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

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

Go easy on the Girls


Shattered Star

101 to 150 of 158 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Taldor

Jmacq1 wrote:
I've always kind of assumed that most fantasy RPGs operate under a general morality that's closer to medieval mindsets than modern-day morality. In other words...life is harsher and cheaper than we tend to think of it in the present day.

Life, in medieval times, wasn't as cheep as it's often caricatured. Sure, people died of diesease more often, but the law was the law. Have a read of some medieval philosophers. Lynch mobs in some of the more frontier areas of Medieval Europe were probably no more common than in the Southern States in the Twentieth Century, but in other places such things weren't tolerated. A vigilante in the Twelfth Century was still a vigilante. Sure, there were probably more people (local lords and such) who had the legal right to execute capital punishment, but it's unlikely such rights extended to random soujorners off the street. A CG person might throw themselves into a nest of bandits and hack and slash without regard, but a LG or LN wouldn't without the proper paperwork.

I've noticed in this discussion the morality of the issue is predominately being categorised as Good vs. Evil actions, which is correct, but a Law vs. Chaos discussion is also relevant to determine the legitimacy of the action i.e. law enforcement vs. vigilantism.


Nobody care about Law vs Chaos, unless it is to add reasons to make a Paladin fall.

Most RPGs have Black and Grey morality.

Taldor

Belle Mythix wrote:

Nobody care about Law vs Chaos, unless it is to add reasons to make a Paladin fall.

Most RPGs have Black and Grey morality.

Well it depends on how seriously you take alignment. In a different campaign, I play a LN character. I play the alignment strictly (e.g. in a previous adventure an authority figure NPC ordered our party to do something that the rest was opposed to. I followed my character's alignment and obeyed). An LN character puts obeying laws and legitimate authority above any consideration of morality.

If your RPG group has a less strict adherence to alignment then that's your house-rule, but RAW Law vs. Chaos deserves as much consideration as Good vs. Evil.


thejeff wrote:
Does that apply if they attack you while you're breaking into their home for no better reason than looking for a magic item?

As noted above, the locale in question was essentially public property. As such, the Girls would have no right to keep them out just because they were squatting there. If someone attacks you with a deadly weapon on public property, you're still justified in self-defense.

Also: It depends on how important the magic item in question is, and the consequences if said item is not found and/or falls into or remains in the wrong hands.

The Diplomat wrote:
Isn't the real question whether the PCs have the right to execute punishment, capital or otherwise? Can a Lawful character be a vigilante? I don't think so! Fighting in self defense is one thing, but unless the law of the land has provision for citizen's arrest then making the first move would be illegal. Maybe a Chaotic Good character might try to incapacitate them non-lethally, but it would probably be improper for a Lawful Good or Lawful Neutral character to get involved without a warrent or comission. A Chaotic Neutral character, on the other hand, might not have too many scruples about their actions.

I believe it is specifically noted in multiple sources that Lawful characters can still defy the law if it does not align with the other side of their alignment spectrum. To my mind "Lawful" is not a term that only means "Obeys the law at all costs" (though I agree with your later interpretation of Lawful Neutral as hewing closer to that description). It is just as much "strictly adheres to a personal code" and "favors order over chaos." The law itself can be disorderly or contribute to chaos and disorganization. A Paladin, for example, should not be expected to follow a law in a evil-aligned kingdom that requires or supports the sacrifice of innocents on a weekly basis just because "it's the law" and should not to my mind suffer any alignment penalties or shifts for doing so. Same thing with slavery or other evil acts which may be perfectly legal in a given place.

Would anyone argue that (for example) Superman has not been a "lawful good" character for most of his existence (though I would mark his earliest and most recent incarnations as closer to neutral good)? Yet, at various times in his career he has operated without government sanction or approval. Indeed at other times he has actively worked against it when he felt it served the greater good. The same could be said of Captain America, a character often held up as a typical example of "lawful good" when such descriptions are applied across genres and media.

The Diplomat wrote:
Jmacq1 wrote:
I've always kind of assumed that most fantasy RPGs operate under a general morality that's closer to medieval mindsets than modern-day morality. In other words...life is harsher and cheaper than we tend to think of it in the present day.

Life, in medieval times, wasn't as cheep as it's often caricatured. Sure, people died of diesease more often, but the law was the law. Have a read of some medieval philosophers. Lynch mobs in some of the more frontier areas of Medieval Europe were probably no more common than in the Southern States in the Twentieth Century, but in other places such things weren't tolerated. A vigilante in the Twelfth Century was still a vigilante. Sure, there were probably more people (local lords and such) who had the legal right to execute capital punishment, but it's unlikely such rights extended to random soujorners off the street. A CG person might throw themselves into a nest of bandits and hack and slash without regard, but a LG or LN wouldn't without the proper paperwork.

Yes, and capital punishment was FAR more common, and many nobles had absolute power over life and death over commoners under their rule. In short life was not so highly prized as it is in the modern era, largely because there was a much higher chance you were going to lose it prematurely, and even if you didn't life expectancies were generally far shorter.

But I should amend my original statement to read "to the morality of the typical fantasy medieval world." If I intend to run an intensely realistic simulation of medieval life, then what you speak of is excellent information, but there comes a point where the the "realism" can very much get in the way of the "fantasy."

Don't mistake me: If deep ruminations on law vs. chaos, good vs. evil, and the moral and ethical implications of every single action a typical adventuring party will take over the course of a campaign is what you and your players enjoy, then by all means have at it. To my mind, though, you're reaching a level of examination that in most campaigns would start to impede virtually every decision the players make if there is so much as a single lawful character among them (or any characters really, since the flipside of the coin is that chaotic characters would be violating their alignment almost every time they -obeyed- the law, and Neutral characters would be violating their alignment every time they did...nearly anything at all of significance.

And of course, your argument also bases itself off the presumption that vigilantism is specifically noted as illegal in the fantasy kingdoms being described. Given that we rarely see "the book of law" for every given kingdom, and more often then not (at least in the "typical" campaign settings and adventure paths) governmental authorities are often just as quick to reward those that perform vigilante actions that result in favorable outcomes than condemn them for it, that may be a big assumption.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jmacq1 wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Does that apply if they attack you while you're breaking into their home for no better reason than looking for a magic item?
As noted above, the locale in question was essentially public property. As such, the Girls would have no right to keep them out just because they were squatting there. If someone attacks you with a deadly weapon on public property, you're still justified in self-defense.

