Heroes murdering innocent children (that they were meant to rescue)


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

551 to 600 of 635 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>

Sakagamihime wrote:


I don't know enough about Paegin, but I assume as a BBEG, he's doing pretty nasty things, probably things that involve the destruction of whatever nearby village and even more dead children. Just attacking Paegin and his Gnolls while they were vulnerable with the knowledge that the kids were in trouble was a perfectly reasonable response. Perhaps not the best response depending on their spell array, but a perfectly reasonable, non-evil response.

The problem is from what we've been told that they didn't attack Paegin and his Gnolls with the kids as collateral damage, they attacked the kids using a spell that would almost certainly kill them while doing minimal damage to Paegin and the Gnoll's as collateral damage.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I've spoken with the paladin player. I wanted to get his view on the events, both in-game and out, but I didn't want him to get defensive due to the possibility of losing his paladin powers (which would then skew his answers and not do anyone any good).

So I asked him to recount the events of the bridge battle as he saw them, both in game and out, so that I could more accurately update our web site logs (which is true, though I did have ulterior motives).

Throughout his description, he made it quite clear to me that he knew the havoc Paegin could cause on his own. Hoping to keep Paegin from resorting to his tried and true area effect spells (either on the party or the children) he made distracting Paegin his top priority while the rest of the party took care of the other gnolls.

Looking back on it, his plan worked perfectly. Paegin spent all his time blasting the paladin with enervation, rather than blasting large groups of heroes/children. By the time Paegin was able to step over the paladin's unconscious body (having taken 8 negative levels and been struck in the back by at least three castings of scorching ray from the devils), the summoner had already summoned reinforcements (a pair of bralanai azata) to help finish Paegin off.

His concern was ALWAYS for the children (as well as for his allies).

Without any prompting he declared his condemnation of the summoner's actions, but with -8 levels and no hit points, he wasn't about to confront him on the matter just yet. At the start of our next game, it is extremely likely that he will turn the summoner over to Imperial Authorities or confess to the children's parents about what occurred and let them take action as they deem appropriate.

The fighter player has stated that, in game, he intends to defend the summoner's actions. It ought to make for some interesting roleplay, but I need to make sure it doesn't break out into true interparty conflict.

Another thing worth noting is that the fighter, summoner, and sorcerer are all national military heroes--the paladin, at best, is a local hero around their hometown (though the Emperor did erect a statue in his honor). How much weight his words might carry may very wildly depending on who he goes to or how he handles himself.

EDIT: I intend to talk to the summoner player before the next game so that he doesn't feel totally blindsided by this turn of events.


That...is seriously interesting!

Let us know how it pans out, please. I would say that the paladin's actions won't amount to much, as the children were rescued unharmed in the end. The summoner could just lie and say that he guessed the children on the bridge were illusions, the fighter could probably justify his support on the ruthless requirements of war.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Dabbler wrote:
The summoner could just lie and say that he guessed the children on the bridge were illusions...

The paladin is actually expecting this, and intends to have a zone of truth up during the confrontation.


Ravingdork wrote:
Dabbler wrote:
The summoner could just lie and say that he guessed the children on the bridge were illusions...
The paladin is actually expecting this, and intends to have a zone of truth up during the confrontation.

...because evil seldom understands that good can also be clever.


Liam Warner wrote:
The problem is from what we've been told that they didn't attack Paegin and his Gnolls with the kids as collateral damage, they attacked the kids using a spell that would almost certainly kill them while doing minimal damage to Paegin and the Gnoll's as collateral damage.

Was it the best AOE spell they had? I'm pretty sure RD was nice enough to post their entire spell list, so I could be wrong, but it seems to have worked.

Also, I hope it didn't happen because of KILL THINGS GET EXP syndrome. I've never DMed with EXP points before (it became more like, "I feel you did enough to get to lv x aka you need to be at level x for the next encounter, have a level").

Also, the Paladin confrontation sounds interesting. In all honesty, I like the idea of the truth getting out and the Court Mage becoming an enemy or something, but I don't think something like an alignment shift is necessary if they can ethically justify it, which I'm sure it can be.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Sakagamihime wrote:
...but I don't think something like an alignment shift is necessary if they can ethically justify it, which I'm sure it can be.

The path to evil is paved with good intentions (and also, evil intentions as well).


Diego Rossi wrote:
Robodruida wrote:

Really my last question on this post...

Did the mage or the Paladin make there saves vs. will? I'm assuming that a big dramatic negotiation would qualify as an interaction? Which illusion spell was it?

I think the more you spin this, the worse it looks. Talk to your gamers, find out where it stopped being fun for everyone, fix it, and enjoy.

Maybe you have missed it as it was said only a few times, but the kids being an illusion was a retcon to cancel the kid slaughter made by the black tentacles. The kids where the original thing during the 1 round negotiation with the BEEG (and not the kids, so no interaction with them too).

