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

RPG Superstar 2015

Go easy on the Girls


Shattered Star

1 to 50 of 158 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
The Exchange

So, I have a rather major problem with a rather important part of Shards of Sin:

Spoiler:

the Tower Girls are NOT evil

the mental picture I have of the Tower Girls, as presented in this book along (I have no other supplement book that gives further details into Magnimar, Sczarni or the Tower Girls) is of a group of car burglers who are more intrested in petty theft and small crimes than in uglier things like drugs, murder or violance of any sort. They are Sczrani, and that means, according to the book itself, that "they actualy help protect and police" parts of the city.

That brings me to a tough question - why would good aligned PCs be intrested in a violent struggle with the Tower Girls? any sort of diplomacy seems better than killing them. Sure, the Girls may be a bunch of low life scum, but killing them IS murder, IS illegal and unjustified, and just simply the wrong thing to do. If PCs in my game would kill Tower Girls, I will surley punish them with an investigation by the city watch. A rather obvious solution is attacking with non-lethal damage but could easily be a problam for a group of PCs not built to be able to do that and makes fights much harder sometimes.

Furthermore, why will the Tower Girls so gleefuly commit themselves to potential fights to the death? In their place, my reaction to a group of 4 armed, armored, tough looking people that comes looking for me would be to RUN AWAY, not make a stand and protect my lair.

All that said, I can only see the Tower Girls part working in one of two ways:

1) (likely) PCs negotiate a diplomatic deal with the Tower Girls to not bother them in exchange for the right to just pass through their lair into deeper parts of the Crow. This way makes sense, but it just skips a large part of the adventure, causing a large miss on XP and treasure. This might be solved by adding more urban encounters but that means working a lot.

2) (less likely) Tower Girls scatter at first sign that PCs are serious about forcing a way in to the Crow, and then probably find another lair or maybe even wait for the PCs to emerge, tired and beaten, from the Crow, and then ambush them en-mass, take them captive, find out what they know and what drew them to the crow, take all their loot and send them off with a warning.

thoughts?

The Exchange

crushing criminals is good. They victimize others, time to pay the piper. Why do you think they are better off being freindly with this scum?


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Petty theft and small crime is still crime. They're taking what doesn't belong to them and causing unrest due to their criminal activities in the city. Chances are the authorities of Magnimar would still much rather see them caught than allowed to run loose causing trouble.

Now, if that means working out a way so that your group doesn't kill, but maims instead? That's fine. Not every criminal need be wiped out. There are other ways to go about things, and I've had players in my group that have often times played characters that seek nonlethal solutions whenever they face off against humans/demi-humans, regardless of how evil they may be!

But I wouldn't mistake these girls as being good people. They most certainly are not that. They're a criminal group equivalent to a street gang at best. These aren't good people by any means.

The Exchange

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Andrew R wrote:
crushing criminals is good. They victimize others, time to pay the piper. Why do you think they are better off being freindly with this scum?

so let's say your good aligned (NG or LG or CG) PC strolls down a market street and notices a boy trying to pick-pocket him. I assume the reaction would be to kill the boy? If so, then you have a very diffrent perception of playing a good aligned character then I do.

@sub-creator, if a PC is not properly equipped (or dosen't have the right spells repared), then fighting with non-lethal damage can be a problam. Even if you succed, how would you permantly get rid of the defeated Girls? You can't really hand them in to the watch (no evidance of their crimes, which is the reason they were never arrested in the first place), meaning that you didn't at all solve the problem of their presence.

Look, I'm not saying they are good people, but "bad people" is inherntly diffrent from "evil people" in PRPG, and "bad people" don't deserve punishment of death - killing them is nothing less than murder, making the PCs "bad people" themselves (or even "evil people" if they keep at it - alignment CAN change based on action).

Let's say in my gaming table, killing the Girls counts as a bad act, I will punish it as a GM and my players will not be willing to do it in the first place. Are there any suggestions about working around the issue in an elegent manner?

Dark Archive

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I imagine when i run it, my group with go with option 1, but you can get xp for overcoming a encounter, you don't have to kill it. So i would give them xp if they can manage to a truce and still accomplish their goals just as if they would have had to fight their way in.

Shadow Lodge Marathon Voter 2013, Marathon Voter 2014

Lord Snow wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
crushing criminals is good. They victimize others, time to pay the piper. Why do you think they are better off being freindly with this scum?
so let's say your good aligned (NG or LG or CG) PC strolls down a market street and notices a boy trying to pick-pocket him. I assume the reaction would be to kill the boy? If so, then you have a very diffrent perception of playing a good aligned character then I do.

There's also a big difference between a child and an adult. And the two will be handled in very different manners.

