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

thejeff's page

Pathfinder Society Member. 21,868 posts (22,789 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 2 Pathfinder Society characters. 8 aliases.


1 to 50 of 5,300 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rhedyn wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Rhedyn wrote:

LG may prohibit buying and owning slaves from the good angle.

You would have to respect the life of a slave and its dignity without oppressing them.

One problem is that you would have to free any slave that asks for freedom unless you knew that slave would harm others.

In which case it's not slavery.

If your premise is slavery = bad then obviously anything not bad is then not slavery.

I assumed we were dealing with legal slavery.

If you're called a "slave", but you're freed on request, that's not slavery. It's not involuntary.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Tectorman wrote:
thejeff wrote:
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."

When the game designer is allegedly designing a game, something that a participant should be looking forward to being involved in instead of cringing at the prospect, and the say that the designer wishes to have directly negatively impacts that basic principle, you're darned right.

Kind of like how it does no good to profess to design a car and then deliberately build it to not have a steering column or even wheels. If you wanted to build a giant paperweight, fine. Please do so. Just advertise it as such from the getgo.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
GM Rednal wrote:

From another view, though, deities could have reason to safeguard their faith and reject people who claim to be chosen but weren't. If people got the idea that supposed followers of such-and-such deity could be lying, they might be less inclined to trust them, which reduces the deity's influence and ability to act across-the-board. That one person's lies could have a ripple effect that ultimately caused harm to a whole lot of other people, and I can see how even good deities might have a problem with that... especially when they already went the nice route and sent a message (via personal courier) to try and resolve it peacefully.

Disrespecting deities of any alignment is not wise. Disrespecting them after they tell you to stop is just outright stupid. In my main roleplay, we refer to this as the "Stupidity Clause", which basically means that your characters are protected from arbitrary death at the hands of the GM unless they do something really, really dumb. XD

Yeah, but...

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
R_Chance wrote:
Several people up-thread have mentioned variations on "How do they know you're really a Paladin?". Probably because the real Paladins are going to cut you into little pieces if you're not... I doubt fake Paladins are going to get off easy. So, for awhile you fake it, word gets around and your head leaves your shoulders. And the next would be fake "paladin" considers a new scam.

I have made Paladins who would be royally cheesed off if a non-Paladin made the claim. Imagine, in real life, what would have happened if a non-knight ran around calling himself a knight.

Doing so undermines all Paladins and actively hampers their work. Characters that do this are intentionally doing it to tweak Paladins and players do it for similar reasons.

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?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
BackHandOfFate wrote:

The Paladin Thread Train (PTT)(TM) is just getting warmed up! Lets get this party really going. Time to crack open a dictionary!

Define Authority: 1. the power or right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience.

It seems some are sticking to the latter portion of this definition, claiming that only official recognition by existing authority figures grants one authority. This is not the case.

A Balor can teleport into a small town and say "I'm in charge". Was he elected Mayor of this boondock town? Nope. Is some ignorant yokel going to brazenly stroll up to him, point his crooked finger at the Balor and say. "Now wait juuust a cotton pickin second, mister. Y'all gotta be a citizen of this here small town for a minimum of ten years an then run fer public office before y'all can start barkin orders at us town folk."? Maybe. Does that stop the Balor from using his power to enforce his will? NOPE. Thus, he has authority over the town by virtue of having the power to wipe it off the map with insignificant effort on his part.

By the same logic, a Paladin, who is likely more powerful than 99% of people in the known world even at low levels, DOES have the power to exert his will on others. He just doesn't do it in the same way a Balor would. A Paladin is a righteous harbinger of truth and justice. He is humble and tries to work WITH existing authority if their goals and his don't outright clash. He's not out to conquer and pillage, but to defend the weak against evil. The moral authority he possesses as a result of the lifestyle he chooses gives him power and respect, even if he isn't mayor of every town he strolls into.

The fact that 'ACTUAL' authority was used as a qualifier means nothing as I have now defined what authority ACTUALLY means. As for the "Well it depends on what your definition of 'Paladin' is.." argument...

In fantasy realms, words have definitions.. A Paladin isn't some rare sight that you only behold once every...