I'm sorry, i thought the negotiations would have lasted longer than 6 seconds.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

Not if it consisted of 'Surrender!' immediately followed by black tentacles.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Not if it consisted of 'Surrender!' immediately followed by black tentacles.

Ha, so very true!


I'm baffled at the fact than no one pointed out that the party had the right to make an knowledge arcana to recognize the illusion. The sorcer or the summoner could have seen trough this. Retconning after and then depriving them of the knowledge check is a double spit in the face of the players, especially if they are going to be trialed and this particular knowlwdge happen to be such meaningfull.

Anyway, i don't see this going on well. If the paladin is so ready to screw over his fellow mates, I will not be surprised if the other 3 will dump them on the road from now on, regardless of how the trial will end up (and it doesnt look bright for him). If the summoner is so evil as you describe him, he could even slice his troat during his sleep (my personal course of action in this cases).

Silver Crusade

Dekalinder wrote:

I'm baffled at the fact than no one pointed out that the party had the right to make an knowledge arcana to recognize the illusion. The sorcer or the summoner could have seen trough this. Retconning after and then depriving them of the knowledge check is a double spit in the face of the players, especially if they are going to be trialed and this particular knowlwdge happen to be such meaningfull.

Anyway, i don't see this going on well. If the paladin is so ready to screw over his fellow mates, I will not be surprised if the other 3 will dump them on the road from now on, regardless of how the trial will end up (and it doesnt look bright for him). If the summoner is so evil as you describe him, he could even slice his troat during his sleep (my personal course of action in this cases).

That's because it wasn't an illusion until the death blow was dealt. Changes were made in the middle of the battle in order to try and patch things over.


shallowsoul wrote:
That's because it wasn't an illusion until the death blow was dealt. Changes were made in the middle of the battle in order to try and patch things over.

Yes I knew it. But, as the DM backtracked the illusion, he should have also given the PC the possibility to backtrack their knowledge by given them the roll. Well, i guess if the pc haven't asked, bad for them.


My general feeling and ruling on illusion is that you do not get an auto save. you can take a standard action to try to disbelieve, at which point it is a will save, not arcana. Otherwise you have to touch it.

otherwise illusion would be so unbelievably worthless, if anytime you used it you just get to make a save.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

I don't think they would get a save until the black tentacles went into effect and did nothing to the children. They would have no reason to try and disbelieve until then.


This whole situation looks pretty simple.

Dm presents his pcs with a situation, tough though it may be. They make choices by the dictates of their own morality. DM fudged the situation and removed all accountability and choice thus removing the purpose of the game.

Let the players make their own decisions. At best it could be considered morally ambigious and I personally would not have an alignment shift at worst it was the characters admitting defeat.

So basically it was a judgment call. If you don't think your players are capable of such delicate moral situations, don't put them in them and run a hack and slash or whatever they are comfortable with.

Don't expect Shakespeare from Spongebob.


If you had an optimal output for the problem it's best to let people know what it is or have some way they can make rolls to figure out stuff the players would not figure out under stress. You really shouldn't punish players for not mind-reading the scenario.


James B. Cline wrote:


Don't expect Shakespeare from Spongebob.

I think Spongebob would be a delightful Edmund, or Silvius, Mercutio or Horatio actually.


Diego Rossi wrote:

More often than not medieval-like bridges are at the same or lower level that the banks of a river. High embankments were pretty rare and the land at the sides of a river did tend to be at higher level.
Only in the heavy regimented rivers of today you tend to have high embankments and bridges well above the banks of the river.

RD set up could be different, but I tend to visualize a bridge on a profound chasm as at a lower level than the surrounding forest.
Sure, the retconned kid visual was far from perfect but they could probably see or hear most of what was happening.

For what it's worth you are, judging from 2000+ years of Roman, pre medieval, Medieval and Renaissance bridges hereabout, wrong. Massively so, too.

Nearly all historic bridges with a significant span were built as upward arches, to facilliate traffic underneath (waterbound) or achieve stability and distribute the loads to the foundations at the end of the bridgespan, and usually with ramps leading up towards them, to counteract flooding/innudation and soft ground on the approaches. Nevermind erosion or seasonal flooding causig a depper, low lying obstacle with raised banks. The bridge described by the OP spans a "deep chasm",so there probably are no supports in the middle of the bridge span.... Single span 90' length arch.

Nevermind that 90' length free-spanning arches were almost unheard of until the late 18th century BC - the only one I know of is the famous bridge at Mostar, Bosnia, which was regarded as "wondrous" and unique in all of Europe and the Middle East up until the 17th century.

