|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
If you're called a "slave", but you're freed on request, that's not slavery. It's not involuntary.
Except the part that makes it a game is the limitations. Without those, we're just playing make believe.
I've played plenty of role-playing games with limitations designed in, some even far beyond Pathfinder or even AD&D, without cringing and even with great enjoyment.
Equally obvious of course is that game designers should have no say at all in "what a character is, what they're able to do, and how much those two things have to do with each other".
Some people, sad to say, will take the above at face value. The above is not supposed to be taken that way. It was said sarcastically. That this must be explained is a condemnation of us as a species.
GM Rednal wrote:
Sure, seek the gods out and do it to their face and you'll be in trouble. But deity's taking time and effort to smite one blasphemer down when there are so many worse people and problems out there.
A good deity could also be subtler - afflict him with some minor, but unremovable curse whenever he says he's a paladin.
But really, player problem. Deal with it there.
Except "knight" is an title and a rank. "Paladin" isn't, at least in the default rules.There may be organizations of paladins and such a group could be upset with someone pretending to be a member, but there's nothing that says every paladin has to belong to one - or that every member needs to be of the paladin class.
Do the real fighters get upset when some barbarian runs around calling himself a fighter?
But in that sense, the paladin has authority, but no more than any other PC.The moral authority is closer to what we're talking about, but in many ways that only exists to the extent that people recognise it.
It's also worth pointing out that for all her moral righteousness, the paladin is Lawful. While she can, she'll work through channels, not usurp and defy local authority. That may change if the local authorities are incompetent and almost certainly will if they're corrupt or oppressive.
Also, while you may be more powerful than 99% of the people around, throwing your weight around in towns larger than 100 starts to get dicey fast.
Jane "The Knife" wrote:
The first quote has some serious limitations when applied to cases like chattel slavery.
The second, IIRC, applied to a situation where that Authority controlled things like access to air and abused that privilege. Which is a good deal farther than most governments - but still allowed more freedom than many forms of slavery.
I've got a lot of problems with real world debt slavery, but it's probably possible to make it work in fantasy. :)
The Sword wrote:
But is that how the fantasy world works? Strict historical simulation this game is not.
Sandpoint, for example, has a Sheriff, who does deal with crimes. And a Mayor, who may well be elected, since it's apparently not a hereditary post. No ruling lord to whom the town owes fealty either.
Even in a more historically accurate setting, while there may well be no authorities that investigate and 'solve crimes', there are authorities who dispense justice. That will at least in some cases involve investigating, though it's mostly ruling on accusations and complaints. Still, when there is some kind of ongoing problem there will be a demand for it to be dealt with and the local authorities will have to deal with it.
Reminds me of the Aunt May/Galactus story they did back in the 80s. Splashed across the cover was "Not a Hoax! Not a What If? Not an imaginary story!"
It was of course a dream. But the cover copy was technically correct.
I don't know exactly what's been said in interviews. I don't know what wiggle room they've left themselves. I do trust they're not really intending to have him have been a Hydra agent all along, whatever it looks like and whatever they want to make you think.
Whether it'll work or not, I don't know. Whether it'll be a good story or not, I don't know. I do know they're not that mind-bogglingly stupid or out of touch. And that's despite some bone-head moves of late, IMO.
That's pretty much it. I follow writers. Some writers on anything. Some if they're doing a character or concept I find interesting.
I guess you could say that it breaks my immersion to have supposedly-good characters use a line of reasoning that inevitably (in my opinion, of course) leads to evil deeds.
Arguably, it's not the paladins using the line of reasoning, but the people deciding to trust them.
But paladins aren't. Because they're still paladins.
You're certainly right in the real world, but this is a fantasy games with a hard control on corruption, at least among paladins. It's not that they always say they're "noble, altruistic, and HONEST", it's that they actually are "noble, altruistic, and HONEST." No excuses. No qualifiers.
Of course, it's far more complicated when there isn't a single monotheistic religion, closely linked the state authorities.Even the various Gods in PF/D&D aren't usually linked together in the same way that real world pantheons usually were.
Charles Scholz wrote:
Something along those line, though I don't remember whether she was hiding him from Ras or just trying to make her own perfect little assassin. The warping is definitely justified.
That doesn't mean anyone has to actually like the character though.
Personally, I did, as I've said before. I liked Morrison's slow reveal of the scarred desperate kid hiding beneath the arrogant little punk. IMO, some of the best characterization in recent comics - his fumbling attempts to earn his father's love thwarted by Bruce's near inability to show it. I particularly liked his relationship with Dick, who's damn well aware of Bruce's shortcomings on the emotional front.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Well, it's more like the central contention.