Squatter's rights aren't quite that simple. It might also matter if they warn you off or just attack, I can't remember from the AP how the encounters in the Tower start.

In the modern world, which obviously isn't an exact parallel, I doubt the judge would look favorably on you if you went into an abandoned building, killed the first couple of homeless people you met there when they attacked you, then proceeded to go methodically through the rest of the building provoking and killing everyone you met. Hell, I doubt to would go much better if it was a gang's headquarters.

Jmacq1 wrote:
Also: It depends on how important the magic item in question is, and the consequences if said item is not found and/or falls into or remains in the wrong hands.

Which are sadly undefined in this AP. You've got the only clue to location of the next shard and AFAIK there's no one else looking for them. There's no real time pressure. They've been in place for centuries and there is no imminent threat they're needed for.


Aeshuura wrote:

I think that maybe you are coming at it from a preconceived notion. I am saying that there is a common stance of PCs that they feel that they have a right to all loot and treasure. Effectively killing people and creatures for XP and loot. That as a motivation is evil in its own right.

That's all I'm saying.

If someone is attacking you, you certainly have the right to defend yourself, but so do they if the PCs attack them. I don't call them evil if they are defending themselves from greedy PCs, unless they are Evil of course... :p

You equated it to war, but the Shards of Sin is not such a circumstance. You equated the Tower Girls to Stormtroopers, but they have no such reputation. I was just having trouble with your examples being valid arguments in this particular case.

No offense intended, I was just offering my opinion.

You say that you cannot think of a way to deliberately try not to kill someone that is trying to kill you. I can think of several ways. All of which I would try, before resorting to kill someone. It is not blood that I want on my hands. I try to be a better person than that. Hold yourself to a higher standard.

^_^

The point of the OP is that the Tower girls have a "reputation" as harmless cat burglars, however the information the PCs have is "hey these ladies are trying to kill us" and woah here they are a again.

Stormtroopers are themselves not evil, they are brainwashed to follow orders from superiors, sent to do a mission. But the first time the storm troopers ambushed Luke and friends on tatooine, he never stopped to check to see if those guys were "hostiles" again.

Adventurer's are putting themselves in harms way doing whatever they are doing. That's why they have weapons, armor and combat spells.

We don't have a situation where the Pc's are walking into some place they know to be someone home, lair, or property. Then are once again attacked by "tower girls" is there an actual way they know this do they have a uniform? Can they actually tell the girls are connected to the first chick that tried to jump them with her thugs? Other than they are both human females?

All they know is they are being attacked, the style and type of combat isn't "get off my lawn" it's "DIE, DIE DIE".

Swinging pointy sharp sharps. Scary business.

There isn't a situation where the Pc's have a choice to fight or not, they are jumped. They don;t start the fight, they just finish it.

this isn't a case of morality. There are no "rules of engagement". It's kill or be killed.

Sure you can cast sleep. But you can coup de grace after someone has fallen to the spell, just as easily as tying them up.

Sleep is a fight stopper.

If someone is casting sleep at me, I wouldn't think "oh look they are not trying to kill me" , I;m thinking "save or die!" because once down, you are at their mercy... I wouldnt be fighting them if i trusted them. If I thought parlay would get me anywhere, I wouldn't be trying to gut them, I'd shoot an arrow past their nose and tell them to get the heck out of my home and not return.

But that's not what happens here.

the PCs aren't there to hunt Tower Girls and they aren't breaking or entering, because the Tower Girls new "base" is just a coincidence not a rightful domicile.

things like charm person or hold could work too, if you are trying to find out information or reason with attackers. However, if you cast those spells at me, I'm still thinking SAVE or DIE!

So technically, it's still lethal combat.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules Subscriber

It bears noting that while many in-universe values held by people may differ from the modern real world, the actual in-game morality and cosmic forces of Good and Evil are informed more by RL modern morality than that of the Middle Ages.


and that means what?

There is no difference, morals wise as to fighting.

In RL, let's say my friends and I are on a scavenger hunt, while locating an object, I find myself accidentally on someones property. "Hey! get off my lawn!"

Opps sry man. Bye.

That is probably really common IRL.

What if the guy started shooting at me, 1) did I realize this was private property? 2) is he shooting in the air to scare me off? Or has he either hit me, or is really trying to?

That would make a HUGE difference on how I react.

Is he giving me a chance to retreat? Does he have me pinned down? Am I being advanced on?

If he's got me pinned or advancing, thats a fast way for the fellow to find himself dead.

How am I supposed to ascertain that I am on unmarked private property while in the middle of combat? Bear in mind, every trick or treater is on private property, as is cold call salesmen and Jehova's witnesses.

So IRL situation #2) Me wife and I are cutting through an alley way on our way to our parked car after a movie. Some local gang members inform us that we are on their "turf" (the equivalent of the Tower Girl's new "base") and that we owe them money for passage.
Ok, so umm what do you want? $20? somehow they always want everything you have. As this is just a ploy to get you focused on getting out your wallet so they can jump you.

But if you are really lucky, maybe they are happy with a wad of cash you have and let you go. OH gosh that was scary, get to your car, leave, and call police. Yay problem solved.

However, if they get too close, or are over threatening or don't let us leave. there would also be an alley full of dead thugs, as I always carry 54 rounds of 9mm +p and a full size pistol on my hip. 10 years of military experience, 5 of them special ops, and 2 years teaching close quarters combat at Quantico, Va. 14 years Kung fu, 8 years Karate.

There would have to be a lot of them for that situation to not go my way.

In both situations, the "other guy" thinks I'm on his 'property'. In example 1) I actually am and don't realize it, in example 2) It's not their property, but it's probably not a good idea to argue the point.

In both situations, as long as they let me leave, they can breathe. However, if they are using deadly force in anyway to either threaten me into leaving, or keeping me from leaving, I fail to see the moral issue with turning them into corpses.

If, after the Gun fight, and the adversary is subdued, I may choose to check bodies to see if calling the EMTs might save one or two. Since this isn't "War" I'm unlikely to pop them an extra time to make sure they are dead.