That being said, there is also nothing less reliable than an eyewitness, especially a stressed one, and an underage one to boot. They err 90%+ of the time ( I kid you not, no pun intended) , check some relevant judical or history-department studies if you like : There is nothing more detriminal to the truth than an eyewitness.
Ergo : the kids, if they were even aware of the proceedings in the first place, would be hopelessly confused, shocked, and contradictory what precisely happened in what order......and why would they be up to snuff and fully aware of the details of arcane magic, who exactly casted which incantation and when and on who in the first place ? Lying down and/or clumped together on the ground.
Is there a course "basic magic for villagers" offered for peasants in that particular realm ? Nevermind the smelly, growling Gnoll guards hovering over them with ready weapons.. which might just be ever so slightly distracting to an abducted young adult ?

Nevermind how the fighter could charge an enemy he according to the description could not even see (hence, no line of sight, hence no charge; p.198 ), hidden in darkness, and probably over cluttered ground (difficult terrain ).

There is also nothing - IMHO - more detriminal to a story, campaign or group coherency than a GM who intends to "punish" the players for chosing an alternate solution from his envisioned outcome. Especially one so one-sided and set-up as yours. Why would the BBEG know that the group of these particular heroes would show up just there and then ? What would have been the story if they had never shown their face at all ?

your mileage may of course vary

Silver Crusade

vikingson wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:

More often than not medieval-like bridges are at the same or lower level that the banks of a river. High embankments were pretty rare and the land at the sides of a river did tend to be at higher level.
Only in the heavy regimented rivers of today you tend to have high embankments and bridges well above the banks of the river.

RD set up could be different, but I tend to visualize a bridge on a profound chasm as at a lower level than the surrounding forest.
Sure, the retconned kid visual was far from perfect but they could probably see or hear most of what was happening.

For what it's worth you are very much mistaken Judging from 2000+ years of Roman, pre medieval, Medievval andrenaissance bridges bridges hereabouts )

Nearly all bridges with a significan span were built as arches, to facilliate traffic underneath (waterbound) or achieve stability and distribute the loads to the foundations at the end of the spridgespan, and usually with ramps leading towards them, to counteract flooding and soft ground on the approaches. Nevermind erosion or seasonal flooding.

Nevermind that 90' length free-spanning arches were almost unheard of until the 18th century - the only one I know of is the famous bridge at Mostar, Bosnia, which was regarded as "wondrous" and unique in all of Europe and the Middle East.

That beng said, there is nothing less reliable than an eyewitness, especially a stressed one, and underage to boot. They err 90%+ of the time, check soem relevant judical or history-department studies : There is nothing more detriminal to the truth than an eyewitness. Ergo : the kids, if they were even aware of the proceedings in the firstplace, would be hopelessly confused, shocked, and contradictory what precisely happened in what order......and why would they be up to snuff and fully aware of the details of arcane magic, who exactly casted which incantation and when and on who in the first place ? Is there a course "basic magic for villagers" offered for peasants...

Careful how much real life knowledge you place in a fantasy game. Bridge building could be something that was perfected on a fantasy type level. Also, if you are going to play a good or even a neutral type character then you need to stick with in those limits of the alignment. If you are going to choose Lawful Good and you know you are just going to turn evil then you need to let the DM know. If he plans a campaign around PC's that are good and you just start killing everything in sight and messing up the campaign just because you want to be evil then that's just being disruptive. Deciding to kill the children instead was not a planned goal from an "in game" point of view, it was apparently an out of character move from a player who is known to do this. RD did nothing wrong with the planning of his campaign. You can't sit there and say that a DM is doing it wrong because he won't let the PC's wreck a campaign.

I think a good many people really need to sit down and learn what it means to be able to "do what you want because it's about my fun" when in a campaign. You can't wreck a campaign and then use the "well it's all a part of my fun" excuse because that doesn't cut it. Everyone doesn't prefer to run the "sandbox" style games and most DM's are going to tell you if there is a 'theme" to the game they are running.


vikingson wrote:
That being said, there is also nothing less reliable than an eyewitness, especially a stressed one, and an underage one to boot. They err 90%+ of the time ( I kid you not, no pun intended) , check some relevant judical or history-department studies if you like : There is nothing more detriminal to the truth than an eyewitness.

Look to your history, and eyewitness accounts are held to be 100% accurate if the person doing the witnessing is saying what others wish to hear, and has the ear of somebody important. The Pendle and Salam witch trials were classic examples.

So a witness, no matter how misled, unseeing, and misunderstanding, could conceivably lead the entire party to the gallows, or be laughed off.


shallowsoul wrote:
...

not unless they invented steelbracing and rebarring or structural cabling on a scale comparable to the 19th century. Actually patented in 1867.

Which requires a degree of industrialization in tool-making, steel-production and engineering with multiple engineering discoveries, knowledge of scientific chemistry and an industrial base not reached in the real world until the (later) 19th century. Even in a steampunk campaign ( or Eberron one) this would be "cutting edge" technology. Nevermind the massive and expensive maintenance such an engineering marvel requires ( while an arched roman bridge does not )...