A child thief? No, most Good characters would not kill them, they would simply stop them, return the stolen item, and possibly give the child something of their own as charity instead, or take them somewhere/to someone who can help them. (Though some CG characters might not care at all about theft, this is assuming they do.) An adult thief is more likely to break out into violence, especially since they're more likely to be armed, or to resist attempts to stop them more aggressively.

Let's try an example that's closer to the situation being discussed.

Dark Archive

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

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

Shadow Lodge Marathon Voter 2013, Marathon Voter 2014

Oh I agree. An adult thief is simply more likely to respond to attempts to stop them/arrest them with lethal force, requiring lethal force in turn (as not every character is capable enough to do nonlethal damage effectively) simply in self-defense.

The Exchange

Orthos wrote:
Lord Snow wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
crushing criminals is good. They victimize others, time to pay the piper. Why do you think they are better off being freindly with this scum?
so let's say your good aligned (NG or LG or CG) PC strolls down a market street and notices a boy trying to pick-pocket him. I assume the reaction would be to kill the boy? If so, then you have a very diffrent perception of playing a good aligned character then I do.

There's also a big difference between a child and an adult. And the two will be handled in very different manners.

A child thief? No, most Good characters would not kill them, they would simply stop them, return the stolen item, and possibly give the child something of their own as charity instead, or take them somewhere/to someone who can help them. (Though some CG characters might not care at all about theft, this is assuming they do.) An adult thief is more likely to break out into violence, especially since they're more likely to be armed, or to resist attempts to stop them more aggressively.

Let's try an example that's closer to the situation being discussed.

OK, if you want to try a real comparison, how about you enter a man's home, and you know for a fact that he is a member of a gang. You see the man standing in front of you. He is armed, but if you would just leave peacfuly he will not be the first to attack. Do you attack and kill him? The only difference between this example and the situation in the adventure is that in the adventure, the PCs need to press forward into the Tower Girls' home lair to find a shiny magic item, meaning that backing off isn't an option. Still dosen't make attacking legitimate, though.

But that's aside from the point - point is, for me and players this seems like needless violance and so, if there will be good aligned PCs in the group, the killings won't happen. I am looking for a solution for that.

@Dark Mistress, how will you give out the extra treasure? Also, that's an awful lot of XP for one act of negotiation... might bump the PCs up a level all at once... we are talking about dozens for rooms that can be solved with a single diplomatic encounter... might bump the PCs up an entire level...


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules Subscriber

The other thing to consider is that the Leadership of the Tower Girls are Evil.

Tower Girls:
Ayala Javeski, the Leader of the Tower Girls is a Lawful Evil Wererat. She has afflicted a few of her direct lieutenants with Lycanthropy & I believe holds out the opportunity of being infected as a reward to the others as well.

They may not be Evil, but they aren't Good & hanging out in the Crow, they aren't even really doing much as an 'unofficial neighborhood watch' which is what most of the 'they actually help protect & police' Szarni gangs do.

Please do not take this to mean that the players should just slaughter the Girls, but if they feel they have no other options, I wouldn't penalize them overly much if I were GMing this.

Shadow Lodge Marathon Voter 2013, Marathon Voter 2014

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lord Snow wrote:
OK, if you want to try a real comparison, how about you enter a man's home, and you know for a fact that he is a member of a gang. You see the man standing in front of you. He is armed, but if you would just leave peacfuly he will not be the first to attack. Do you attack and kill him? The only difference between this example and the situation in the adventure is that in the adventure, the PCs need to press forward into the Tower Girls' home lair to find a shiny magic item, meaning that backing off isn't an option. Still dosen't make attacking legitimate, though.

If the man is a known criminal to me and my character has the authority to do so - or in the case of a chaotic character/a character who doesn't give a damn about respecting local authority hierarchies, has a good personal reason to see this guy removed and that doing so would benefit the greater good overall - then yes, they probably would attack. And no, I wouldn't consider it an Evil act. A Neutral one, probably, and certainly not Good - taking him prisoner unharmed would be the LG ideal, while removing him from town unharmed and sending him off away from those he's harmed would be more CG - but not Evil.

The more lawful sorts would probably try to disable him, if they could. But breaking into Bad Guys' homes to take their stuff and beat them down is pretty much what adventurers do. If the guy's a criminal, it's frankly standard adventurer procedure. Most APs, at least in my experience, are written with a Chaotic Good party in mind.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Lord Snow wrote:
@Dark Mistress, how will you give out the extra treasure? Also, that's an awful lot of XP for one act of negotiation... might bump the PCs up a level all at once... we are talking about dozens for rooms that can be solved with a single diplomatic encounter... might bump the PCs up an entire level...

