatever you had in mind. The second one may have a circumstance penalty attached depending on how you altered to environment with the spell.

Also, for emanations, the mount has a bit, bridle, and saddle, which could all function as "object touched."

Nope. I would NOT allow you to push the animal to fail a save. Not without some means of communication at the very least. How are you telling the animal to fail its will save?

Silver Crusade

I'd expect significant GM variation. Speaking for myself, I don't think that I'd ever let a mount voluntarily fail a save except for specifics!!y harmless spells unless it was magically controlled.

Silver Crusade ****

The PFS rules can be found in the guide to organized play.

I believe that Ottawa runs fairly regular monthly games using warhorn.

Ottawa previously used the Ontario pathfinders site but I don't think they do any longer. But they may possibly monitor posts there.

Also, this should probably be moved to one of the PFS forums.

Silver Crusade ****

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Michael Brock wrote:
ScrollMasterRob wrote:
Every time the Society has to deal with Torch, Torch always finds a way to screw us and come out ahead.
Glad to hear this. He was ALWAYS supposed to be this guy since the start of the campaign. If the perception now that this is what he is, then Things are starting to balance out where they always were supposed to have been.

As long as the goal is to use him to show how SUPREMELY incompetent the Decemvirate and Venture Captains are you're succeeding.

I can't think off hand of a single scenario where he wins because he is smart. He wins because he is scripted to win and because the Society are idiots.

Silver Crusade ****

TetsujinOni wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

I still feel weird about giving myself GM credit though.

I needed, can I give them credit, without giving myself credit?

You are NEVER obligated to take a chronicle for GMing.

While I wholeheartedly agree with Tetsuji I'd like to add that I don't think that anybody would fault you for taking a chronicle under these circumstances. You did all the prep work (generally the lions share of the work) and, through absolutely nobodies fault, failed to complete the scenario.

Silver Crusade

As well as you might want to try TAG (Toronto Area Gamers on meetup).

Silver Crusade

At higher levels the power difference between different characters becomes greater. The set of options becomes hugely greater. The effects of differences in play styles becomes greater. The number of broken rules combinations becomes greater ( no matter what your definition of "broken"). The time to resolve a combat becomes greater.

Essentially, the game changes drastically. Its a LOT harder to play and LOTS and LOTS harder to run.

I think the surprising thing is how many campaigns make it to and survive high levels :-).

For me, play past somewhere around level 10 starts to feel like superhero gaming. And I think there are better superhero games than Pathfinder.

I do like an occasional high level game but not a steady diet.

Silver Crusade

Thornborn wrote:
What would be wrong with a level one wall of force?

I think that this is one of the rare cases where "if you have to ask the question you won't understand the answer" applies.

Wall of Force is a very useful, powerful 5th level spell, one that can regularly trivialize many encounters at that level (usually by splitting an encounter into several much simpler encounters). At 1st level, just about no opponents will have counters.

Silver Crusade

I suspect that this has been answered in one of the innumerable threads but my search fu was weak today.

This is for PFS so I'm interested in the Rules As Written answer.

To give an example, Monks robe acts differently for Monks and other classes. Does an Unchained Monk count as a Monk ?

Obviously, they "Should" count as monks. But Hero Lab thinks they don't and if at all possible I wanted an official answer or a rules citation before submitting a bug report.

Silver Crusade ****

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm curious. Is this actually a problem in real life or is everybody just arguing theory?

Up here, our rule is simple. No PVP without permission. And that rule works VERY well.

I've seen fireballing of allies, I've seen opposed bluff and sense motive checks, I've seen characters knock each other out. What I have NOT seen is one player ever getting upset about it. Because the player Ok'ed it.

People only ask to do PVP when it is a really good idea or it would be amusing/in character. People generally agree because of that, only refusing when they know something the other player doesn't.

But we're Canadians :-). Our defining national character is supposed to be to be polite compromise :-) :-). Maybe it really IS different elsewhere. Hence my question

Silver Crusade

Dawnflower dervish bard seems perfect to me. Quite effective at low to medium levels, starts to drop behind at about L8-9

Silver Crusade

Writer wrote:

What do you have to support your claim?

Look at the table for advancing the familiar. Note that they never gain hit dice. Compare this to the table for advancing an Animal Companion which DOES gain hit dice.

Silver Crusade

Writer wrote:
Core Rulebook, p82 wrote:

Hit Dice: For the purpose of effects related to number of
Hit Dice, use the master’s character level or the familiar’s
normal HD total, whichever is higher.
Basically, when you get a feat, so does your familiar.

Unfortunately that is not the case. The section on familiars is referring to things like sleep spells etc. The familiar does NOT gain actual hit dice.

Silver Crusade

The phrase is "weapons or tools". To me a shield pretty clearly falls under that definition. It would be more than a lot silly to allow an ape to use a shield but to NOT let it use a fishing stick.

I wouldn't allow it at a PFS table. Which means that, at the very least, you can expect significant table variance.

Silver Crusade ****

Roleplay interesting characters who interact with my NPCs and the world as their characters would. If you let my NPCs talk a bunch I'll have fun.

Come up with truly unusual tactics which make me think about how to handle things. Unusual is NOT "take advantage of some rules loophole" but more thinking outside the box.