Sorry, industrial history just happens to be my professional purview^^ It may look cool and inspiring as fantasy art, but it does not structurally work out unless "serious magic" is involved. Which sounds unlikely on a backwater forest-road.


vikingson wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
...

not unless they invented steelbracing and rebarring or structural cabling on a scale comparable to the 19th century. Actually patented in 1867.

Which requires a degree of industrialization in tool-making, steel-production and engineering with multiple engineering discoveries, knowledge of scientific chemistry and an industrial base not reached in the real world until the (later) 19th century. Even in a steampunk campaign ( or Eberron one) this would be "cutting edge" technology. Nevermind the massive and expensive maintenance such an engineering marvel requires ( while an arched roman bridge does not )...

Sorry, industrial history just happens to be my professional purview^^ It may look cool and inspiring as fantasy art, but it does not structurally work out unless "serious magic" is involved. Which sounds unlikely on a backwater forest-road.

Does that assesment allow for gnomish unventishness and dwarven engineering skills?


Dabbler wrote:
vikingson wrote:
That being said, there is also nothing less reliable than an eyewitness, especially a stressed one, and an underage one to boot. They err 90%+ of the time ( I kid you not, no pun intended) , check some relevant judical or history-department studies if you like : There is nothing more detriminal to the truth than an eyewitness.

Look to your history, and eyewitness accounts are held to be 100% accurate if the person doing the witnessing is saying what others wish to hear, and has the ear of somebody important. The Pendle and Salam witch trials were classic examples.

So a witness, no matter how misled, unseeing, and misunderstanding, could conceivably lead the entire party to the gallows, or be laughed off.

Sure could. If there was a vested interest to sentence them. But aren't they "heroes of the realm", the white knights of choice for the realm's high mage, hence presumably in very good standing and with friends among the high and mighty ? Owed a number of favours by the realm's elite ? With considerable monetary resources and magic to defend their case ? A paladin, sworn to the gods of Law and Good amongst them ?

Just how many nobles have been indicted on the word of some peasant, children and young adults, especially ones probaby contradicting each other.... Who the heroes just saved from the claws and slobbering fangs of a gnoll horde and devillish outsiders....

What precisely would be the motivations to accuse and persecute the PCs be ? And No, I don't think their parents would ccue those who saved and returned their offspring from a terrible fate at the hands of a diabolist, his gnoll allies and some summoned fiends. There are a number of corpses after all.

Silver Crusade

vikingson wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
...

not unless they invented steelbracing and rebarring or structural cabling on a scale comparable to the 19th century. Actually patented in 1867.

Which requires a degree of industrialization in tool-making, steel-production and engineering with multiple engineering discoveries, knowledge of scientific chemistry and an industrial base not reached in the real world until the (later) 19th century. Even in a steampunk campaign ( or Eberron one) this would be "cutting edge" technology. Nevermind the massive and expensive maintenance such an engineering marvel requires ( while an arched roman bridge does not )...

Sorry, industrial history just happens to be my professional purview^^ It may look cool and inspiring as fantasy art, but it does not structurally work out unless "serious magic" is involved. Which sounds unlikely on a backwater forest-road.

Ever read about dwarven architecture and how great it supposed to be? I know it's fantasy but they have done things that couldn't be achieved in real life. Also, if a bridge in your game is designed to go down after one fireball then I'm afraid real world knowledge isn't going to help because the DM has decided that his bridge will fall.

Edit: Most things in fantasy defy the law of physics and I'm sure bridges do the same. I'm trained in martial arts and sometimes I raise my hand to say how they could not have happened but then I put my hand down and hold my comment because I remind myself that we are playing a fantasy game.


Considering level 3 clerics & druids have access to stone shape... they don't exactly need to have steel and rebar to make such a bridge.


vikingson wrote:
Sure could. If there was a vested interest to sentence them. But aren't they "heroes of the realm", the white knights of choice for the realm's high mage, hence presumably in very good standing and with friends among the high and mighty ? Owed a number of favours by the realm's elite ? With considerable monetary resources and magic to defend their case ? A paladin, sworn to the gods of Law and Good amongst them ?

... so they may well have made many enemies, then, who dislike the Johny-come-lately heroes stealing their thunder?

And yes, the word of a peasant is sufficient, if somebody with enough clout wants it to be.

Silver Crusade

Tarantula wrote:
Considering level 3 clerics & druids have access to stone shape... they don't exactly need to have steel and rebar to make such a bridge.

All the stone shape in the world does not make up for the inherent qualities of stone.

Reagardless, this is a fantasy game and I don't really care how the bridge was built. It exists because the empire needed it there.