Well for one I wouldn't make it a single act of diplomacy. First would be convincing the guards you first meet to let you talk to the leader. Then convincing the leader to make a deal. Then likely the leader will want something in return, like clearing out the lower levels so they can take them over too or something and not telling anyone they are there. So i would make it fairly involved.

As for treasure, if i felt they was falling behind(my group doesn't track if they have treasure they should for their level, for example they give evil magic items to churchs and the like for free to be destroyed etc) then I would just move some of the treasure to later parts of the adventure so they would find it there.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Irnk, Dead-Eye's Prodigal wrote:

The other thing to consider is that the Leadership of the Tower Girls are Evil. ** spoiler omitted **

They may not be Evil, but they aren't Good & hanging out in the Crow, they aren't even really doing much as an 'unofficial neighborhood watch' which is what most of the 'they actually help protect & police' Szarni gangs do.

Please do not take this to mean that the players should just slaughter the Girls, but if they feel they have no other options, I wouldn't penalize them overly much if I were GMing this.

True though when the PC's first arrive and when the first fights are likely to happen the PC's wouldn't know that.

The Exchange

Dark_Mistress wrote:
Lord Snow wrote:
@Dark Mistress, how will you give out the extra treasure? Also, that's an awful lot of XP for one act of negotiation... might bump the PCs up a level all at once... we are talking about dozens for rooms that can be solved with a single diplomatic encounter... might bump the PCs up an entire level...

Well for one I wouldn't make it a single act of diplomacy. First would be convincing the guards you first meet to let you talk to the leader. Then convincing the leader to make a deal. Then likely the leader will want something in return, like clearing out the lower levels so they can take them over too or something and not telling anyone they are there. So i would make it fairly involved.

As for treasure, if i felt they was falling behind(my group doesn't track if they have treasure they should for their level, for example they give evil magic items to churchs and the like for free to be destroyed etc) then I would just move some of the treasure to later parts of the adventure so they would find it there.

moving the treasure is a great idea, thanks!

as for the diplomacy, I guess I can have the Tower Girls be the fickle folks that they are supposed to be and have several diplomatic encounters at various points in time during the adventure, having them change their minds about certain points of the agreement evrey once in a while, making the crossing of their teritorries something that is never trivial.

@Orthos, I own all APs save for Rise of the Runelords and Skulls & Shackles, and I can't recall a point where killing non-evil, relativley non-violent criminals was such an essential part of the adventure as it is in this one...so the "Most APs, at least in my experience, are written with a Chaotic Good party in mind." is not really relevnt here since this is not about breaking the law, it's about killing people who don't really deserve to die.

Shadow Lodge Marathon Voter 2013, Marathon Voter 2014

I admit I'm probably missing out on some context as I don't have/haven't played Shattered Star yet.


One could always alter their portfolio a bit to be more violent or evil. Added violent mugging, intimidation and assault to gain protection monies, kidnapping and ransom. No need to waste perfectly good combat when you can flavor the killings to be more acceptable.

Sczarni

Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Keep in mind, too, that "diplomacizing" the TG at this stage is likely to be a difficult task.

If you have a really well-designed PC that can do just that, go for it.

It'll harken back to olden times when convincing the goblin tribe that the kobold tribe was their real enemies all along, and to go on a jihad against the lizards.

Enemy of my enemy, etc...

Grand Lodge

When I run it, they will react like burglars and they may put up a bit of a fight, but will not be above ditching to warn their leader of the threat being posed by the PCs.

As was mentioned, they are not inherently Evil, but they have motivations and leadership that will be directing their actions. It will be pretty evident that some are gleefully jumping behind their cause, while some might be more hesitant.

Diplomacy will most likely work against most of them, while others not so much. I will try to make clear, the line between justified and unjustified, before I begin working out the consequences of their actions.

At least, that is how I intend to run it. :) I think for the OP, run with your gut, make sure that the TGs react as you think they would. Also make sure that you have a way for the PCs to know that their reputation is for mostly non-violent crimes. That often they try to keep casualties to a minimum... (At least that is what I am remembering. I may be wrong.)


I'm already altering this for when I run it (My pcs will be the antagonists of this adventure, the tower girls will be a group of unblooded members of the darklight sisterhood lead into treachery by their wererat leader, a full member who has become a threat to the organization), but I had trouble with the tower girls as written myself. They need to be pictured as more vicious violent or erratic overall, otherwise I know most of my players would have no problem parleying or even joining the group.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

14 people marked this as a favorite.

Making the Tower Girls chaotic neutral and not evil was a specific design choice so that this type of conundrum WOULD show up. One of many ways we're trying to make these "dungeon crawls" a bit more than just "kick in the door, kill the monsters, take their stuff."

It's good to see some groups and folks picking up on that! Excellent!