If this had happened in combat, I would very likely make sure they were dead, so no one snuck up on me later, or made their way to a weapon with their last breath and shot me in the back, unless for military purposes, I was under orders to obtain prisoners or save lives.

Equating to Tower Girls, they are a gang that has claimed "turf" that the PCs are likely to not know IS their turf. so it's not the same as invading a known lair of species X.

they are yet again attacked in an unprovoked manner, by people who are clearly trying to kill them.

I'm not seeing the moral dilemma?

Taldor

Jmacq1 wrote:
To my mind "Lawful" is not a term that only means "Obeys the law at all costs" (though I agree with your later interpretation of Lawful Neutral as hewing closer to that description). It is just as much "strictly adheres to a personal code" and "favors order over chaos."

Agree 100%. If an evil king ordered a LG Paladin to kill an innocent, the Paladin would refuse, but still pledge loyalty to "just law". A CG character, on the other hand, would probably rebel or even try to assasinate the king. An NG character would probably take a more balanced approach, refusing to give personal recognition of the government but also refusing to incite rebellion.

Jmacq1 wrote:
But I should amend my original statement to read "to the morality of the typical fantasy medieval world." If I intend to run an intensely realistic simulation of medieval life, then what you speak of is excellent information, but there comes a point where the the "realism" can very much get in the way of the "fantasy."

Again, no objections. In fact, I believe it's been said by the designers that Golarion isn't "Medieval Fantasy", it's just "Fantasy". I was just responding to a particular post, but I don't think "this happened in the middle ages" should be a serious consideration for interpreting the campaign world for the most part. I'd be more likely to give an Early Modern flavour to places like Cheliax, Andoran and Taldor, for example. I'd be likely to interpret a place like Magnimar to be something akin to a scaled-down version of Sixteenth Century Venice - the centre of a growing trading empire, although not holding a candle to Absalom.

Jmacq1 wrote:
To my mind, though, you're reaching a level of examination that in most campaigns would start to impede virtually every decision the players make if there is so much as a single lawful character among them (or any characters really, since the flipside of the coin is that chaotic characters would be violating their alignment almost every time they -obeyed- the law, and Neutral characters would be violating their alignment every time they did...nearly anything at all of significance.

I think that's a bit of a negative approach to interpreting Chaotic and Neutral. I'd imagine a Chaotic Good character could be a vigilante, but could also be interpreted as a hippie who thinks law and authority is bad and takes every opportunity to flip his middle finger at authority figures. When they do something good they do it for their own reasons, not because the law tells them to, and they might take every opportunity to break the law for the sake of breaking the law if such an action wasn't evil. A Neutral Good character would place consideration of morality above consideration of Law or Chaos. They would obey the law as long as it serves what is good, but wouldn't hesitate to join a rebellion if that was the greater good. A Neutral character, as noted in the rules, could be someone who is indifferent to law and morals (e.g. an expedient inquisitor who will go to any length to complete their mission - the end justifies the means), or it could be a character who actively tries to balance good and evil / law and chaos (e.g. a character who wants to be on the right side of every god).

If you use the alignments to paint a positive picture of the character's personality you'll have a lot more fun than if you use it to paint a negative picture. I.e. think "what would a character of this alignment do and how would they respond in certian circumstances" rather than "what restrictions does this alignment place on my character".

Jmacq1 wrote:
And of course, your argument also bases itself off the presumption that vigilantism is specifically noted as illegal in the fantasy kingdoms being described. Given that we rarely see "the book of law" for every given kingdom, and more often then not (at least in the "typical" campaign settings and adventure paths) governmental authorities are often just as quick to reward those that perform vigilante actions that result in favorable outcomes than condemn them for it, that may be a big assumption.

We might not be given law codecies, but it isn't too hard to infer the contents of each from the campaign setting descriptions. As to governments rewarding vigilantes, I'm sure that would vary from nation to nation. That might be the case in most of Varisia, for example, but I'd imagine it is unlikely to be the case in Cheliax (and, by extension, Korvosa). It might also make a difference if there is a posted bounty.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Things got really interesting in my campaign and the PCs went through the Tower Girls without shedding a drop of blood (theirs or the Tower Girls'). Not everyone is happy about this, but the current deal they have with the Szcarni has saved them time and energy. See our campaign log for more details.

This campaign has been quite a lot of fun so far!

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules Subscriber
Pendagast wrote:

and that means what?

That's in response to the discussion preceding your post about what form of morality the game uses as the norm.

Personally, Lord Snow cut to the heart of the disagreement. What there is are different expectations in campaign tone and heroes. And the idealistic approach is just as legitimate a way to play the game as the cynical.


Mikaze wrote:
Pendagast wrote:

and that means what?

That's in response to the discussion preceding your post about what form of morality the game uses as the norm.

Personally, Lord Snow cut to the heart of the disagreement. What there is is different expectations in campaign tone and heroes. And the idealistic approach is just as legitimate a way to play the game as the cynical.

Took the words right out of my mouth, especially the bolded part.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pendagast wrote:

Equating to Tower Girls, they are a gang that has claimed "turf" that the PCs are likely to not know IS their turf. so it's not the same as invading a known lair of species X.

they are yet again attacked in an unprovoked manner, by people who are clearly trying to kill them.

If the party questions Natalya rather than just killing her and taking the shard, they will know the Tower Girls are resident in the Crow.

Also, as I suggested before, a difference between your mugging analogy and the game situation is that a) you're not walking down an alley, but exploring an abandoned building and b) once you're attacked and defend yourself in the first encounter (possibly justified if that's how it goes down) you then proceed through the rest of the building methodically provoking and killing everyone else you find.


thejeff wrote:
Pendagast wrote:

Equating to Tower Girls, they are a gang that has claimed "turf" that the PCs are likely to not know IS their turf. so it's not the same as invading a known lair of species X.

they are yet again attacked in an unprovoked manner, by people who are clearly trying to kill them.

If the party questions Natalya rather than just killing her and taking the shard, they will know the Tower Girls are resident in the Crow.

Also, as I suggested before, a difference between your mugging analogy and the game situation is that a) you're not walking down an alley, but exploring an abandoned building and b) once you're attacked and defend yourself in the first encounter (possibly justified if that's how it goes down) you then proceed through the rest of the building methodically provoking and killing everyone else you find.

