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. 21,834 posts (22,755 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 2 Pathfinder Society characters. 8 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 21,834 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

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.


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.


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.


Charon's Little Helper wrote:
thejeff wrote:


Now if they're high-born kids or otherwise connected, it might be a different story.
Though at that point, how likely are they going to be stealing bread anyway?

Pranks?


Orfamay Quest wrote:
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
You were hosting a banquet and needed six more servers, four dancing girls, two musicians, and three cooks? Most of the time, they would have been hired slaves. You arrived in a strange city and need to rent a villa for a few weeks? It probably either came with slaves owned by the (absent) landowner, or you hire staff for that period of time (and the staff are probably all someone's slaves).
Would the slaves have gotten the bulk of the $? If not - it would be more like renting them.
.... as is true of any temporary employment. What do you think happens when you call Manpower today and say "I need six more servers, four dancing girls, two musicians, and three cooks"? The bulk of the money still goes to the slaveowner contracting agency.

OTOH, hiring slaves from such an organization means you're not controlling their treatment of the slaves or how they became slaves or any of the other circumstances we've been saying might move slavery out of the evil category.


Aberzombie wrote:

An interesting aspect of this discussion I hadn't thought of, until I saw it mentioned in a random comment on some article....

What would the two men who created Captain America (Simon and Kirby) think of making Steve Rogers a near life-long member of an organization so heavily associated with Nazis. It'd be interesting to hear their perspective.

I'm sure they'd despise it, if that is actually the full story arc.

Having done their own stories that involved misleading the readers for a time, I suspect they'd want to see where the story was actually going before leaping to judgement.


1 person 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.


Given that he specifically cited examples right before your bolded line, I thought it was pretty clear.
"ometimes violent knee jerk reaction that's been happening for the past day or so."
"when rabid fans threatened the life of writer Ron Marz and his then toddler daughter"
"bile thrown at Marvel for"

then afterwards: "When I saw on Twitter that people were reacting so violently to this Captain America issue"


Greylurker wrote:
to be fair Convergance made Crisis never happen..apparently...it happened off panel so we never really got to see it happen, we were just kind of told that Superman, Supergirl, Flash and Paralax managed to do it and that the Multiverse was whole again.

Still affected stories at the time.

Basically no one has any idea what actually happened in the past of the current DC Universe, including the writers, and hasn't since Crisis. I hate reboots.

Write good stories now. Don't worry about weirdness from decades ago.


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.


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.


Envall wrote:
Now I am intrigued to figure out Lawful Good slavery.

On some level, in a society living fairly close to the subsistence level, everyone had to work. If you needed to punish someone by imprisoning them, you still needed them to work, since you couldn't support the extra mouths.

On that level, LG slavery for punishment might work.

OTOH, that's also why punishments in such societies tended to not involve confinement, but more corporal approaches. Execution, flogging, cutting off hands, etc.

OTGH, most RPG fantasy worlds, including Golarion, tend not to be so close to edge of subsistence and often have much more modern systems than classic medieval or earlier societies.


Set wrote:
The *fact* that Black Widow, who arrived *eleven years* into the Avengers comic book, was a 'founding' cinematic Avenger, as opposed to an actual super-powered founding Avenger, like the Wasp, or one of the next generation, the Scarlet Witch, annoyed me, but I love what they've done with the character in the Avengers movie, and in Winter Soldier, in particular. (Her intro in Iron Man 2 was also pretty darn cool.)

She may not have officially joined until the 70s, but she was a frequent ally back in the fairly early days of Caps Kooky Quartet, thanks to her relationship with Hawkeye.

So, somewhere around '66?


Scythia wrote:

Does any hero ever die permanently in comics?

I wouldn't expect the movies to be that different.

No. There are only heroes who haven't come back yet.


Irontruth wrote:

You don't like my solution. Got it.

Anything else?

Not really. What were we trying to solve anyway? Something about railroading? :)

I didn't intend this much of a derail. Sorry if it came out harsher than I'd meant. It's a good technique. Worth bringing up. Works for a lot of people.