The Exchange

James Jacobs wrote:

Making the Tower Girls chaotic neutral and not evil was a specific design choice so that this type of conundrum WOULD show up. One of many ways we're trying to make these "dungeon crawls" a bit more than just "kick in the door, kill the monsters, take their stuff."

It's good to see some groups and folks picking up on that! Excellent!

Ha. was wandering if this was intentional. Intresting to learn that it is. However, I WAS forced to open a thread here and get some excellent suggestions from some people to get my mind in the right direction about this. Next time you do something like this, I think a side bar about it could be very useful. You know, kind of a "not killing the Tower Girls - what happens now?" kind of thing. makes a GM's life a LOT easier.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lord Snow wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:

Making the Tower Girls chaotic neutral and not evil was a specific design choice so that this type of conundrum WOULD show up. One of many ways we're trying to make these "dungeon crawls" a bit more than just "kick in the door, kill the monsters, take their stuff."

It's good to see some groups and folks picking up on that! Excellent!

Ha. was wandering if this was intentional. Intresting to learn that it is. However, I WAS forced to open a thread here and get some excellent suggestions from some people to get my mind in the right direction about this. Next time you do something like this, I think a side bar about it could be very useful. You know, kind of a "not killing the Tower Girls - what happens now?" kind of thing. makes a GM's life a LOT easier.

Perhaps... but also, the fact that these boards exist is precisely for reasons like this. They're a place GMs can go to chat with other GMs and the writers of the adventure and the developers and all that all at once.

There are other elements of redemption and alternative methods of dealing with NPCs who may or may not be evil that we talk about later in the adventure path, but we don't have room to do that for every possible case in print.

Scarab Sages

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

On the question of how harsh it is to kill the Tower Girls if they're just petty thieves and minor troublemakers, in many ancient and medieval societies the legal penalty for thievery was death. So it would depend on how killing by the adventurers compared with their sentence if convicted in a local court. If the local court would impose a few dozen lashes, then killing is very harsh by local standards. If they would be hung anyway then not so much.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules Subscriber

Um, you do know that a few dozen lashes can & frequently did kill right?

Silver Crusade Star Voter 2014

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules Subscriber
Zarzulan wrote:
On the question of how harsh it is to kill the Tower Girls if they're just petty thieves and minor troublemakers, in many ancient and medieval societies the legal penalty for thievery was death. So it would depend on how killing by the adventurers compared with their sentence if convicted in a local court. If the local court would impose a few dozen lashes, then killing is very harsh by local standards. If they would be hung anyway then not so much.

Magnimar's punishments for crime tend towards lighter in general than Korvosa, going by the description of Korvosa's punishments as being far harsher than the norm than most non-evil cities in its own book.

Maybe one thing that could help curb the potential for the Crow to turn into a slaughterhouse is for the PCs to get a good view of what the law is in Magnimar. Let them see some of it action. Their meeting with Kasadei could be a great opportunity to weave some of that in. After their expectations for the scene in Magnimar are calibrated, that'll inform their decisions and how they approach the Crow, whether they go in with sbudual guns-a-blazin' or if they try to infiltrate and use subterfuge to take the gang apart from within. Matalya herself could have some ideas on how to approach the situation.

One thing that works wonders is to have NPCs referring to each other by name and reacting realistically to their friends being hurt or in harm's way, whether it's getting upset and driven to greater violence, taking great risks to help another, or offering surrender for their friends' and their own sake. It helps players see NPCs as people rather than obstacles.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Lord Snow wrote:
OK, if you want to try a real comparison, how about you enter a man's home, and you know for a fact that he is a member of a gang. You see the man standing in front of you. He is armed, but if you would just leave peacfuly he will not be the first to attack. Do you attack and kill him? The only difference between this example and the situation in the adventure is that in the adventure, the PCs need to press forward into the Tower Girls' home lair to find a shiny magic item, meaning that backing off isn't an option. Still dosen't make attacking legitimate, though.

I'm in no way advocating slaughterhouse violence against the girls in this AP. I think it's fantastic when PCs tend away from such things and handle a situation more diplomatically (or creatively).

However, the above is an extremely flawed comparison about the situation. The Crow doesn't belong to these girls. It's open to the public to explore as they will (as many had done before the girls got there), and the girls have no claim of ownership to it. Essentially, it's a place they've chosen to roost because they had no place else to go at the time and believed they'd be out of sight of others (including authorities).

A better example of this situation would be a gang that claims an area of the city as its turf and decides to threaten/attack someone for "daring" to be there. If the girls had a building that they lawfully purchased and held the deed to, I would agree that the PCs arrival and exploration of said building--and attacking of the owners should the girls seek to defend their property--could easily be interpreted as illegal. However, that's not the case here. The girls have simply laid squatters rights on The Crow and have no right to tell the PCs they can't be there, just as a gang has no right to tell someone they can't play in a city park because they've claimed it as their territory. If members of that gang attacked said person for "intrusion" on their territory in the park, that individual or group of individuals would be well within their right to defend themselves as necessary. The same would be the case if the PCs used force to defend themselves against the girls if attacked for "encroaching" on the girls' territory.