If classes are a known thing in the setting and reasonable well identifiable, then once they know you're a Paladin, then you will be known to be a "beacon of truth, justice, and the Lawful Good way".
If not, then while there may be specific paladin-centric organizations with such reputations, individual Paladins won't benefit from it, unless they belong to such a group.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
So your entire point in that earlier post where you described the paladin being hauled off for assault was just that he didn't yell "Stop, thief!" properly?Cause that's not how it read at all.
You even said "He shouts at them".
Honestly, in the vast majority of pre-modern societies in history or fiction, regardless of the "hue & cry", if a gentleman of means (which any but the lowest level PC/Paladin is going to be) captures and accuses a couple of street kids of robbery, they're going away and he'll be thanked. Even if it's a foreign gentleman.
Now if they're high-born kids or otherwise connected, it might be a different story.
Well in the 80s Marvel's "starting characters" were only around 20 years old. And their biggest success at the time was the new X-Men, who had largely replaced the original X-Men.That very period you cite for DC was the time of the first Crisis, which wrecked a lot of the "legacy" stuff they had going, though it bring Wally to the fore, it also did the first "Wonder Woman was 'new to man's world' again". (Trashing the Titan's Wonder Girl in the process.) Crisis also broke Infinity, Inc, though it held on for awhile. And the Legion has never recovered, despite a few decent runs.
Yes, I'm still bitter about Crisis. The first of its kind and one of the very best as a story, but it broke so much of what I liked about DC - even much of what it introduced me to.
Norman Osborne wrote:
Still, I really loved how Peter was handled in Civil War.
Stark is a snarker, but Iron Man doesn't really have the battle patter thing going and Spidey definitely did.
And you can't hire a free person to do these things?
Talk to your GM. In my case, I'd say that merely buying the slave is not evil, but nearly anything you do to keep them or make them work will push you over the line.
If you bought a slave and set them free, that's not evil. If you offered them freedom as soon as you reached another country, that might be okay, though if they demanded it then and there and you kept them in chains to prevent escape ...
I'll just say that as a player, I hate this technique. Making up world stuff in play breaks me out of character, making me think about the game and setting in way the character wouldn't be. Some of that is unavoidable, but I'd rather not add more than necessary.
The Doomkitten wrote:
The really frustrating part about Trump is that the election is a win-win situation for him. Regardless of whether or not he wins, he now has a legion of rabid supporters that he can sic on whoever he likes.
Not to mention all sorts of ways to turn that popularity into lucrative business deals.
It's all about the grifting.
Officially Paladins are a self-taught class. Even trained classes don't have to be taught in formal schools - apprenticeships and other more or less formal arrangements may well exist.
Orders of paladins may well exist, but there's no requirement that all paladins belong to one. Or that Paladins belong to an actual religious order or even follow a particular deity. And, unless you're very hung up on the metagame idea of class, those orders are likely to include other "holy warrior" types - martially oriented clerics and oracles of that particular deity, even particularly devout fighter and other non-divine casters. They'd need to live up to the order's Code to remain in good standing of course.
Mind you, going back to the original question - membership in some order of paladins may well confer some level of authority, probably linked to rank within the order, which may be loosely linked to level. But that's a political thing, not a game thing.
Exactly. They're louder and more desperate because they're losing. This is backlash, not triumph. Organizing a counter event is probably the best response.
At least when it comes to LGBT rights. Feminist issues are less clear cut and racism is another thing entirely.
As I understand it, there's a lot of evidence that it is at the very least much easier for some than for others. To the point that some people can just stop with little difficulty while others struggle and relapse again and again. Nor does this necessarily have anything to do with willpower or moral fiber or anything else beyond the immediate case.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
I would doubt that "unlike most things" claim, honestly.
Let's say that it's the intent that it be less so in PF (& 3.x) than in previous editions.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Well, I certainly agree the Sun doesn't have a real issue. There are several excuses that would let you handwave it away, though the bulk isn't sufficient - distance penalties scales linearly, size scales quadratically.
It's an absurd example of the underlying problem, which is easily apparent with colossal objects a few hundred yards away. Unlike most things in Pathfinder you have to push detecting anything at non-combat distances (or even long range combat distances) onto GM fiat.
"just like they notice planes in the sky" seems reasonable.But how to implement that? Sometimes I notice planes in the sky. Sometimes I don't.
Seems like a reasonable thing to roll dice for. Seems like Perception would be a reasonable skill to work with. But the rules just don't work at all.
So do we handwave to "everyone is always aware of any flying creatures or objects within line of sight, regardless of distance or size"? Or do we try to come up with more reasonable guidelines?