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.
Rules-default settings have plenty of moderately high level people around. Cause too much trouble, even in a good cause and you may wind up being taken care of.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tacticslion wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Tacticslion wrote:
KenderKin wrote:

If we want to use history as an example them the paladin is known and respected among the general populace

Orfamay Quest wrote:
[citation needed] <roll eyes>
First page, my dude.
Repeating a wrong statement will not make it less wrong. As you yourself pointed out -- "To be sure, the class features and mechanics don't really have anything like that associated with it."

I think you read an argument about class mechanics in a post I made that wasn't about class mechanics.

He said "if we want to use history" and in history people called "paladin" we're known and respected among the general populace. That one isn't about mechanics.

Definitely known and respected.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jane "The Knife" wrote:

“I will accept any rules that you feel necessary to your freedom. I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.”

― Robert A. Heinlein, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress

“That we were slaves I had known all my life--and nothing could be done about it. True, we weren't bought and sold--but as long as Authority held monopoly over what we had to have and what we could sell to buy it, we were slaves.”
― Robert A. Heinlein, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tacticslion wrote:
thejeff wrote:
As The Sword said: What do you do when the person runs away or refuses to work?

In our kingdom's case, they are fined for the exact amount they were compensated for when they sold themselves in the first place.

If they lack the funds to do that (say, because they were somehow in debt in the first place due to poor decisions prior), then something is worked out akin to what would have happened if they were unable to pay their original debts, but those debts have now been transferred to a new entity.

Because they are a person, they are treated as a person - that means that if they should fail to live up to the responsibilities that they chose to place upon themselves, the penalties for defaulting on those responsibilities are the same as the penalties for defaulting on similar responsibilities.

"I took the money and spent it all, but refuse to work for it, also I've left." is a crime because you took something from someone on false pretenses - you've become, in effect, a thief.

If there is any abuse going on of the slaves in question; that, of course, is different. Whether or not something counts as abuse is directly related to the "decency treatment" (colloquial term, not official) laws that govern ordinary behavior between people. So, you know, don't be a jerk and show respect to others: no stealing, vandalism, harming, etc. except under justified circumstances (most often that of "self defense" or similar).

Then again, given that slavery is a voluntary, specific, and limited term state (unless something explicit is worked out on behalf of the slave and owner somehow), compensation goes to the slave, and they have treatment as "living persons" just as all do; abuses should be rare and it's less like "slavery" as most people are used to it.

Also, due to free education, basic mandated charity, and a limited regulation of certain economic functions, average lifestyles are pretty easy to come by; so slavery itself should be rare.

I've got a lot of problems with real world debt slavery, but it's probably possible to make it work in fantasy. :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Sword wrote:

I don't think anyone is suggesting that the party sets themselves as an alternative law enforcement agency.

Karl the baker says his daughter was kidnapped and the adventuring party tracks her down to the cult meeting in the cellars beneath a local inn, killing several of them and rescuing the daughter. The party aren't stepping on anyones jurisdiction because that is not what a Town Watch did.

Local authorities that investigate and 'solve crimes' as we know it did not exist except the rarest cases until the modern police force evolved in the 19th C. The closest widespread example I can think of were the witch hunters that tracked down and investigated those accused how narrow spectrum of criminality this was and they were often funded by religious institutions and private individuals.

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.
They may delegate problems to wandering adventurers, which is a common RPG trope, but they may also not be well disposed to such outsiders coming in and stirring up trouble, even in the name of "justice".


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Aberzombie wrote:
ShinHakkaider wrote:

It's not like this hasn't been done before...

Or even EARLIER by Jack Kirby HIMSELF HERE

Interesting point. I wonder if those writers gave interviews stating this was the real Cap. Not brainwashing, or a clone, or a shapeshifter, etc.

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.
Not mind you, that they are but they'll retcon it away when it isn't popular, but the intent all along is for it to not be the real truth.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hitdice wrote:

A radio show I listen to, The Takeaway, just did a piece on the fan reaction. One poor fan kept talking as if he was severely unhappy living in a world where Steve Rogers was hydra double agent. Like, severly unhappy. I was all, "You poor kid, I'm sure it will all be fine in six months."

He sounded like an adult, but I'm calling him kid; what can I tell you, I'm one of those annoying people who would rather read a comic by a writer/artist I like than a comic about any specific character.

That's pretty much it. I follow writers. Some writers on anything. Some if they're doing a character or concept I find interesting.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ventnor wrote:
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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ventnor wrote:
BackHandOfFate wrote:

What's all this now?