Have fun. Fun is contagious. If you're visibly enjoying yourself I likely will too

Silver Crusade ****

It varies somewhat by convention, but in general

1) every GM at a convention gets a boon
2) boons are available to players in a lottery method. No guarantees but if you play enough tables chances of getting at least 1 boon are good
3) conventions play the same scenarios as everybody else. Gencon and Paizocon are exceptions in that some of the scenarios will be exclusives
4) the exact boons available depends on the convention and when it is run
5) boons are tradeable so sometimes you can get the boon you want that way even if you've get a boon you don't really want

Silver Crusade ****

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Don't constantly rules lawyer, ESPECIALLY when it really isn't important. The GM needs to be given at least a little slack in their interpretation. Assume that he is trying to make the game better for you.

On a related note, if the GM makes a ruling that you believe to be incorrect, politely raise your objection and then accept the GMs ruling.

Please don't bring in a wildly overpowered character. Or, if you feel that you must do so, please underplay that character until necessary. Let the GM do at least a bit of damage to you and the party :-).

Keep your head in the game. Pay attention to what is happening, be ready when it is your turn, minimize extraneous conversation, etc.

Silver Crusade ****

RCW wrote:

While I generally agree with the post above, there are GM's that can run cold and do it well if needed. Especially the older scenarios. I will, if asked, run cold and usually the player's don't even notice.

It also depends a lot on what you mean by "cold". Like most GMs I've played and/or GMed a very large number of scenarios. Even if I've forgotten the details running one that I've run before is a long way from "cold".

And, of course, some scenarios can be run cold much easier than others.

Silver Crusade ****

Eric Clingenpeel wrote:
I don't really think a refund is fair.

While I understand your position that seems unduly harsh to me. You're essentially punishing a player for lack of experience and knowledge.

He has ALREADY paid a price in that he was without better equipment for some scenarios. Making him continue to pay that price seems unfair.

Silver Crusade ****

I pretty much agree with trollbill.
But one thing to emphasize is that the reason why the GM is turning a player away matters a LOT. The more "reasonable" that seems then the more latitude the GM has in practice.

For example, it is considered nearly universally acceptable to turn away a player with a proven history of being disruptive, cheating, etc.

It is nearly universally considered very bad behaviour to turn away a player because he is playing a <insert class the GM doesn't like>.

The case of a player who refuses to tone down their over powerful character and ruins the fun for everybody else lies somewhere in between.

Other reasons vary greatly by the group, individuals involved, etc.

Silver Crusade

SultanOfAwesome wrote:

I use the term unjustified murder because most do not understand the difference between murder (Which is always evil and never justified, no matter how you look at it) and and other forms of killing, such as execution (Which is considered just retribution visited for murder and rape in older definitions in most of the Judeo-Christian world).

You seem to be using circular reasoning. Murder == "always evil" implies "There is objective reality because murder is always evil".

If by "objective evil" you mean "some external standard of evil that we do not understand or know anything about" then
1) that is, by definition, unfalsifiable and also pretty much uninteresting. "Well, there is this thing that exists. We don't know anything about it and there is no evidence for it but it exists. And you can't prove it doesn't."
2) There is arguably absolutely zero evidence that it exists and lots of evidence that it doesn't. Given that the claim is unfalisiable that does NOT disprove it but the vast preponderance of evidence shows that it is unlikely to exist.

If by "objective evil" you mean "universally or nearly universally accepted as evil" then there really isn't such a thing. There are cultures (historical and current) that accept what the vast majority of people reading this would consider to be rape, murder and pedophilia as not being evil.

Silver Crusade ****

That Crazy Alchemist wrote:

But a change like the one I'm suggesting is impossible to result in unforseen circumstances because nothing is actually changing.

That isn't correct.

Players can expend limited resources in earlier encounters thus making a later encounter harder. Or they could gain various negative conditions. Those are the most obvious ways that order of encounter s can matter but there are many other possibilities.

Silver Crusade

Meiliken wrote:
To be completely logical, there is no such thing as good and evil. They are false philosophical human constructs that have no place in the universe other than what mortals conjure from their imagination. The universe does not know good or evil, it only knows existence and non-existence. Logical fact.

To assert the non existance of something is most definitely NOT "completely logical".

Even if they are philosophical human constructs, that doesn't make them false nor does it mean that they have no place in the universe.

It is interesting that you think it a logical fact that universe knows things.

Note - The above is mostly my being pedantic. You'd be best to NOT assume that I hold any particular beliefs based upon it.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm going to start with two caveats.

1)Real world morality is far more complicated than Dnd and this makes all the real world questions essentially meaningless. Following answers are for campaign world only

2) The answer varies a lot by campaign, by player and by character. Following are the answers for most of my characters

Billybrainpan wrote:

1. Is there a direct correlation between good/evil and law/chaos?

Game world - Some correlation.


2. Is anything inherently or irredeemably good/evil?

Game World - varies immensely by campaign.


3. Can you know how good or bad an act is without exploring the whole scenario first?

Game World - With rare exceptions yes.


4. Should the morality of a player affect their character?

In theory, no.


5. Does the morality of a player affect their character?

Absolutely it does. Look at any discussion of alignment on the net and it is very clear that real world player morality affects what is seen as good, evil, etc.


6. Does committing an evil act make you evil?

Game World - It depends on the act, the reason for the act, the repentance after the act and the particular campaign. In general, a single act will not make one evil.


7. Committing several evil acts in pathfinder will change your alignment to evil. How does that relate to real life? Is that an accurate portrayal of morality?

It does not relate to real life in any way since morality in the real world is far more complicated

1 to 50 of 1,185 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.