Have you read the rest of the thread, where we talk about more practical problems?
As I said, it's easy to handwave, but it does mean you're handwaving any cases where someone might or might not notice something more than a couple hundred feet away.
No. It's not actually a real issue.
It's a reductio ad absurdum example of a real issue. Which is itself fairly easy to handwave around.
It may be worth noting what Gary Gygax had to say about paladins
It's really hard for me to accept anything that uses "nits become lice" approvingly.That was never about surrendered enemies reverting to their old ways, but about killing the children of racial or ethnic enemies. I also find his claim about harsh punishments deterring rape and making women safe highly suspect.
All in all, whatever Gary thinks, not a paladin I'd want to play.
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
But how do you know she's a Paladin? She could be lying. She could be some other kind of warrior-priest type, not bound by the same restrictions.
I can accept that some people have bad taste. :)
I do kind of wonder how differently those read now, or even in 1998, compared to when they first came out.
Some random Paladin wandering into Cheliax and attacking people for consorting with devils isn't likely to fare well. :)
That's assuming the Sheriff & the town agree with the Paladin's position. If it's a petty crime, sure. If the Paladin's harassing a prominent, popular local figure with accusations he's involved in some mysterious plot, then it might be a different story.Especially if the town isn't particularly Lawful Good.
Obviously, if the Sheriff is himself corrupt, he's going to try to dismiss the Paladin - or worse.
There's also the question of how are they sure this stranger wandering into town actually is a Paladin.
Right, but at what distance, on that flat plain does that human sized form go from "Can't see it at all" to "might miss" to "are aware of"?
And does it make sense that whatever those distances are, the ones for the colossal dragon are only 80' farther?
Weren't all the d20s like this back in the early days. You were supposed to color one set of numbers with a crayon and those would be the 10s.
I may still have one somewhere.
The only way those make any sense at all is if it's assumed that anyone not actively being stealthy will be automatically seen at the "encounter distance". No Perception roll needed. Otherwise, the roll does essentially nothing.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Stealth doesn't apply to encounter distance, only to Perception checks. :)
But yeah, pixie might have been a bad example. It was just the first tiny critter that came to mind. Substitute your preferred Tiny creature.
As Hitdice pointed out earlier, you roll based on the terrain for "encounter distance". Strangely, it apparently makes no difference whether the creature you're encountering is a tiny pixie or a colossal dragon. Starting encounter distance is the same.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Agreed about the Sun.I would dispute that the rules are only meant to cover a tactical battlefield. There's some level of thought to the strategic level as well.
At least in some games, you might want to be looking for things at a greater range than the standard hex map covers.
I'd say that even extended the size categories wouldn't be sufficient. Size penalties scale exponentially, distance scales linearly.
That's why the problem shows up with actual colossal sized at relatively short distances - well under a mile for example.
The simplest mechanical fix would probably be to have the Perception DC only go up one with each doubling of distance - possible after some base distance like 100' or so.
It's not a problem for me. I've never had an real issue with it and would be completely happy handwaving most of this stuff away.
I am however happier if the rules make sense and I don't have to handwave things away. And it's not just "encounter distance", since not everything in my games breaks down into encounters. You might be trying to spot something at a distance or some other kind of scouting and there's no reasonable mechanical way of resolving it.
Plus I'm amused by this kind of mechanical weirdness.
Matthew Morris wrote:
There are certain stories that should just be left to stand alone.Watchmen was a story. The story was done and should have been left. There was no need to bring those characters back and let other people try to use them.
But when do they apply?
For any thing you might perceive, there is going to be a distance at which it's automatic, you can't possibly miss it and a distance at which you can't perceive it at all. There's also going to be some distance in between at which you might or might not perceive it. That distance is where the skill check applies and according to the rules, regardless of what the target is or how far away it is, the gap between those two is 200 feet - You detect it even if you roll a 1, then 200' farther away you can't see it even with a 20.
In the original Watchmen?
Creating life, certainly. Though I thought of it more as "Going to barren planet and creating new life there", rather than "Creating new universe".
Specifically creating the DC universe? Never crossed my mind. I'd be shocked if that's what Alan Moore had meant.
I'm not sure of the mistake. I get that you can handwave it away (And honestly I'm fine with that a lot of the time.)But if the argument is that the rules work just fine, then you have to make a rules argument.
I'll accept the encounter distance by terrain rules, but those seem to me to produce similarly absurd results, since they're apparently independent of the normal obvious modifiers - such as size.
Are there other ways to sense something in game that would apply? Under the actual rules.
Mind you, I've played plenty of other games, many of which have very different, if not always more complete or logical ways of sensing things. But we're discussing PF rules here.