It sounds like RD is actually taking the advice of the board and discussing this with his players. Let that shake out.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
CaspianM wrote:
If you had an optimal output for the problem it's best to let people know what it is or have some way they can make rolls to figure out stuff the players would not figure out under stress. You really shouldn't punish players for not mind-reading the scenario.

I am not punishing anyone here. I am merely having the world react logically to the player characters' actions. Do adventurers in your games get to murder people in full view of others and not have to deal with the authorities/repercussions soon after? Not if your a sensible GM.

I guess it's because this is the internet, where people find entertainment in picking apart every little detail in search of wrong-doing. After all, if there weren't a villain to verbally tar and feather, this all just becomes a boring discussion thread.

I warn you all: The devil is in the details.

Dekalinder wrote:
I'm baffled at the fact than no one pointed out that the party had the right to make an knowledge arcana to recognize the illusion. The sorcer or the summoner could have seen trough this. Retconning after and then depriving them of the knowledge check is a double spit in the face of the players, especially if they are going to be trialed and this particular knowlwdge happen to be such meaningfull.

Where in the rules does it say they would get such a check? It is my understanding that the only thing they would ever get is a Will save to disbelieve, and even then, only if they interact with it in some fashion (which in my games takes action expenditure of some kind).

I have not deprived them of anything, and I resent the accusation.


Liam Warner wrote:


Does that assesment allow for gnomish unventishness and dwarven engineering skills?

Sure does. Unless one changes gravity , thermodynamic laws, solid-state compositions and several other basic laws of nature^^.

Say, through chemical rections work differently when a Gnome is around ? and only then ? Golarion seemed to work according to most of our Universe rules last I checked, even such fantastic and mind-bending stuff as the Aroden Arch in Cheliax or the Starstone-cathedral in Absalom.

Last I checked, Golarions gnomes were adrenaline-junkie ex-feys anyway, not clockwrights straight from Zurich.

The problem is not to explain a fundamental difference away with "magic". The problems are the ramification of said "magical explanation". Fantasy worlds work best and coherently the less fundamental laws reality works under are changed.

None of the above furthers the OP's problem anyway, so let's not get too sidetracked or contentious, shall we ?


Ravingdork wrote:

I am not punishing anyone here. I am merely having the world react logically to the player characters' actions. Do adventurers in your games get to murder people in full view of others and not have to deal with the authorities/repercussions soon after? Not if your a sensible GM.

....
I have not deprived them of anything, and I resent the accusation.

They do.... "innocence" is a very relative term in a fantasy world, even in ours. Intentions and motives are complicated and often contradictory. The King might be very happy to have eliminated a competent "tactical genius" villain for the relaively low price of some "peasant brats".... He is an absolute ruler, his will and word is supposedly law and binding.

As for your particular case : I would have refrained from ret-conning the "murder" with an illusion. Upped the heat, put up some busy-body enemies/notroious-do-gooders to challenge the PCs version of the story, have them being haunted (or the bridge itself) by the spectral remains of the "innocent", until they made amends, or the "wicked" had been sufficiently chastised. Why use "human justice" in a supernatural world ? If the gods feel angry.... go ahead. But also prepare to loose players who resent arbitary "moralizing" on your part.

That being said, I would not have set up a scenario the way you did, which I subjecively find counter-productive to a good and lasting story, shared fun and avoidance of ethics-debates at the table. You intentionally stacked the deck against the group with an absurd setup, a weak motivation the PCs were not at all invested in (or is it a SWAT-Type campaign with the group supposed to resolve "the crisis at hand with carte blanche"), they unexpededly dodged sideways, then you retconed and now you ask for solutions to and support for your own conundrum ?

^^


Ravingdork wrote:


Where in the rules does it say they would get such a check? It is my understanding that the only thing they would ever get is a Will save to disbelieve, and even then, only if they interact with it in some fashion (which in my games takes action expenditure of some kind).

I have not deprived them of anything, and I resent the accusation.

Under Knowledge Arcana. In particular, the "Identify a spell effect that is in place" bit. CD 20 + spell level. Being an illusion doesn't mean being foul prof for someone versed in the arts of the arcana.


Dabbler wrote:


And yes, the word of a peasant is sufficient, if somebody with enough clout wants it to be.

No indication for that given. No reason for anyone wanting to antagonize them either. a theoretical chance is worthless. It needs to be a plausible story, nevermind some fearless and well-respected noble.

And probably the PCs have rivaling nobles up their sleeves, too. Services rendered and such. Throughout history, powerful and influential peope have been notoriously hard to prosecute, fairly or not. The Roman Republic basically fell because of such harassment prosecution against Gaius Julius Caesar, creating Imperial Rome....

Never mind that players may have access to reality altering magic (lesser wish would do..) , "modify memory" or really creative application of supernatural effects. Guess the summoner, as described, would be up to "disappear" the witnesses if he felt sufficiently threatened....