The key Term here is ABANDONED building, not "home" of the Tower Girls. That's the same as wandering monsters, sure said monster believes he is in his home (as most animals etc don't just wander about, but "claim" a territory). If a pack of wolves piss on a Tree or a bear rubs his claws all over a big Maple that's their territory. So when you wander on in, it's really YOU who are the wandering monster, not them.

Tower Girls taking up residence in an abandoned building, is no different than RL thugs in an alley way. it's not theirs, so it's the same as a monster "claiming" territory. That territory is up for dispute, sure they can decide to attack, or decide to observe the PCs wander through, if they stay hidden, the PCs might even wander off, never to return, Yet the TOWER GIRLS are under orders to kill them,

In the first encounter, depending on how that goes down, they might not get a chance to question anyone. the first tower girl and her thugs could possibly kill of the defector. Then they know nothing.

So again, back to my original point, how much do the PCs know and how could they possibly know it.

Let's assume I have fought off Tower girl 1 and her thugs, and made nice nice with the defector. Let's assume through some stroke of genius role playing combined with good diplomacy I have gleaned the information from the defector and she is now with me and under my protection.

As part of what we need to do, we are STILL going to go through this building looking for our shard, regardless of more Tower Girls.

But a side note, what if the shard was IN the Home, an Actual Residence of say, the Wererat? So going into someone's home isn't lawful, especially to steal something.

So obviously the paladin is out, and possibly a monk or other lawful aligned characters.

Would a Chaotic Good group do it? Probably, were rat is evil, finding the shard greater good blah blah blah.

So entering the recognized dwelling of someone to retrieve that which does not belong to you, a moral dilemma.

But it's not that, it's an abandoned building, no different than an ancient ruin, so the Tower girls have no rightful claim to it. The Only laws applying here is might makes right. So the PC's with their information in this case, would know the place might be crawling with Tower Girls, Let's assume they decide to enter anyway.

So by doing so they have made a decision to enter an area they can reasonably assume will cause some combat, the disputed "turf" as it would be.

Are they going in there to capture Tower Girls? Question anyone? Or retrieve an item?

If they are knowingly entering an area they have full knowledge is occupied and claimed and knowingly going after an object they can assume possession of will be under contention.

What are they prepared to do?

Assuming they have made the decision to press forward, they have made either a decision to will lead to combat (and there for no different than a war, or gang violence) OR the party believes they can bribe or sweet talk their way through an altercation.

Let's assume the party thinks they can talk their way through.

So the press forward.

Depending on how the Tower girls react when they first seem the PCs would set the tone, but I'll wager there isn't going to be much babble going on.

Even when you assume you can talk your way through, when someone tries to cut your throat, things go sour fast.

The Tower Girls as written are a hostile element, not a neutral, passive or curious element.

Altruism/idealism or not. They are NOT defending their home. Neither a Lawful Good or Lawful Neutral character will recognize their "right" to defend this "base" , although a Neutral Good character 'might' and a Chaotic good character, being the most likely of the PCs to break into someones REAL ACTUAL home? shouldn't have issue with pressing through an abandoned building to get after what is "for the greater good".

Now, Let's assume we have a little group of four PCs.

Seelah (LG) , Seltyiel (LE), Seoni (N?) and Merisiel (N?)

Combat has started (for whatever reason, diplomacy fails, the PCs are ambushed, etc etc)

Now Seltyiel is an interesting catalyst here, He's lawful, but the Pc's have already decided to move forward, and he probably decided since there were no legal claims to the ownership of the building, he's safe from authorities. As far as resistance is concerned if they bleed out from a wound he doesn't care, if they dies from his final blow, he doesn't care, as long as they stop moving. But Running away or just plain leaving him alone will suit him fine as well, as he doesn't care about them or their needs.

The neutral characters will defend themselves, as they have already decided to move forward knowing they might get jumped, someone's trying to kill them, so they will kill back. Merisel has daggers and a rapier, don't see much in the way of pulling punches there. Seoni could cast a sleep or web spell but as I said, anything that makes a combatant helpless is still combat action, it COULD be less than lethal (depending on how much sway seelah has over the group) but as far as the tower girls would be concerned, that's not "trying to save their lives" that is "save or die"

Seelah, what would she do?
She's already entered the domain of the Tower Girls, with the knowledge they "claim" this area. So she's clearly already made some decisions here.
She likely is the one who thought maybe there could be a parlay and compromise.
As the heaviest armored character, and the one who can self heal, she also less likely to be as offended by someone trying to kill her, and maybe want to get to the bottom of why they are trying so hard.

However even shield bashes are lethal damage, so armed with deadly weapons she still has to fight back, she might convince seoni to cast sleep, but what if that doesn't work?

The PC's still have to win the fight using deadly weapons.

The likelihood of some of them, at least, dying is high. However, none of those characters have any reason to put dying or unconscious combatants to the sword.

Seltyiel might let them bleed to death, and both Merisel and Seltyiel might be concerned with them creeping up behind them again and so MIGHT put them to the sword, BUT Seelah has a chance to use heal skill, or even LOH to revive them, save lives or whatever her goals are here.

If Seelah had a chance to detect evil, she wouldn't have gotten evil off them since they are CN, so she has not crusaders wish to end their existence, The PCs are only after the shard. However, tying someone up in an abandoned building is about the same as leaving them helpless with hungry wolves about! It's not necessarily a good thing to do.

Now you have prisoners, dangerous prisoners who already tried to kill you, what do you do with them? Prisoners are a liability.

Let's assume Seelah decides to pull back, carrying any prisoners with the party (and has convinced the rest to do the same). The characters could go to an Inn and pay to put the Tower Girl(s) up and question them.

But now you have the issue of unlawful imprisonment and kidnapping. Seltyiel isn't going to want to get in trouble with the authorities for that, just gutting them back at the abandoned building was good enough for him, at least there he was "Covered" by self defense.

So now you have a lawful vs good problem.

Seoni might have been able to charm one or two, but that only lasts so long.

Seelah could have intimidated them (go now and dont return or we will kill you outright!) but are they more scared of seelah or their were rat mistress? What keeps the rogues from returning and backstabbing them?

No easy choices here.

Without Seelah there at all, The other three would have killed the Tower Girls and moved on.