The Exchange

@ sub creator, that IS a very good point. There is the slight complication that the Girls are only claiming parts of the Crow that were never even known to the public before (they only recently descovered the secret door). It is also never mentioned in the AP how the girls would react to peaceful PC approach, so I am also not sure if they initiate an attack that would cause PCs the need to "defend themselves" by killing evreyone involved.

Still, let me think about your point for a while. It does sound promising.

Lantern Lodge

Orthos wrote:
But breaking into Bad Guys' homes to take their stuff and beat them down is pretty much what adventurers do.

I've often explained to people that D&D* is a home invasion simulation. It just happens that most of the residents are dragons/vampires/monsters. So when the "monster" is a human, and their home isn't a cave/spooky castle/fetid bog/space dimension of ick, and their possessions are well their possessions, the comparison cleaves much closer to reality.

I as a DM often do take them to task for lethal damage on sentient non-irredeemably evil foes. Rewarding the players whose alignments are xG for not slaughtering them but taking them prisoner. Be it by non-lethal damage, or casting stabilize on the dying.

So in this case I would hope the players treat the waifs/pick pockets, and petty members as just that, foes to be over come, but not destroyed. Once you start into the bosses, well 1) they are the ones directing the crime syndicate 2) they are actual monsters and we just transition into the illogical reality of RPG alignment where things really are capital E evil and they are allowed to be destroyed.

* Terms like dragons, vampires and D&D used in favaor of goblin, Lich and Pathfinder, because D&D has nearly universal brand recognition among non-gamer adults who humor me when I start talking about such things.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Lord Snow wrote:
It is also never mentioned in the AP how the girls would react to peaceful PC approach . . .

That's true. However, Mr. Vaughn did give us pretty good descriptions for each of the girls there, which should help a GM to roleplay them believably in whatever situation might arise. Upon recognizing how certain girls' personalities are shaped, it can become easier to determine which ones might not fight with lethal force against the PCs and which ones would. Likewise, their personalities should also help you to decide which of the girls would be more apt to talk should the PCs attempt to open a line of communication.

There are a ton of variables involving the scenarios with the girls, and that's what makes their portion of the dungeon so exciting! I hear people on these boards argue for multiple options for scenarios all the time . . . well, this is one of those times that Paizo is offering exactly that! (For the record, I think Paizo does a fine job of offering such options all the time!)

Frankly, LS, I think you'll have a blast running this portion of the adventure for a certainty! It's laden with RP possibilities galore for you PCs, especially if you have a group that enjoys interaction more than just walking into rooms with weapons blazing! =)

The Exchange

Sub-Creator, that is another fair point - the personality detail about the Girls can make for a good base to build their reaction to anything the PCs do (not only a peaceful approach, but any approach). However, by simply reading the adventure at face value, and not pausing to think about the scenario, it seems the writer implies that the Girls are just another group of foes to take down in combat. By not mentioning the rather unusual nature of their presence in the path of the PCs, it is left to the GM himself to make the Crow (at least the first part, where the Girls are) into something more than a convetional crawl.

As is evident by the existance of this thread, I did notice something unusual, but I had more time than usual to read into this module and ponder it's contents than normally. If that is how paizo does things (by "secretly" integrating unique aspects into the adventures, that take thought from the GM to flash out), I might have missed a whole bunch of other stuff in previous adventures, and I might miss stuff about upcoming ones. I find that providing even a single paragraph to discuss such things in the adventure could make my life a lot easier.

Liberty's Edge

Having already had our asses whomped twice by Whip Girl in book one, my character (a very respectful-of-women Detective Bard) pretty much said this when it comes to his "I hate to be violent against women..." stance:

"When it applies to her? No. Not really. Not this time."

Considering two of the other party members said the third defeat's signaling their retirement (and our recent defeat led us to a shoestring budget of 115 gold sovereigns to equip the entire party- thank God I stashed a garnet in my character's office XD) I think this is justified.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.

You can kick the hell out of them and turn them in without killing them, again you do not make friends with criminals scum. That said i think this pity stems more from gender than any perceived good in them.

Lantern Lodge

Snorb wrote:

Having already had our asses whomped twice by Whip Girl in book one, my character (a very respectful-of-women Detective Bard) pretty much said this when it comes to his "I hate to be violent against women..." stance:

"When it applies to her? No. Not really. Not this time."