Nevermind that the GM, as "creator god" of the world, would always win through creative fiat

The big question would be : Might this be a fun campaign for anyone ?


Dekalinder wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:


Where in the rules does it say they would get such a check? It is my understanding that the only thing they would ever get is a Will save to disbelieve, and even then, only if they interact with it in some fashion (which in my games takes action expenditure of some kind).

I have not deprived them of anything, and I resent the accusation.

Under Knowledge Arcana. In particular, the "Identify a spell effect that is in place" bit. CD 20 + spell level. Being an illusion doesn't mean being foul prof for someone versed in the arts of the arcana.

There's a difference between identifying something you know us magical e.g a floating light, magic mouth or invisible wall and instantly knowing that man fishing isn't real though. Personally I'd only allow the arcana skill if they already knew it wasn't real e.g all the troops are moving the same way, a woman's hair not moving in the wind or the like.

That is there's a gate in front of me however my perception check notices a tree branch sticking through it and using arcana/spellcraft I determine its a low level illusion. If I fail my perception or its a better illusion having spellcraft/arcana of 20+ does me no good as I'm not aware there's an existing spell effect to identify


Dekalinder wrote:
Under Knowledge Arcana. In particular, the "Identify a spell effect that is in place" bit. CD 20 + spell level. Being an illusion doesn't mean being foul prof for someone versed in the arts of the arcana.

And how does the character know to try making a knowledge arcana check if they don't know it is an illusion? If they first interacted with the illusion, then passed their will check, they would know that it was an illusion. Someone could then use knowledge(arcana) to determine exactly what spell it is that is creating the illusion.

Just because you have knowledge arcana does not let you automatically gloss past any and all illusions.


shallowsoul wrote:


Ever read about dwarven architecture and how great it supposed to be? I know it's fantasy but they have done things that couldn't be achieved in real life. Also, if a bridge in your game is designed to go down after one fireball then I'm afraid real world knowledge isn't going to help because the DM has decided that his bridge will fall.

Edit: Most things in fantasy defy the law of physics and I'm sure bridges do the same. I'm trained in martial arts and sometimes I raise my hand to say how they could not have happened but then I put my hand down and hold my comment because I remind myself that we are playing a fantasy game.

There is nothing in the Pathfinder Golarion material that describes as superlative or supernatural. Going by standard material that is. YMMV.

And actually, almost everything in FRPGs works according to "standard" natural laws and rules, because we want the world to tick the way we expect it to, are used to. With some added "magic" putting additional stuff into thermodynamics and states of entropy.

As an illustrative example :
If stone suddenly developed tensile strength and resilience comparable to rebar, say through th use of "stone shape".... then there would be an massive influx of "stone shaped" swords, armour, everyday tools in every culture with priestlymagic.....Much less work than to mine iron ore, refine and melt it, carbonize it into steel, time consumingly forge it into a weapon... which is then subject to rust ? Ignoring digging up coal for coking and carbonizing the iron... Far more cost- and resource-effective to have the priests "shape" swords/weaponry. Priess become central features of industry and artisanship, probably leading to a dominance of Theocracies

Small change ----> huge impact on the world as written.

Few things are as "unfantastic" as "fantasy roleplaying" to be frank about it.


Tarantula wrote:
Dekalinder wrote:
Under Knowledge Arcana. In particular, the "Identify a spell effect that is in place" bit. CD 20 + spell level. Being an illusion doesn't mean being foul prof for someone versed in the arts of the arcana.

And how does the character know to try making a knowledge arcana check if they don't know it is an illusion? If they first interacted with the illusion, then passed their will check, they would know that it was an illusion. Someone could then use knowledge(arcana) to determine exactly what spell it is that is creating the illusion.

Just because you have knowledge arcana does not let you automatically gloss past any and all illusions.

Lol? do you get what are you saying? that you should already know something to get a knowledge check to know that?

I'll try to be clear. Knowledge check do not require action, they are a mere refraction of what a character is able to recall or deduce from his knowledge. In this case works pretty straightforward: you are good and knowledgable enaugh in the arcane arts taht you distinguish some strange characteristic from the image that betray them as illusion.
It work by RAW, and it makes perfect sense by RAI.
And I agree that
Tarantula wrote:
Just because you have knowledge arcana does not let you automatically gloss past any and all illusions.

.Is not automatic. It does require a DC 20-29 to know it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dekalinder wrote:
Tarantula wrote:
Dekalinder wrote:
Under Knowledge Arcana. In particular, the "Identify a spell effect that is in place" bit. CD 20 + spell level. Being an illusion doesn't mean being foul prof for someone versed in the arts of the arcana.

And how does the character know to try making a knowledge arcana check if they don't know it is an illusion? If they first interacted with the illusion, then passed their will check, they would know that it was an illusion. Someone could then use knowledge(arcana) to determine exactly what spell it is that is creating the illusion.