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

Equating to Tower Girls, they are a gang that has claimed "turf" that the PCs are likely to not know IS their turf. so it's not the same as invading a known lair of species X.

they are yet again attacked in an unprovoked manner, by people who are clearly trying to kill them.

If the party questions Natalya rather than just killing her and taking the shard, they will know the Tower Girls are resident in the Crow.

Also, as I suggested before, a difference between your mugging analogy and the game situation is that a) you're not walking down an alley, but exploring an abandoned building and b) once you're attacked and defend yourself in the first encounter (possibly justified if that's how it goes down) you then proceed through the rest of the building methodically provoking and killing everyone else you find.

The key Term here is ABANDONED building, not "home" of the Tower Girls. That's the same as wandering monsters, sure said monster believes he is in his home (as most animals etc don't just wander about, but "claim" a territory). If a pack of wolves piss on a Tree or a bear rubs his claws all over a big Maple that's their territory. So when you wander on in, it's really YOU who are the wandering monster, not them.

Tower Girls taking up residence in an abandoned building, is no different than RL thugs in an alley way. it's not theirs, so it's the same as a monster "claiming" territory. That territory is up for dispute, sure they can decide to attack, or decide to observe the PCs wander through, if they stay hidden, the PCs might even wander off, never to return, Yet the TOWER GIRLS are under orders to kill them,

In the first encounter, depending on how that goes down, they might not get a chance to question anyone. the first tower girl and her thugs could possibly kill of the defector. Then they know nothing.

So again, back to my original point, how much do the PCs know and how could they possibly know it.

Let's assume I have...

It's hard to read this as anything more than "The PCs are going to go in to the tower anyway since the plot demands it, so it's just practical to kill everyone and assume that no one but the paladin will have trouble with it."

But we might as well stop now. I don't think this is going anywhere.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Just to say : Detecting evil would FAIL even on the wererat!
This spell is level dependant . Low level adversaries do not anymore react to it
Which is good because too much much people base their reactions on this spell : 'Us Good ! Them Evil ! Us bash ! '

And Pendagast, if I am not wrong, even in war, executing vanquished enemies is against Geneva Conventions. I do not know american military law but in france this could lead to a court martial. Of course, in reality, this sort of crime is rarely prosecuted but still ...

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
robin wrote:

Just to say : Detecting evil would FAIL even on the wererat!

This spell is level dependant . Low level adversaries do not anymore react to it
Which is good because too much much people base their reactions on this spell : 'Us Good ! Them Evil ! Us bash ! '

And Pendagast, if I am not wrong, even in war, executing vanquished enemies is against Geneva Conventions. I do not know american military law but in france this could lead to a court martial. Of course, in reality, this sort of crime is rarely prosecuted but still ...

"A paladin can, as a move action, concentrate on a single item or individual within 60 feet and determine if it is evil, learning the strength of its aura as if having studied it for 3 rounds. While focusing on one individual or object, the paladin does not detect evil in any other object or individual within range."

The HD rulesn't apply to paladins when they use the single target version.


Coridan wrote:

"A paladin can, as a move action, concentrate on a single item or individual within 60 feet and determine if it is evil, learning the strength of its aura as if having studied it for 3 rounds. While focusing on one individual or object, the paladin does not detect evil in any other object or individual within range."

The HD rulesn't apply to paladins when they use the single target version.

I don't see that. The paladin learns the strength of it's aura, per the spell. If that aura is None, as for an aligned creature of 5th level or less, they learn nothing. It works like the spell, but as a move action on one thing instead of 3 rounds on an area.

Even detect evil says "1st Round: Presence or absence of evil."
You could argue that used on a 1HD evil creature you would detect the presence of evil and then with more time determine it had an Aura of None, but that doesn't match the usual interpretation. An Aura of None means there's no detectable evil.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

James Jacobs on whether paladins can detect evil under 5 HD

If you want to discuss it, here's a recent thread.


robin wrote:

Just to say : Detecting evil would FAIL even on the wererat!

This spell is level dependant . Low level adversaries do not anymore react to it
Which is good because too much much people base their reactions on this spell : 'Us Good ! Them Evil ! Us bash ! '

And Pendagast, if I am not wrong, even in war, executing vanquished enemies is against Geneva Conventions. I do not know american military law but in france this could lead to a court martial. Of course, in reality, this sort of crime is rarely prosecuted but still ...

Robin, it's so funny how people think . in their minds, what is against the geneva convention, executing prisoners is against the convention. Prisoner is a very specific and well defined status. There is no such thing as a "vanquished enemy" status. I can shoot anyone as many times as I think it takes to kill them, There is no "if they fall down you must capture them" clause.

IF they surrender? In a FORMAL Manner? Sure, there are certain procedures, that's why we have military police.

To operate under the Geneva Convention, BOTH Parties must be participating Members. Last I checked Terrorists and African Rebels aren't participating members, Iraq however is, which is why we captured so dang many of them, 1) they knew the terms of the geneva convention, 2) 90% of them surrender at the first opportunity without firing shots.

Recon Units, Insertion Teams, and Spec Ops also do not have the same restrictions as standing armies either. Six man teams have the same issues handling prisoners, administering aid to the wounded etc etc just like a band of adventurers do, which is why I used the analogy.

For the Record, with France? I've Trained with Members of the Foreign Legion, One of the Most Brutal and Most Respected Special Ops units in the world. Don't tell me they take a whole pile of prisoners, or leave writhing half dead enemies to their rear either.


Joana wrote:

James Jacobs on whether paladins can detect evil under 5 HD

If you want to discuss it, here's a recent thread.

So what about a were rat, it's not a ghoul or a demon, but it's a lycanthrope.

can there be neutral or good were rats out there (like theoretically there could be good orcs) or is evil alignment part of being a were rat (like ghoul and demon)?


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I believe Pathfinder removed the automatic alignment change that used to be associated with lycanthropy. Afflicted lycanthropes maintain their pre-curse alignment, iirc, so not all wererats or werewolves can be assumed to be evil anymore.


aha! ok i wasn't aware...but i thought that miiight be the case.

so.... what about things like ghouls, I thought i recall a scene in another product I read where the ghoul was friendlyish and cooperative etc etc, could you have a neutral ghoul? Or is he just NE acting in a certain way and his current condition of ghoulhood (which he didnt choose to be a ghoul) forces him to be evil?