Klara Meison wrote:

And what if they don't want your freedom? People growing up in the modern world often forget that for a long, long time serfdom was a thing, and nobody complained. Hell, when they tried to disband serfdom in Russia, peasants were like "Yeah, thanks, but no thanks, I would rather stay with my lord who protects me and knows how to balance the economy of our village, because I sure as f~*% don't, and neither do I want to learn how"

Not every slave wants their freedom, and not every owner is a horrible person.

It's possible, of course.

It seems to me that the thing to do to account for that is to offer the slave freedom on decent terms - not "You're free to leave and starve" - and make it clear that the offer remains open. And then treat them like an employee.

Regardless of the legal situation, a slave who's really free to leave whenever they want isn't actually a slave at all.

I also suspect the situation with Russian serfdom wasn't as simple as you make it seem. Which attempt? What terms?


Davia D wrote:
If you were separating them from a cruel master, and they were not in a situation where it'd be safe for them to be free (i.e. they'd be re-enslaved), and it was temporary, I could see it... but really, even there it should be more, "I'm freeing you and want you to work for me. We'll maintain the charade til I can deposit you somewhere safe."

In that case, treat them like a free person - give them agency: "I'd suggest maintaining the charade until we reach the border where you'll be safe, but if you want to head off on your own now, that's your choice."


Irontruth wrote:
thejeff wrote:
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.

Me: Have you tried Indian food? Some of it's really good.

Complainer: I tried it once, didn't like it.
Me: Just once? And you formed a complete opinion on it?
Complainer: Yep.
Me: But you were just complaining that you wish you could try new foods...
Complainer: Yup, I want to try new foods, but I don't like new foods.

Did I say I've only tried it once?

I can do it. I can put up with it. In limited doses. It's far from the worst thing I've run into gaming.
But I know I don't like it. Done enough, it breaks immersion in a way I find it hard to recover from.
I've been playing RPGs for close to 30 years with many GMs in many systems. I've actually got a pretty good idea what I like.

I'm also well aware that tastes vary and that what works for one person might not for another. Something you might do well to keep in mind.

And Indian food is great. But I still don't like beans, no matter how many times people offer them to me.


Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:
In the setting, keeping slaves is neutral on the good-evil axis as long as one is not cruel to them. Buying slaves from a slaver who captures innocent people and forces them into slavery would be an evil act, however, unless done with the intention of freeing the slaves. If the slaves in question are criminals who were put into slavery as a punishment, or people who were in debt and willingly sold themselves into slavery to pay it off, or actually indentured servants whose contracts end after a certain amount of time or value generated by labor, that would not be evil and could even be a good act under certain circumstances.

So how do you keep the slaves enslaved without treating them badly? What do you do if they try to run away? Or just not follow orders?

I suppose you can personally keep your hands clean and not treat them so badly if you have the threat of selling them to a worse master or can rely on the legal system to hunt down escapees.

Individual exceptions may be possible, but the system has to be evil, because you can't keep it going with personal or institutional cruelty.

Edit: Meant to add, criminals who would need to be kept confined anyway are a different story, as long as the laws punishing them are just.
Indentured servitude and debt slavery are greyer areas. Could be okay, with sufficient limitations and protections.


Freehold DM wrote:

Oh come on.

Mashable? You're taking cues from mashable?

Please.

Just read the comic. Everything BEFORE the spoiler, not just a hastily written article by some hack. Let the storyline play out.

God.

I'd love to see the actual release from Marvel they quote. The bit they excerpt isn't in either of the links.


Charles Scholz wrote:

The Red Skull still has Professor Xavier's telepathic powers. Cap has probably been brainwashed.

Any number of ways to do "Cap is now working for (or appearing to work for) Hydra."

Harder to retcon it throughout Marvel history.

I will say that I'm about 95% sure that they won't revert Cap to being a good guy because everyone hates the concept, but that reverting Cap to a good guy (or revealing that he's still a good guy) is the plan from the beginning.

Just like they didn't bring back Peter Parker because everyone hated the Superior Spider-man, but because that was the plan all along. Or so many other story arcs over the years.


ShinHakkaider wrote:

I'm watching people have meltdowns on Twitter and threaten Nick Spencer with violence.