Just because you have knowledge arcana does not let you automatically gloss past any and all illusions.

Lol? do you get what are you saying? that you should already know something to get a knowledge check to know that?

I'll try to be clear. Knowledge check do not require action, they are a mere refraction of what a character is able to recall or deduce from his knowledge. In this case works pretty straightforward: you are good and knowledgable enaugh in the arcane arts taht you distinguish some strange characteristic from the image that betray them as illusion.
It work by RAW, and it makes perfect sense by RAI.
And I agree that
Tarantula wrote:
Just because you have knowledge arcana does not let you automatically gloss past any and all illusions.
.Is not automatic. It does require a DC 20-29 to know it.

Except that its a knowledge check to identify a particular spell/spell effect AFTER other things tell you its not real, not a get out if illusions free card. If other checks/events tell you its an illusion a knwledge check will tell you what kind. If you don't know its an illusion a knowledge check will tell you that it's a fox sunning itself on a rock.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

You're wrong Dekalinder. That's not something I ever really say to anyone on these boards either, so I sincerely hope it impresses upon you JUST HOW WRONG YOU ARE.

Dark Archive

Actually I think Dekalinder is 100% correct that by RAW you get a chance to identify spell effects that are in place as it does not state that you have to know that they are there or in place. But he is 100% incorrect that it is RAI. I believe any sensible GM or player would agree that you would have to know that the spell or effect was in place to get a chance to identify it as such.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

You need to be detecting magic to identify them, I believe.

Edit: No, that's for magic items, not spell effects. However, the arcana check is for identifying spell effects, not determining a spell is in effect. You must know the spell is there to identify it.

Dark Archive

TriOmegaZero wrote:
You need to be detecting magic to identify them, I believe.

I agree and I am sure that it is RAI. But unfortunately it only says that for identifying auras.

To just let someone walk around identifying magic effects willynilly without knowledge of their presence invalidates a lot of magic in the game.


I don't know how knowledge checks work in your game, but its rare that our GM will just abruptly say "roll a knoweldge (whatever)." Typically, if we encounter a creature, or hear about a nobleman, or want to know if we know about a shop in town, we'll say "Should I roll knowledge (whatever)?" and the GM will say sure, and then tell us what the roll gets. To us we see it as our character recognizing they might know something about the subject, and then recalling that information. Is it an action? I guess if we were in combat rounds I'd call it a free action. It is automatic like a perception check? Also no.

Under Knowledge: "Action: Usually none. In most cases, a Knowledge check doesn't take an action (but see “Untrained,” below)."

Under Perception: "Action: Most Perception checks are reactive, made in response to observable stimulus. Intentionally searching for stimulus is a move action."

Since knowledge checks are not reactive, it is not automatic like a perception check. Now if the person with knowledge(arcana) said, "I wonder if the kids are an illusion, can I roll a knowledge(arcana) and tell?" we'd probably give them the roll. Subject to the GM limiting free actions in a turn to control abuse of asking if everything is an illusion every turn.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Tarantula wrote:
Since knowledge checks are not reactive, it is not automatic like a perception check. Now if the person with knowledge(arcana) said, "I wonder if the kids are an illusion, can I roll a knowledge(arcana) and tell?" we'd probably give them the roll. Subject to the GM limiting free actions in a turn to control abuse of asking if everything is an illusion every turn.

I would consider this to be "close observation" as well as a form of interaction, thus allowing the character a Will save to disbelieve.


Unless you first (a) interact with an illusion and (b) make your will save, all the knowledge/arcana in the world won't let you pick an illusion out as such. Once you've MADE a will save, what knowledge/arcana will do is let you identify the spell source of the illusion in question.


Ravingdork wrote:
CaspianM wrote:
If you had an optimal output for the problem it's best to let people know what it is or have some way they can make rolls to figure out stuff the players would not figure out under stress. You really shouldn't punish players for not mind-reading the scenario.

I am not punishing anyone here. I am merely having the world react logically to the player characters' actions. Do adventurers in your games get to murder people in full view of others and not have to deal with the authorities/repercussions soon after? Not if your a sensible GM.

I guess it's because this is the internet, where people find entertainment in picking apart every little detail in search of wrong-doing. After all, if there weren't a villain to verbally tar and feather, this all just becomes a boring discussion thread.

I warn you all: The devil is in the details.

I apologize if I have given offense.

I've been having discussions of this sort with a friend who is burned out at GMing due to another person in our group. The idea of really set events in a game is one I always worry about, due to people behaving in ways you'd not expect. The way I've tried to combat this issue and creating creative stress on my part is to railroad a small very select set of ideas just to keep the framework of what I am trying to accomplish plot wise as the GM, but otherwise give the PCs free rein and hope to steer them in the right direction.