Considering two of the other party members said the third defeat's signaling their retirement (and our recent defeat led us to a shoestring budget of 115 gold sovereigns to equip the entire party- thank God I stashed a garnet in my character's office XD) I think this is justified.

On the plus side when you do defeat them, imagine how much loot your going to get (back).


The girls can always surrender when they're at half hitpoints, better to lose their base than their lives to rampaging murder-hoboes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

What I also like is the fact that even if diplomacy fail with the girls, it does not mean they won't let the PCs pass through their 'home' .
Being apparently not completely stupid, they would much prefer to have a deal :
"You want to pass through our turf ? Ok but when you'll come back , you'll have to pay a tax "
Even if the characters go back on their word , when do you prefer to fight ? If you attack the PCs when they first arrive , you have basically no way to retreat since they are blocking the exit , they are in top form and do not have any real loot
If you 'have to' attack them when they come back , they might be hurt and out of spells and if things go wrong you can run away ...


If they're competent adults using lethal force against you, there shouldn't be an issue using lethal force back.

But just because you're using lethal force doesn't mean you're looking to kill them. For instance, you don't have to use your strength bonus if you don't want to, you don't have to confirm a crit if you don't want to. This is easier than doing non-lethal damage. Or spend most of the fight doing lethal damage and then do non-lethal with the last attack (ask your GM how they look and then switch to NL attacks)

Beat them down, stabilize them (there's even a zero level spell with that name), leave then in the care of some of their injured comrades who surrendered and move on. This also gives priests or Paladins of Sarenrae chances to provide redemption ("remember the mercy I have shown, repent your criminal ways!")

The players aren't there to bring them to justice, they're Pathfinders with a specific goal. If you're a serious law and order type then turn them over to the watch when your done. Killing people unnecessarily should give the players a reputation for being bloodthirsty which may affect later interactions (for good or ill).

Of course, deaths may occur, but it's a side effect of a dangerous lifestyle.


good people kill good people all the time, It's called war.

Not every side of contention has evil vs, good.

Take Dwarves and Elves warring against each other as an example. Typically dwarves are LG and Elves CG. Sacred cow cannon (goes back to tolkien) has most worlds having some distant past war between dwarves and elves. So was one of them once and evil race, or can good people kill people they are at odds with who are not themselves "evil", without becoming evil?

Adventurers come into dangerous encounters, not all enemies are evil. Case in point CoT, the hell knights are technically a LN group, I'll wager there are alot of dead hellknights since the publishing of that AP.

Grand Lodge

@Pendagast: But this is not war. There is nothing patriotic about it, no one claims rights over the other, and there is no politics involved. Just a sort of entitlement that adventurers have that this is their right... :p


how does patriotic make something right or wrong, The SS were extremely patriotic, does that make them good?

As an adventurer you take up arms, wander into ancient ruins and kill whats there and take their stuff. There is a certain opportunistic-ness to that that isn't very "good".

One's motivation to become an adventurer is essentially their alignment, but does not necessarily pre-determine what they do when they adventure.

Orcs, they're an enemy race to most of mankind, shoanti kill them on sight, evil?

It's not that clear.

Killing in the name of your kin or country does not make the killing good, and I totally disagree about politics. There are plenty of politics involved. Orcs, kobolds, goblins, all politics.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Orcs are evil in the sense that they refuse to peacefully coexist with anyone, even among their own kind. Bullying and violence to establish dominance is SOP for them. Other races that have different ideas about how those kinds of interactions work are generally and understandably pissed when the local orcs decide they're dominant and start killing or hurting them to prove it. The only politics among orcs is "Can this guy take me in a fight? If he can, he's in charge. If he can't, I can do whatever I want to him."

The situation with the Tower Girls is not like that. They mostly want to avoid notice and pursue their goals in secret. They don't attack the PCs to establish who is the alpha, they do it to drive them off, to get the PCs to stop poking around their turf.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall anything in the current lore about dwarves and elves actually being at war in the distant past, or this being the source of their mutual feelings. Their dislike of each other is more along the lines of the straight-laced conservative and the laid-back hippy who annoy the crap out of each other, yet are somehow college roommates.

The Exchange

What is "their turf" and what rights do they really have to it?


Archpaladin Zousha wrote:

Orcs are evil in the sense that they refuse to peacefully coexist with anyone, even among their own kind. Bullying and violence to establish dominance is SOP for them. Other races that have different ideas about how those kinds of interactions work are generally and understandably pissed when the local orcs decide they're dominant and start killing or hurting them to prove it. The only politics among orcs is "Can this guy take me in a fight? If he can, he's in charge. If he can't, I can do whatever I want to him."