"You Don't Have Any Actual Authority, Just Because You're A Paladin"

False.

Paladins have MORAL authority because they hold themselves to such a strict code of ethics. That may not give them title or the right to lawfully govern. But it does give them power. Even if they aren't an elected or appointed official, people will often look to them for guidance because they know a Paladin isn't out to screw them. Even elected officials will seize the opportunity to enlist the aid of a Paladin for the same reasons. They aren't just some random mercenary. They are always noble, altruistic, and HONEST. No other profession can claim the same high standards unless it has a similar code of conduct.

I don't really like this line of reasoning, honestly. Life experience has taught me that the people who boast about their own righteousness the loudest are often the most corrupt.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Palinurus wrote:

The heart of this discussion is, I think, I really interesting topic and (although I think I mostly disagree with the original poster) I'm glad they set out their position. Ultimately the correct answer depends on how you want to run your game.

When I run games set in fantasy worlds like Golarion I draw on my understanding of real world (European) history as an inspiration. Although I'm not a historian my reading is that religious and secular authorities had a complex and intriguing relationship. Members of the clergy had authority that derived from temporal, political, moral and in many case legal power. Canon law is the most obvious example, but even without a separate legal system being invoked there is no reason to think that an established church could not have huge latitude in how it conducted its affairs and how it interacted with the rest of the world.

So in my games a cleric or paladin could most definitely have legal authority in some situations - certainly when dealing with church matters (provided that the church in question was recognised or respected in that region). Several churches (Abadar, Sarenrae etc.) in Golarion would - in my view - have powers in relation to civil or criminal law within their remit - especially outside major cities. Exercising that authority is a little different from real history because there will often be more than one 'church' and because of the risk of divine intervention if a paladin or cleric doesn't behave appropriately.

Real history is a lot weirder in this regard than you might think. The poet Ben Jonson once killed someone in a duel, was charged with manslaughter, having sufficient scholarship to recite a bible verse managed to get tried under a form of canon law and escaped serious punishment (well, he was branded, but only on the thumb).

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Charles Scholz wrote:
Aberzombie wrote:
Thomas Seitz wrote:
Harley isn't loathsome! She's just misunderstood!

Sorry, but I have always and shall forever despise the character. Blame the voice casting they started out with. It tainted my feelings for Harley for all eternity.

Same with Damien. Morrison's early characterization of him as an arrogant little punk has forever made me loathe the little s+*%.

I thought Talia hid Damien from her father by giving him over to the League of Assassins. This would warp anyone's psyche.

I'm not a big Batman fan, so my understanding of Damien is what I have seen here and there and may not be full or correct.

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.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Charon's Little Helper wrote:


And this goes back to the trustworthiness of a paladin. If it's a paladin who did it, the local guard will likely default into siding with them. Because... paladin!

No more so than the local guard will side with the sorcerer, because... sorcerer!

Not really the same thing at all. False comparison. Sorcerers aren't known to be beacons of truth, justice, and the Lawful Good way.
And nor are paladins, which is the central point.

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.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
Thieves in a market can expect mob justice.

What is described, though, is not "mob justice."

There's a reason that the "hue and cry" is so-named. One of the key aspects of the hue and cry is that you announce ("Stop, thief!") what you're doing so that everyone knows in advance what's going on and understands why you're pursuing someone -- and, incidentally, is also around to witness what is going on. (Canny thieves would take advantage of this by starting a hue and cry against an innocent person as a distraction.)

If you just all of a sudden chase through the market and start attacking two children, that's not a hue and cry. You forgot the cry. And, for that matter, the hue -- which is just an old French word meaning "shout." (A lot of common law legal terminology is like that; it's a combination of a French word and a Germanic word, so that both the French speakers and the English speakers of the 13th century would understand what was going on.)

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.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Set wrote:
Greylurker wrote:
A big part of DC and Rebirth in particular seems to be the idea of Legacies. Heck it's what got me reading JSA in the first place.

That, for me, was the biggest appeal about DC. I was a huge fan of the Wolfman/Perez Teen Titans from the '80s, and other 'legacy' groups like Young Justice and Infinity, Inc. (And the Legion, who were kinda/sorta of a Superman legacy, at the beginning of their career, but evolved into something far bigger.)