Especially in questions of morality I always assume in D&D people will choose the sociopath answer when pressed with a requirement to solve a problem they do not know how to solve, since the mindset of a D&D character is that they get more power for killing folk and taking their stuff. That is if they don't feel integrated into the system.


Am I the only person who completely disagrees with the DM?

HOW are the actions of the party "evil"? These characters are Lawful Good/Good, not Lawful Stupid/Stupid Good. Why would they try to save the children if they didn't believe they had a chance/thought something EVEN WORSE was going to happen if they played along? The LE wizard sounds pretty dangerous.

At absolute worst, players like the Paladin get some moral quandaries about the computations of their actions and MAYBE shift to neutral over the ethical ramifications of sacrificing a few to save many.

But "evil"? These people weren't out to maliciously obliterate those kids, nor did they do it on a whim from their perspective. If you didn't give them an apparent out, you've only got yourself to blame if the party takes a drastic third option.

Should there be ramifications for their actions? Sure. Maybe some NPCs hold a deep grudge against them. But its up to the players to defend their choices, not for you to retroactively change the campaign to dodge the ethical implications of their actions. And I bet the players will not like having the DM tell them "You were wrong, you shouldn't have done that." That's an obvious attempt to railroad their actions and will make them feel like you're imposing consequences for trying to "jump the rails"

Liberty's Edge

CaspianM wrote:
If you had an optimal output for the problem it's best to let people know what it is or have some way they can make rolls to figure out stuff the players would not figure out under stress. You really shouldn't punish players for not mind-reading the scenario.

.....

You really spoon feed your players?
At that point you can roll the dice for them too. RD players think he is railroading them and you are suggesting him to feed them the "right" solution or the adventure?
[shake head in disbelief]


CommandoDude wrote:

Am I the only person who completely disagrees with the DM?

HOW are the actions of the party "evil"? These characters are Lawful Good/Good, not Lawful Stupid/Stupid Good. Why would they try to save the children if they didn't believe they had a chance/thought something EVEN WORSE was going to happen if they played along? The LE wizard sounds pretty dangerous.

But "evil"? These people weren't out to maliciously obliterate those kids, nor did they do it on a whim from their perspective. If you didn't give them an apparent out, you've only got yourself to blame if the party takes a drastic third option.

Commando Dude, I hope you are indeed the only person here who thinks that deliberately targetting the bridge full of children with area-effect spells does not equate deliberately killing the children.

They could at least have sniped at the enemies with individual missiles and spells. Their foes might have started killing the children, and that should have stopped the fight. But if the children did die at the hands of the evil enemies, then at least the party would be less directly guilty. Besides there must have been spells available that would hinder the enemies.

Liberty's Edge

vikingson wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:

More often than not medieval-like bridges are at the same or lower level that the banks of a river. High embankments were pretty rare and the land at the sides of a river did tend to be at higher level.
Only in the heavy regimented rivers of today you tend to have high embankments and bridges well above the banks of the river.

RD set up could be different, but I tend to visualize a bridge on a profound chasm as at a lower level than the surrounding forest.
Sure, the retconned kid visual was far from perfect but they could probably see or hear most of what was happening.

For what it's worth you are, judging from 2000+ years of Roman, pre medieval, Medieval and Renaissance bridges hereabout, wrong. Massively so, too.

Nearly all historic bridges with a significant span were built as upward arches, to facilliate traffic underneath (waterbound) or achieve stability and distribute the loads to the foundations at the end of the bridgespan, and usually with ramps leading up towards them, to counteract flooding/innudation and soft ground on the approaches. Nevermind erosion or seasonal flooding causig a depper, low lying obstacle with raised banks. The bridge described by the OP spans a "deep chasm",so there probably are no supports in the middle of the bridge span.... Single span 90' length arch.

Nevermind that 90' length free-spanning arches were almost unheard of until the late 18th century BC - the only one I know of is the famous bridge at Mostar, Bosnia, which was regarded as "wondrous" and unique in all of Europe and the Middle East up until the 17th century.

That being said, there is also nothing less reliable than an eyewitness, especially a stressed one, and an underage one to boot. They err 90%+ of the time ( I kid you not, no pun intended) , check some relevant judical or history-department studies if you like : There is nothing more detriminal to the truth than an eyewitness.
Ergo : the kids, if they were even aware of the proceedings in the first...

You are thinking about this kind of bridge, I am thinking about this kind.

Both are well above the water level, but the second kind is generally not above the terrain surrounding the river.
Exactly because the river had no artificial banks it is at a lower level than the surrounding terrain and usually (not in RD situation) the bridge is only a few meters above the water level.

Images in the middle of a arced bridge would be even more visible than on a flat bridge.

551 to 600 of 635 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Heroes murdering innocent children (that they were meant to rescue) All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.