The situation with the Tower Girls is not like that. They mostly want to avoid notice and pursue their goals in secret. They don't attack the PCs to establish who is the alpha, they do it to drive them off, to get the PCs to stop poking around their turf.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall anything in the current lore about dwarves and elves actually being at war in the distant past, or this being the source of their mutual feelings. Their dislike of each other is more along the lines of the straight-laced conservative and the laid-back hippy who annoy the crap out of each other, yet are somehow college roommates.

PFRPG alternate racial trait for Elves "ancient enmity" gives them bonuses to attack dwarves and orcs because of hatred that goes way back between the races.... it's a throw back sacred cowish type of racial trait, It's been in DnD somewhere since there has been DnD... but yes it IS there.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Pendagast wrote:
Archpaladin Zousha wrote:

Orcs are evil in the sense that they refuse to peacefully coexist with anyone, even among their own kind. Bullying and violence to establish dominance is SOP for them. Other races that have different ideas about how those kinds of interactions work are generally and understandably pissed when the local orcs decide they're dominant and start killing or hurting them to prove it. The only politics among orcs is "Can this guy take me in a fight? If he can, he's in charge. If he can't, I can do whatever I want to him."

The situation with the Tower Girls is not like that. They mostly want to avoid notice and pursue their goals in secret. They don't attack the PCs to establish who is the alpha, they do it to drive them off, to get the PCs to stop poking around their turf.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall anything in the current lore about dwarves and elves actually being at war in the distant past, or this being the source of their mutual feelings. Their dislike of each other is more along the lines of the straight-laced conservative and the laid-back hippy who annoy the crap out of each other, yet are somehow college roommates.

PFRPG alternate racial trait for Elves "ancient enmity" gives them bonuses to attack dwarves and orcs because of hatred that goes way back between the races.... it's a throw back sacred cowish type of racial trait, It's been in DnD somewhere since there has been DnD... but yes it IS there.

Ah but is that in a setting neutral book or a Golarion book?


How the tower girls react to PCs is how every thing reacts to PCs.

PCs are the ones in someone else's back yard 75 to 80% of the time (and nearly 100% in older modules and editions of the game that had less plot in the adventures)

PCs are almost always "intruders" look for something, looters if you will.
But that is sort of the profession. Indiana Jones didn't carry a gun because sauntering into ancient crypts and tombs was hazard-less.

In the eyes of whatever "guardians" or denizens there are in the area a PC goes into there will be conflict because you are an intruder and or a looter.

Newer editions of the game give some more tools to deal with what you find. Diplomacy, and other skills can get you the same thing, sometimes. But Alignment and skills are different. It i no more or less "good" to talk someone out of what is there, than it is to take it by force.

In the end "morals" are you ultimate motivation. Did you go in there with the intention of robbing and killing? Or were you curious? Under orders? Had no choice? Were you lost?

It's more about WHY you do what you do, than WHAT you did. (the difference between a soldier killing someone or a bar room brawl ending in a death)

By virtue of being a soldier during a time of war, does not absolve one of all actions, which is why there is such a thing as war crimes, so again, it returns to the motivations:

I want to act within the law as my excuse and my blanket of protection, but my end goal is me me me me. Lawful Evil

I want to save everyone, punish those who are evil, bring justice to the savages and news of wonderful adventures abroad home to the grayness of the city... :Awful Good

I burn things because it's fun, I take what's mine, wait everything is mine: Chaotic Evil

That's a stupid law, laws are unjust, the government needs to go, these people know whats best for themselves, they need to be liberated, I don't care if breaking and entering is illegal, I know there are people in here who need my help: Chaotic Good.

However, All four of those people, would kill an orc, any orc.

All four might have reasons not to kill an orc, depending on the circumstances.


Kevin Mack wrote:
Pendagast wrote:
Archpaladin Zousha wrote:

Orcs are evil in the sense that they refuse to peacefully coexist with anyone, even among their own kind. Bullying and violence to establish dominance is SOP for them. Other races that have different ideas about how those kinds of interactions work are generally and understandably pissed when the local orcs decide they're dominant and start killing or hurting them to prove it. The only politics among orcs is "Can this guy take me in a fight? If he can, he's in charge. If he can't, I can do whatever I want to him."

The situation with the Tower Girls is not like that. They mostly want to avoid notice and pursue their goals in secret. They don't attack the PCs to establish who is the alpha, they do it to drive them off, to get the PCs to stop poking around their turf.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall anything in the current lore about dwarves and elves actually being at war in the distant past, or this being the source of their mutual feelings. Their dislike of each other is more along the lines of the straight-laced conservative and the laid-back hippy who annoy the crap out of each other, yet are somehow college roommates.