Cheliax

Dark_Mistress wrote:
Still killing anyone over theft is pretty harsh. Unless they have done things far worse than just steal.

Depends. If the they try to apprehend the theif and he turns it into a weapon struggle, pulsl a weapon, etc....then killing him is acceptable.

Happens in real life. Police try to apprehend the guy, might use a tazer or pepper spray but as soon as a weapon is pulled- knife, gun- police go lethal. Very rarely is there an inbetween.


carmachu wrote:
Dark_Mistress wrote:
Still killing anyone over theft is pretty harsh. Unless they have done things far worse than just steal.

Depends. If the they try to apprehend the theif and he turns it into a weapon struggle, pulsl a weapon, etc....then killing him is acceptable.

Happens in real life. Police try to apprehend the guy, might use a tazer or pepper spray but as soon as a weapon is pulled- knife, gun- police go lethal. Very rarely is there an inbetween.

OTOH, if you, as a non law enforcement officer, try to apprehend a suspected thief, not caught in the act, and he pulls a gun or a knife to defend himself, then you're the one in trouble.


I had to read that like 30 times take a break and come back to understand what you were saying. I think you mean, if you are NOT a police officer and you try to apprehend a suspected their not caught in the act ; I'm not sure why you would do this... "hey I think that guy stole something" and he pulls a weapon on you to defend himself , erm yea you would be assaulting him via the act of apprehending; that you would be in trouble.....

I'm confused?

There are a few RL situations where you can legally make a citizens arrest but all of them involve catching the criminal in the act. (like some dude robbing a lady or holding up the grocery store)

So I'm confused what this references. In game terms, with everyone toting weapons and armor et al. It's more wild west justice... What suspected robber would one bet trying to apprehend without an actual cause to do so? Just random PC violence for fun? (hey let's pound on that guy!)


Pendagast wrote:

I had to read that like 30 times take a break and come back to understand what you were saying. I think you mean, if you are NOT a police officer and you try to apprehend a suspected their not caught in the act ; I'm not sure why you would do this... "hey I think that guy stole something" and he pulls a weapon on you to defend himself , erm yea you would be assaulting him via the act of apprehending; that you would be in trouble.....

I'm confused?

There are a few RL situations where you can legally make a citizens arrest but all of them involve catching the criminal in the act. (like some dude robbing a lady or holding up the grocery store)

So I'm confused what this references. In game terms, with everyone toting weapons and armor et al. It's more wild west justice... What suspected robber would one bet trying to apprehend without an actual cause to do so? Just random PC violence for fun? (hey let's pound on that guy!)

Yeah, that was poorly phrased wasn't it.

I was thinking "Hey that's the guy that robbed me yesterday!"
I think I've also heard of at least one case of someone being shot by a neighbor while breaking into his own house. Lost his key or whatever.

Or just a vigilante deciding to take down some gang members, which would be the closest analogy to "It's okay to kill the Tower Girls, they're a gang of thieves".

Read the post I'm replying to:

Quote:
If the they try to apprehend the theif and he turns it into a weapon struggle, pulsl a weapon, etc....then killing him is acceptable.

Only true if you're trying to stop them in the act or if you're law enforcement doing your job.


Well, the vigilante case is something different, tracking down the Tower Girls for the purpose of killing them just because they steal things, might be some OCDC LE Hellknight for example.

Judge Dread I am the law summary execution....

In reality, regardless of alignment, most adventurers aren't going to give a dragons foot about some random gang of thieves.

They are looking for something, and are on a mission. The Tower Girls are just "in their way".

Let's take a harry potter example. What's that spell, "obliviate" where Hermione takes away their memory? (can't think of a dnd equivalent off hand), so if your mage could hold person on them, and wipe their memories (no chance of revenge or them tracking you down) you could get in and out without reprisal and get what you wanted. YaY!

OR maybe a Stun gun, ZAP they are out for plenty of time.

But in this case you've got a dungeon crawl searching for something, and spell casting is the art of resource management. So spending a lot of resource now could put everyone in peril later, when you can just let the barbarian loose and HULK SMASH.

Truth be told I never grasped the concept of "non lethal" combat. I have hit IRL and seen others hit, people and almost killed them with one shot, does that mean they would have the game equivalent of one HP? Or does military hand to hand training give me a level of monk?

SO I'm not seeing the big picture of meting out careful vanquishing of misunderstood attackers.

It's not oliver twist, the artful dodger has not just thrown a rock at my head and spit in my soup, there is a pack of chicks trying to cut my head off and backstabbing me.

Why would I go into this situation with the intent, or prepared to do non lethal combat anyway.

If the venture captain had said something like "there are innocents being controlled against their will in there, don't kill everything that you see" I might go in with a different mind set.

But I'm not killing them because they are thieves, Im killing them because they are trying to kill me.

If they bleed out on the floor because of their decision to attack me, and my efforts to defend myself? Gee, what do i do now? my LE magus is going to clean his sword on their cloak and search for any coin they might have as they just cut up my best tabard.

My LG Paladin? Gosh I dunno. Does he have a reason to question her? Compulsion to keep her alive? They tried (if not successfully so) to back stab, they were intending to kill.... hmmmm it all depends.

CG Rogue, another I dunno. Might be a Serves them right type.

CE is going to go around and stick em for good measure.

NE might turn them into zombies for amusement.

Neutral? IT was a good fight, they lost.

NG.... gosh probably thinking things through with the paladin.

But NONE if them are going to be thinking about that WHILE the fight is going on, they are going to fight to win, and deal with the outcome when it's done.

Did the Girls drop to their knees and beg for mercy? Were they trying to escape only to be hewn down? Those would be different issues. But we are talking about a fight to the death, where the PCs were not deliberately looking for a fight and the Tower Girls are.

PCs are not there to punish thieves.


Pendagasr , you keep speaking of a fight to the death .
I do not remember the module written as this (I might be wrong).

And you made me doubt myself and I checked the test of the Convention I from 1949 (article 3)
In short : The people who do no participate directly to the combat (included armed force people who have dropped their weapons and THE PEOPLE who have been PUT OUT OF COMBAT DUE TO disease , WOUNDS , ... WILL BE ON ALL CIRCUMSTANCES TREATED HUMANELY ! .