I have no patience for fanboys who have been reading comics FOR DECADES and yet apparently have no idea how this particular brand of serialized fiction works.

Was this a surprise and shock when I read this this morning? Yes. Have I gone all "GAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHH HAAAAAAAAAAAATE!!!!" Nope. Because now I'm curious to see where this story is taking us and I'm a Captain America fan. Something isnt RIGHT and now I want to know what it is. Is this the ramification of how he got rejuvinated via Kobik aka The Cosmic Cube? PROBABLY.

But the question I ask is how is this going to play out. It's literally the first chapter of a multipart story. Is it fair to drop a book after reading the first chapter? Sure, but youre not even close to being actually informed about the whole story.

People reacted the SAME EXACT WAY when Brubaker brought back Bucky as Winter Soldier or when Bendis killed of Peter Parker and gave us Miles Morales or when Dan Slott had Otto Octavius take possession of Peter Parker's body, or when Cap became NOMAD or CAP WOLF or...

I mean really, have people declaring this THE WORST THING EVER!!!! about this actually READ A SUPERHERO COMIC?

Well, if it really is "Steve Rogers has always been an undercover operative for Hydra" as the press release seems to claim, it'll be hard not make it decent. OTOH, I don't actually see a source with full context for that quote, so it could be misleading.

Good to hear Nick Spencer done some good stuff. That helps a bit.


Death should be rare and it should be an event. Much like it is in comics. Unlike comics, it shouldn't easily be reversed.

I'd rather see characters drop out of active use as actors move on or they get less popular, leaving them open to be recast and brought back at a later date. That's certainly preferable in my mind to killing characters off because of bad ratings or when they lose an actor. Death can raise the stakes for the movies, but not if it's too telegraphed - which it's likely to be in most of these cases: Iron Man and Cap are in danger, but we know Evans is signed for the next movie and Downey isn't? Guess who doesn't make it?


Rosgakori wrote:
Yeah, that might be true, but it does not take away it's stupid. Maybe they change it back (they most definitely will, since EVERYONE hates this) but this still is horrid and even insulting thing to do.

It's at least theoretically possible there's some clever story arc behind this. I'd be surprised if the actual intent is to really have Cap be and have been all along a Hydra agent.

How well they can pull it off is another question entirely.

Edit: What else has this Nick Spencer guy done? The name isn't familiar.


2 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 ...


Well, presidential politics will certainly have an effect on LGBT issues, but Trump deserves a flame war thread of his own.


Freehold DM wrote:
GreyWolfLord wrote:

I'm not sure if I'm worried about Trump or not.

I'm trying to phrase this so it's not seen as an attack on Trump.

Trump is known to not say what he actually believes in many instances, and instead says what he thinks his audience WANTS him to say.

In fact, in the past, Trump has shown himself to be EXTREMELY liberal in many areas. What's puzzling, is many things that he has stated during his presidential campaign are the exact opposite of what he's stated in the past.

Because of this, I think Trump is NOT saying what he is actually going to do, but what he thinks will get him the most attention and the most votes.

Personally, I'm more of a Bernie Sanders type of person, and if Hillary is smart, she'd make him her VP nominee (she won't, and he probably wouldn't accept even if she offered), I'd think that would be an unbeatable ticket.

Or even better, be Bernie Sander's VP!

However, on the issue of Trump, I don't think I'd want to vote for him, even knowing many of his political statements in the past are actually FAR MORE liberal than anything Hillary has said.

(Clinton is actually in some ways far more conservative than Trump would appear from the late 90s to around the time when Obama was elected).

To me, he has a bigger problem with honesty than Clinton does, and I don't feel that he has any respect for women in general except as things he can "own" from what he seems to proffer in his regards for them.

More than likely, if Sanders does not win the nomination (looking very likely), this is an election I'll sit out.

for the love of god, please don't do that.

Vote against the other guy if you have to. But vote.

Otherwise you will only get what you deserve.