While Marvel seemed to be so strongly focused on their 50 year old 'starting characters,' such as Spider-Man and Iron Man and Thor and Dr. Strange and the Fantastic Four, DC was, IMO, bravely forging ahead, and turning 'Batman's sidekick' into a team leader and solo hero in his own right, as Nightwing. New characters were emerging and replacing older heroes like the dead Barry Allen/Flash and the died-and-became-the-Spectre Hal Jordan/Green Lantern, and that was pretty cool, to see 'Kid Flash' step up and become the new Flash, and 'new guys' John Stewart and Kyle Rayner take up the Green Lantern mantle. Even newer characters like Tim Drake/Robin and Bart Allen/Impulse were taking over the 'kid hero' or 'sidekick' roles left behind, and PADs Young Justice was amazingly fun.

And then they backslid, hugely, and Didio kept nattering on about how he didn't 'get' Dick Grayson and wanted to kill him off, and Barry Allen came back to life as an inexperienced buffoon that his teammates mocked, and Hal Jordan came back to life as a juvenile frat-boy, and Wonder Woman was 'new to man's world' again, and Superman was kind of emo and angry all the time, while at Marvel, Quesada had similarly weird things to say about a married adult Spider-Man being 'unrelatable' and wanting to One More Day him back into being an unmarried and 'younger' sort of person. Ugh.

For Marvel, that seemed to be kind of par for the course, even if One More Day was more appalling than the normal course, but for DC, I felt like they were crapping all over their strongest...

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Norman Osborne wrote:
Set wrote:
since all the glorious snark and attitude that makes comic book Hawkeye such a fun character has been surgically removed and added to RDJ's version of Tony Stark
I'm worried this will happen to Spidey as well. ESPECIALLY since they've decided to shoehorn Stark into the Spider-Man movie.

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.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

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 ...


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:


Lastly, I off-load some of that creative burden onto my players. I'll even be blunt and tell them I don't have anything prepped. Then, when they ask me a question about an NPC, location, object, etc... I turn the question back around on them. I usually add something as well. For example:

Player: Is there a magic shop in town?
Me: Yes. You find it in a quiet part of town, something about the shop seems really off to you. What about the shop unnerves or creeps your character out?

As the player starts describing stuff, I take a moment to absorb what they're saying and prep an idea or two for myself. I once ran a 16 hour game over 3 days basically using that technique (combined with some generic prep and some other techniques), both players and I had a blast.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Claxon wrote:

There are possibly orders of paladins, in much the same way there were orders of knights (which were the inspiration for the class).

Actually, there's probably like some sort of signifier for each religious order's paladins when they go through paladin school. Paladins do require some training after all, don't they?

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.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Hrothdane wrote:

I resisted the temptation. I'm not going to play into their victim complex. I take comfort in knowing that the bigots are getting loud because we are making progress.

On the plus side, some people I know are organizing a pro-LGBT, feminist, pro-social justice event at the same time as the event elsewhere on campus.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TOZ wrote:
captain yesterday wrote:
Anyone can do it.
Don't know as I believe that.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Jhar226 wrote:

Is this a serious issue that people have? I mean...really. This is the first time I've ever heard of seeing the sun being a problem.

Look outside. Assuming it is daytime and you have a window in your house with no trees blocking it, you can see the sun. Pathfinder works no differently. The only check you have to make is lifting your head.

No. It's not actually a real issue.

It's a reductio ad absurdum example of a real issue.

No, it's not. It's a joke. There is no real issue—in reality, the sun probably has huge penalties to avoid being seen due to its light source and additional bulk.

The reason this thread stops being fun is that people feel the need to act like it proves something.

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.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jhar226 wrote:

I've read enough of the thread. It's an absurd conclusion to come to however.

If there's something that's big (even Huge sized) flying high in the sky, I'd say people would probably notice it just like they notice planes in the sky. Handwaving a ridiculous issue like this doesn't cause any problems in game other than the problems created by the people who think this is an issue.

"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?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jhar226 wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Jhar226 wrote:

Is this a serious issue that people have? I mean...really. This is the first time I've ever heard of seeing the sun being a problem.

Look outside. Assuming it is daytime and you have a window in your house with no trees blocking it, you can see the sun. Pathfinder works no differently. The only check you have to make is lifting your head.

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 is a problem if you want to use Perception to spot things more than a short distance away.