The rule indeed only apply to people who have themselves signed the convention but I would contend that a good person would try to apply it nonetheless. A merely neutral not so much .
Otherwise, it is obvious that, during a fight, you won't have time to check if someone is really down . As I said before, during the fight you fight as well as you can and don't take the risk one on your side will be killed because you hesitated.

Cheliax

thejeff wrote:


OTOH, if you, as a non law enforcement officer, try to apprehend a suspected thief, not caught in the act, and he pulls a gun or a knife to defend himself, then you're the one in trouble.

Untrue. It various by state. castle doctrine dictates that you can defend yourself. FL or TX there wouldnt be trouble. NY you would.


carmachu wrote:
thejeff wrote:


OTOH, if you, as a non law enforcement officer, try to apprehend a suspected thief, not caught in the act, and he pulls a gun or a knife to defend himself, then you're the one in trouble.

Untrue. It various by state. castle doctrine dictates that you can defend yourself. FL or TX there wouldnt be trouble. NY you would.

In FL or TX you can attack some random person you think is a criminal and kill him if he tries to defend himself?

Can you defend yourself from a random person who comes up and attacks you?

Edit: And it's not Castle Doctrine. Castle doctrine lets you claim self defense in your home. Has nothing to do with approaching people elsewhere.


Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules Subscriber

At this point it seems to me we have said everything that could be said about the subject. Now we are arguing minutia. Ultimately it is going to fall to GM adjudication (which it always was) but this thread provides numerous arguments for both sides. I vote we call it good & move on to the next topic before this devolves into a flame war.

The phrase 'quit while you're ahead' comes to mind...

Cheliax

thejeff wrote:


In FL or TX you can attack some random person you think is a criminal and kill him if he tries to defend himself?

Can you defend yourself from a random person who comes up and attacks you?

Edit: And it's not Castle Doctrine. Castle doctrine lets you claim self defense in your home. Has nothing to do with approaching people elsewhere.

Actually your mistaken. Castle doctrine/self defense applies to other places. FL cases and others hinge upon the princple. Its not just home.


carmachu wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Edit: And it's not Castle Doctrine. Castle doctrine lets you claim self defense in your home. Has nothing to do with approaching people elsewhere.
Actually your mistaken. Castle doctrine/self defense applies to other places. FL cases and others hinge upon the princple. Its not just home.

Castle doctrine is specifically about your home. "A man's home is his castle."

FL & some others have gone beyond the Castle doctrine with so-called Stand Your Ground laws.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Someone please lock down this thread and call PETA...

A dead horse is being beaten.


^ THIS

And NO! We do not want a f$~+ing sequel thread about the Gray Maidens.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Pendagast wrote:


The CN = I have no path and everything I do makes no sense, alignment went away along time ago.

Not necessarily. Someone strongly devoted to the ideal of freedom above all else can fit in CN. Think of a resistance fighter (or principled terrorist or anarchist) who is willing to do anything for their cause even if that means some people get hurt. Often people who play CN characters do so they can be "insane" (I think true insanity would exist outside an alignment framework) or be completely random, but CNs can absolutely have a path or a cause.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Quote:

Chaotic Neutral: A chaotic neutral character follows his whims. He is an individualist first and last. He values his own liberty but doesn't strive to protect others' freedom. He avoids authority, resents restrictions, and challenges traditions. A chaotic neutral character does not intentionally disrupt organizations as part of a campaign of anarchy. To do so, he would have to be motivated either by good (and a desire to liberate others) or evil (and a desire to make those others suffer). A chaotic neutral character may be unpredictable, but his behavior is not totally random. He is not as likely to jump off a bridge as he is to cross it.

Chaotic neutral represents freedom from both society's restrictions and a do-gooder's zeal.

By the book, your resistance fighter would be either CG or CE but not CN.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Waruko wrote:

^ THIS

And NO! We do not want a f@#+ing sequel thread about the Gray Maidens.

Who is "we"?


Those of us that know "we" is a pronoun that accounts for the speaker and at least one other person. So at least be Firstbourne and myself that would like to see more constructive posts that don't beat a dead horse for 30-40 posts where nothing new is added to the conversation. (I wasn't claiming, NOR did I claim that "we" accounted for a army of people.) But considering this is now turning towards an alignment discussion I consider all hope lost in that regard.

If I am incorrect my assumptions on Firstbourne's stance on the issue of dead horse beating I apologize to him/her for my presumptions.


The_Hanged_Man wrote:
Pendagast wrote:


The CN = I have no path and everything I do makes no sense, alignment went away along time ago.

Not necessarily. Someone strongly devoted to the ideal of freedom above all else can fit in CN. Think of a resistance fighter (or principled terrorist or anarchist) who is willing to do anything for their cause even if that means some people get hurt. Often people who play CN characters do so they can be "insane" (I think true insanity would exist outside an alignment framework) or be completely random, but CNs can absolutely have a path or a cause.

Thats what I said, that notion of what that alignment was (i.e. no path) went away a long time ago


waruko, you do have the freedom to not read posts or threads you dont like, you know that dont you?


You mean you liked my post? REALLY!? Oh wait, just disregarding your own "freedom to ignore" and practicing the freedom to criticize like I was, darn. Well, regardless let's not derail this discussion any longer, can't wait to see how it ends.


So on to our discussion about the Gray Maidens then.....

which by the way is very curious, as far as alignments and motivations to actions go.... In CotCT the vast majority of maidens are LE but now are portrayed as CN or otherwise. I Find it intriguing former maidens loyal to Illeosa are now CN ...or maybe these specific ones always were.

I think it's interesting to note, Tower Girls, Maidens, adventurers, Paizo has broken the molds on alignments that had been in place over the decades, even having one of their iconics (and a popular one at that) with an evil alignment.

The goal here is to realize that alignment is a tool to understand a personas motivations, I.e. why does this person do what they do. Not shackles for the persona to control what they do.

thusly a Chaotic Evil Character could throw on blue chainmail and a red cape with a huge yellow S on it. But WHY does this persona do this, that's the alignment.....

Take for example two popular comic book mantles who have had different people in them over the years:

Captain America and Batman.

Cap as Steve Rogers was probably as paladin as they come. He's has two dips in his career, one as the Nomad and another as the Captain.

During his time as the Captain, another wore the mantle of Captain America, a super soldier known as Super Patriot.