And vote for your Senators and Reps and all the state and local offices.


hasteroth wrote:
Revan wrote:


Even were one to assume that the Chelaxian authorities were 100% certain they were dealing with a paladin, I imagine many of them might be of the opinion that the whole 'Paladin's Code' business is just good propaganda. Believing that someone *really* never lies might be too absurd for many evil characters.
Makes me think of the Aes Sedai from Wheel of Time. It was common knowledge that they could not tell a lie, could not create weapons, and could not use their power as weapons except to defend themselves and others. But not everyone completely believed this, many were rather skeptical of these oaths, some believed the oaths were just myths... Some in small towns believed the Aes Sedai were just myths...

And those who knew better knew that Aes Sedai were excellent deceivers despite not being able to tell a lie.


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.


Krensky wrote:
thejeff wrote:
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.

Not to mention he's quite likely going to be the first candidate to turn a profit 9n his campaign.

I love that his supposed "self-funding" that made him independent and not beholden to anyone was actually a loan to the campaign that he's now fund-raising to pay back. It really is brilliant in a way.


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.


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.

Why? Is calling yourself a paladin evil? Is it a crime? Is it sufficiently horrible to warrant summary execution?

More practically though, is Paladin actually a thing in the game world?
Does a Paladin serving a particular deity realize that she's actually somehow closer akin to paladins of a different deity than to even the more warlike priests of her own god? A paladin belonging to some particular organization may likely take offence at someone impersonating a member of that order, but that doesn't mean she'll care about impersonating paladins in general. Nor that everyone in her order is actually a paladin.

Do people know and discuss character classes?
Just Paladins or do we also know about all the other classes and probably multiclassing and all the other mechanical stuff?


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.


Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:
A Paladin of Sarenrae might let them go. Redemption, and all that.
True - if he truly believed them. I'm not saying that a paladin HAS to execute them. But he certainly can and retain his paladin status.

As long as they surrendered unconditionally - or were captured while helpless one way or another. If they surrender under conditions that they be allowed to live, the Paladin can't change those terms after the fact. Honor, lying, etc.

It's also worth noting that the Code for paladins isn't quite the same in PF as it was in Gary's day.


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.


Irontruth wrote:

The presence or absence of conflict is not a determining factor of sandbox vs. railroad. In fact, conflict is usually the centerpiece of a story, regardless of type (there are a few literary styles without conflict, but they aren't as common).

Something to consider, are you catering to the PC's (fictional people) or to players (you know, the other people at the table). I don't cater my games to the PC's, I cater my games to the players. I find out what they're interested in and build around that.

As a GM, I don't see the game session as a means to and expose my precious prep. Rather, I see my prep as the necessary work required to have my game session. I could give two s*!+s about my prep work as long as the session is fun. I'm willing to throw all my work out the window at the drop of a hat if the players lead me in another direction that seems fun, because that fun (for me and them) is more important than the notes I prepped.

I can always recycle my notes for something else in the future. I can't get back the time spent on the session right now.

It's not so much "Oh God I lost all the work" as "S%+#, what I had planned is gone. Now I've got to make something else up on the spot" (or possibly just before next session).

Obviously you need some ability to roll with the punches and improvise based on what the PCs do, but some GMs aren't as good without at least some of the prep work done up front.


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. :)


2 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.


Thomas Seitz wrote:

Honestly,

I think Alan Moore and the Watchmen comics weren't that great. Deconstructionism attempt to grapple with a genre he obviously didn't like. He really COULD have gone anywhere with it, but instead it felt like a rehash of "oh look this is alternate reality."

Just out of curiosity, did you read them Watchmen when it came out or years afterwards?


Norman Osborne wrote:
Ambrosia Slaad wrote:
Aberzombie wrote:

Regarding what looks to be the main villain.

** spoiler omitted **

I haven't read this comic yet, but they could've just as easily used a different universe-creating character:** spoiler omitted **
No, they can't use him, as he belongs to Marvel.

Did you read the rest of the spoiler you obviously read the first part of:

Spoiler:
"They could've just depicted him and his Fantastic parents without naming them, and thus, give nod to Marvel without invoking their legal wrath."

Both companies have done this from time to time. Not to rewrite the universe, but using the other's characters with the serial numbers filed off.

1 to 50 of 21,834 << 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.