"Reductio ad absurdum"

The only absurd thing is the point of the thread's point. If this is to show the rules don't work, you're picking a really poor point to argue. Because of course you can see the sun. And before you continue to argue the rules, let me ask you. What GM has made this an actual problem? Not some rules lawyer seeking to prove "Pathfinder is broken! I have proof!", an actual GM.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jhar226 wrote:

Is this a serious issue that people have? I mean...really. This is the first time I've ever heard of seeing the sun being a problem.

Look outside. Assuming it is daytime and you have a window in your house with no trees blocking it, you can see the sun. Pathfinder works no differently. The only check you have to make is lifting your head.

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 is a problem if you want to use Perception to spot things more than a short distance away.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
ElyasRavenwood wrote:
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.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Claxon wrote:
But this proves the point being made. A paladin in Cheliax is treated with mistrust and suspicion, as the government knows he is opposed to their purpose at some point. Maybe not in the exact action they're doing now (because they're both lawful) but at some point they're going to be opposed to one another.

Yes and no.

The Cheliax government will be wary of the paladin, but that's not the same as mistrust.

If the paladin straight-up vows that he is not there to mess with the government or its citizens while he is visiting their nation, they will believe him despite being opposed to him. Why? Because he's a paladin.

Paladins are so trustworthy that both their allies and enemies trust them. Now, their enemies will also trust that the paladin will oppose them; but they will still trust his word.

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.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

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.
I don't think anyone who'd read Alan Moore's earlier stuff back then would have said "a genre he obviously didn't like", for example. And deconstructing superheroes was a new and different approach - at least anything as mainstream and radical as Watchmen. Or Dark Knight, which came out around the same time.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Saldiven wrote:
KenderKin wrote:
wynterknight wrote:
@KenderKin: None of that actually has anything to do with actually having secular authority. Just because you're on a mission from god doesn't mean the local government has to actually grant you any legal authority.

Are those actually separate things in a fantasy world? Or are you also making more assumptions....

They're quite separate things if the Paladin is operating in a realm that venerates a different god more highly than the Paladin's patron. The more different the two, the less likely the Paladin will be granted any legal authority. Heck, if they're different enough, the Paladin may be the criminal by his/her mere presence.

Some random Paladin wandering into Cheliax and attacking people for consorting with devils isn't likely to fare well. :)


3 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:

It's fine, generally, for the Sheriff to ignore the Paladin or refuse him/her access to a crime scene.

The Paladin, also, should ignore the authority of the Sheriff if the Sheriff can't or won't do the job.

Any Sheriff who has half a brain would never dismiss a Paladin though. To do so could easily equate to political suicide.

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.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
dragonhunterq wrote:

The spectator is also aware of both the batter and pitcher.

Anyway, some ball park figures.
Assuming a flat plain the horizon is just over 3 miles away. The higher up your are and the fewer obstacles in your way the further you can see. If you are lower down or there are obstacles...

Under ideal conditions you can make out a human sized form at about 2 miles away or so. much further away and it just appears as a dot. The bigger the object, the further away it can be and still be distinguishable.

Identifying facial features tops out at 150-200 feet. At 500' the head is just a blob.

Perception is for identifying fine details and noticing things you might miss. Not for seeing something you are already aware of.

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?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tacticslion wrote:

Exactly. There are rules, but they don't really work either within themselves or for what they're trying to achieve. And the implications of Perception rules (but not the rules themselves) apply rather directly to things beyond tactical ranges.

Terrain.

Nothing in aquatic.
Beach maximum: 6d6x20 -> 720. (Still can't notice a visible creature that far; 4d6x10 -> 240 on rocky beach.)
Bog/Marsh/Swamp maximum: 6d6x10 -> 360. (Within "reason" - DC 36 - but fireball still has a minimum starting distance farther than that.
Desert maximum: as beach.
Forest maximum: 3d6x10 -> 180. (Hey! That's crossbow range! 2d6x10 -> 120 in dense forest.)
Hills maximum: 2d10x10 -> 200. (Works for some, but a loooooot of ranges are needless.)
Mountainous maximum: 4d10x10 -> 400. (DC 40 to see, but at least that fireball can come in handy?)
Outer Space maximum: no information.
Plains maximum: 6d6x40 -> 1,440. (HOLY CRAP. DC 144 to notice. Good luck! But that fireball distances is reasonable!)

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Tacticslion wrote:

But what about a non-hidden archer coming down the road? There is a point at which you can't see him, and a point at which you can? At what point is that?