Captain America, the role model still did what he did. But SP as Cap had different motivations, he wanted power and glory. It seems during this story arc, he went from CN to CE and possibly became redeemed at the end to CG...but it was quite clear, Super Patriot was never a lawful personality.

On the other hand, After getting his back broken by Bane, Bruce Wayne took a "break" from the mantle of batman, to be replaced by a character named azrael.

I would argue that Batman was nearly an undefineable alignment. I attribute that to the literally hundreds of writers that have penned stories of him over the years. However the original concept, as well as the character during the Frank Miller years, was Neutral Good.

Asrael was much more concerned with Law but with his own bend, rather than the law of society, which he considered flawed an fallible, he held criminals to his own higher standard and definition.... lawful neutral? No, I should say he was lawful evil.

Both the above examples were, to the casual observer, Cap ad batman, but the people who acted as them had different motivations, for the same 'heroic' behaviors.

My kids have the avengers on TV right now, Loki, is another example of this motivation. Clearly an EVIL character, but he once, for much of his career, was a traveling companion and ally of Thor.

Did he change alignments? No. as Paizo has it, he merely gained in power, making it easier to recognize his evil aura. But he was always evil, according to the Thor mythology, Thor had a trial of humility that changed his heart, so it's possible Thor had a change in alignment, Possibly CN to CG.

Never the less, the actions of a team, or individual during their exploits as adventurers, which are the RPG version of soldiers of fortune, are less controlled by alignment or the notion of being heroes than many want to define it as.

Gray Maidens in this AP have the same alignment as the Tower Girls (in this case CN) however, as written they are much less likely to be snuffed out by PCs as they are 1) 'controlled' by Sorshen 2) have no real reason to oppose the PCs and 3) would rather have their freedom and/or revenge than battle the PCs.

The Tower Girls goal is to kill PCs, Both parties however contain the same alignment, but with different long and short term goals, so clearly alignment (whether good, neutral or evil) doesn't define ally or enemy.

the Tower Girls, as written are the PCs enemy.


Pendagast wrote:
So on to our discussion about the Gray Maidens then.....

+1 ^_^ Well played sir.

To note that's how it worked out in my group. We let three of the tower girls go (only ones that I could stabilize in time.) But we saved the majority of the Gray Maidens.


so curious you let some Tower girls go, others I assume were, killed by "accident?" (Ie unintentionally)

What did the party think of them? What did the party KNOW about them? How did your own party justify their actions, and what are the alignments of your party?

Were there any ramifications to letting the Tower girls go?

I mean, in other words, why would your party let them go? What motivation did these criminals have to not seek revenge or hunt you down later?

Personally, I would be very concerned with this (as IRL I'm a former soldier). Did you party make attempts to befriend any of these Tower girls after the battle? Did you send them on their way in a pair of panties with one hit point? (ie did you take their stuff or let them keep it)

I would assume, possibly their motivation for not coming back to cut your head off while you were sleeping would be A) your party had overwhelming fire power and , a second battle would assure their death. or B) through diplomacy, you convinced the Tower Girls, you were literally after something utterly unrelated to them, and, If you let them go, you would leave them alone, if they left you alone?

Oh, and what was the fate of their leader?

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Pendagast wrote:


Thats what I said, that notion of what that alignment was (i.e. no path) went away a long time ago

Ah sorry. Misread that there.

Qadira

Waruko wrote:
Pendagast wrote:
So on to our discussion about the Gray Maidens then.....

+1 ^_^ Well played sir.

To note that's how it worked out in my group. We let three of the tower girls go (only ones that I could stabilize in time.) But we saved the majority of the Gray Maidens.

Actualy Grey Maidens are much more akin to stormtroopers from Star Wards than the tower girls. Gray Maidens are evil - some of them may have not been so before, and were compelled to service by brainwashing and even magic, but what they are when the PCs face them is really evil. And PCs have actual proof of that - the atrocities commited by the gray maidens include:

1)slaughtering citizens on numerous ocassions (usualy as a means of stopping riots)
2) willingly guarding the "hospital" where horrible experiments were performed on innocents
3) all the other things that have to do with being an army of an evil tyrant

So I have no problems with killing them.

Look, this is not about the Tower Girls being, well, girls. It's about them being an obstacle in a way to the PCs treasure (which is fine), but the adventure as wrtitten kind of assuming that it's legitimate to kill them all. I strongly believe their crimes do not at all merit a death sentence.


Well it's not about the PC's meting out justice per se. As I put it before, most PCs, and in this case especially THESE PCs are soldiers of fortune seeking treasure and glory. The tower girls attack them, the PCs defend themselves. A deadly fight ensues.

there is no evidence to the contrary that the tower girls are trying to kill the PCs. So regardless of alignment, or what the Tower girls occupation is, the PCs are logically going to kill them back.

What happens after the battle? Are there a few people left alive? unconscious? Bleeding to death?

When I play a PC, most of my PCs are A) lawful Good b) Lawful Evil or C) neutral.

My neutral characters are likely going to let them bleed to death, My Lawful Evil ones would depend. My magus? He'd put them to the sword, just to make sure there were no further complications, or excess entanglements. My monk? he might want prisoners, never know when a human shield could be of use, or possibly worth trading for something. Plus there is the information that might be valuable.

My Lawful Good characters? The monk, might kill anything still struggling, because he'd worry about it suffering (euthanasia) just as likely as he was to try and stabilize it. But then if they were to come back and attack his friends, or hurt someone else, he would feel personally responsible for their actions.

My paladin? Although they don't detect as evil, they attacked from hiding, in an ambush to kill him and his friends, Fergus would finish them off.

And no, letting them bleed to death isn't more "good" then ending their life quicker, nor would a "good person" be required to heal enemies.

Cheliax

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Admitadly In my group they managed to take the crow without killing any of the (regular) Tower girls admitadly I did not run them 100% as presented but made some judgements based on what is described background wise

Spoiler:
(Such as Terisha being sent on the mission as a way to be goten rid of. A conclusion I reached after it is revealed that She only Chooses what she considers her closest allies as receivers of Lycanthropy which she interestingly hasent given to Terisha and that she refuses to let Terisha take any of the other girls go with her even though they suspect it could be a powerfull artifact in play .

101 to 150 of 158 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder Adventure Path / Shattered Star / Go easy on the Girls All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 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.