Does it change if it's a prairie? Hills? Desert? Flat or hilly lands?

(Yes. But the rules rarely make sense of that.)

Officially?

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.

Actually it does. The Pixie has a far better size stealth modifier than the colossal dragon. And that doesn't even factor in the Pixie quality you forgot to mention... it's permanent natural invisbility.

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.
The point is that the size modifier doesn't matter, because you're not going to make a Perception check at 1400' (-140!). Either the terrain rules for encounter distance mean you automatically perceive any non-Stealthy creatures at the rolled distance or they don't mean anything at all, since you can't make a Perception check against a base DC 0 non-Stealthy creature even with a colossal size penalty.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tacticslion wrote:

But what about a non-hidden archer coming down the road? There is a point at which you can't see him, and a point at which you can? At what point is that?

Does it change if it's a prairie? Hills? Desert? Flat or hilly lands?

(Yes. But the rules rarely make sense of that.)

Officially?

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:

The rules are meant to cover situations on a tactical war-gaming battlefield.

I think that it can be safely said that for most games, the Sun itself will not be a tactical element nor player, even if it's sunlight can make things inconvenient for certain creature types.

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.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Malwing wrote:

You know the only reason why RAW seeing the sun doesn't work is because nobody bothered to make size rules past colossal size. I was having similar problems just now because I've been trying to find out exactly how big the Tarrasque is to solidify some house rules. Personally I think once it's past double 64-128ft then the monster should have some environmental rules so that you can interact with it as if it were not a creature sometimes (climb it like in Shadow of the Colossus.)

But anyways, if you extrapolate the size data to determine what penalties the sun would have then you can totally see the sun. In fact the fact that it sheds light makes the penalty irrelevant enough to scorch your eyeballs.

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.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Hitdice wrote:
thejeff wrote:

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.
Or you ignore the rules and spread the distance penalties out somehow.

theJeff, not to put you on the spot, but why is randomly generated encounter starting distance such an issue for you? Have you been continuously screwed by your GM deciding you weren't aware of the encounter before you were at negative hit points or something?

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TOZ wrote:
I'm going to start requiring players to roll Perception checks to hear their comrades speak.

How far away are they?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Morris wrote:

I find it interesting and potentially worth reading. That one of the characters from the first 'real' grimdark deconstruction is responsible for the grimdark DC is poetic to me. That is gives us Wally back, even if we have to deal with GunLantern and deviate from Earth 19's aqualad is a worthy trade off. That we have new Titans as a result is a bonus.

As to what Alan Moore thinks.... I rate his opinion on what to do with Watchman characters about s highly as I rate Liefield's views on Shatterstar. Less, since he doesn't have a leg to stand on *cough*LXG*cough*

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.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
dragonhunterq wrote:
pauljathome wrote:
dragonhunterq wrote:

Sometimes you lot make my brain hurt with your ridiculousness.

You only need a perception check for something you have a chance to miss.
You can miss the sounds of battle from a few hundred feet away, but you can certainly see it at many times that distance on an open field.

And whether you need a perception check is entirely within the purview of the person that determines every single element of the environment - the GM.

So you agree that the GM should just make up the rules since the existing rules are insanely bad?

Nope, rules are fine as is. There is a difference between making up rules and deciding when the rules actually apply.

The perception rules are not created or designed to determine every single thing you can see or hear. They function for what they are designed for just fine. If you and/or your GM routinely misapply the rules that is not a problem with the rules.

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.
Or you ignore the rules and spread the distance penalties out somehow.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

<nods>
<waits expectantly>


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hitdice wrote:
thejeff wrote:

None. Which is why it's the reductio ad absurdem example, but the basic problem of linear perception is real.

The encounter distances do help, though I'd say they're equally unrealistic - as you suggest. The longest I saw was plains - max of 1440' (6d6*40). At which point you're never going to be able to see it anyway.
I guess you just roll the encounter distance and say you spot it 6d6*40 = 800 feet away whether it's a colossal titan or a tiny pixie.
Unless it's using stealth, in which case you start from there applying the usual Perception rules.
I think the mistake here is assuming that a Perception check is the only way to sense something in game. This point of view is no doubt influenced by my move to 5e, which is infinity times less granular in its skill rules.

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.

1 to 50 of 5,300 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2016 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com 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.