PFRPG alternate racial trait for Elves "ancient enmity" gives them bonuses to attack dwarves and orcs because of hatred that goes way back between the races.... it's a throw back sacred cowish type of racial trait, It's been in DnD somewhere since there has been DnD... but yes it IS there.
Ah but is that in a setting neutral book or a Golarion book?

advanced race guide, listed as a companion to the core rule book.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Pendagast wrote:
Kevin Mack wrote:
Pendagast wrote:
Archpaladin Zousha wrote:

Orcs are evil in the sense that they refuse to peacefully coexist with anyone, even among their own kind. Bullying and violence to establish dominance is SOP for them. Other races that have different ideas about how those kinds of interactions work are generally and understandably pissed when the local orcs decide they're dominant and start killing or hurting them to prove it. The only politics among orcs is "Can this guy take me in a fight? If he can, he's in charge. If he can't, I can do whatever I want to him."

The situation with the Tower Girls is not like that. They mostly want to avoid notice and pursue their goals in secret. They don't attack the PCs to establish who is the alpha, they do it to drive them off, to get the PCs to stop poking around their turf.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall anything in the current lore about dwarves and elves actually being at war in the distant past, or this being the source of their mutual feelings. Their dislike of each other is more along the lines of the straight-laced conservative and the laid-back hippy who annoy the crap out of each other, yet are somehow college roommates.

PFRPG alternate racial trait for Elves "ancient enmity" gives them bonuses to attack dwarves and orcs because of hatred that goes way back between the races.... it's a throw back sacred cowish type of racial trait, It's been in DnD somewhere since there has been DnD... but yes it IS there.
Ah but is that in a setting neutral book or a Golarion book?
advanced race guide, listed as a companion to the core rule book.

Setting neutral then and may not apply to Golarion.


my bad it's in APG not Advanced Races.

and its there for both Elves and Dwarves.

Why would the example of a war between dwarves and elves matter which world.... both races have been iconically "good" since the inception of the game. Both races have been listed as having long term grudges as a result of war from long ago in their history since the first rules set (Basic Rules has Dwarves as Lawful and Elves as chaotic before there WERE good and evil alignments.... it was totally based on Moorcock back then who drew no obvious lines of good an evil, only law and chaos.)

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Pendagast wrote:

my bad it's in APG not Advanced Races.

and its there for both Elves and Dwarves.

Why would the example of a war between dwarves and elves matter which world.... both races have been iconically "good" since the inception of the game. Both races have been listed as having long term grudges as a result of war from long ago in their history since the first rules set (Basic Rules has Dwarves as Lawful and Elves as chaotic before there WERE good and evil alignments.... it was totally based on Moorcock back then who drew no obvious lines of good an evil, only law and chaos.)

Still a setting neutral book. As for the example I was under the impression we were talking about Golarion specificly if were not then feel free to Ignore what I have posted.


Kevin Mack wrote:
Pendagast wrote:

my bad it's in APG not Advanced Races.

and its there for both Elves and Dwarves.

Why would the example of a war between dwarves and elves matter which world.... both races have been iconically "good" since the inception of the game. Both races have been listed as having long term grudges as a result of war from long ago in their history since the first rules set (Basic Rules has Dwarves as Lawful and Elves as chaotic before there WERE good and evil alignments.... it was totally based on Moorcock back then who drew no obvious lines of good an evil, only law and chaos.)

Still a setting neutral book. As for the example I was under the impression we were talking about Golarion specificly if were not then feel free to Ignore what I have posted.

Do you assume that for everything in setting neutral books? That any feats/traits/whatever just don't apply in Golarion? Would you refuse to allow that alternate racial trait in a Golarion game? Is it banned in PFS?

It seems to me the burden is on you if you want to claim it doesn't exist in Golarion.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
Kevin Mack wrote:
Pendagast wrote:

my bad it's in APG not Advanced Races.

and its there for both Elves and Dwarves.

Why would the example of a war between dwarves and elves matter which world.... both races have been iconically "good" since the inception of the game. Both races have been listed as having long term grudges as a result of war from long ago in their history since the first rules set (Basic Rules has Dwarves as Lawful and Elves as chaotic before there WERE good and evil alignments.... it was totally based on Moorcock back then who drew no obvious lines of good an evil, only law and chaos.)

Still a setting neutral book. As for the example I was under the impression we were talking about Golarion specificly if were not then feel free to Ignore what I have posted.

Do you assume that for everything in setting neutral books? That any feats/traits/whatever just don't apply in Golarion? Would you refuse to allow that alternate racial trait in a Golarion game? Is it banned in PFS?

It seems to me the burden is on you if you want to claim it doesn't exist in Golarion.

Well for one thing background wise there really cant be an ancient feud The Dwarfs only appeared on the surface during/near the end of the age of darkness when the vast majority of the elves had already fled due to earthfall.

Also according to elves of Golarion if anything the race the elves had an ancient emnity with were humans.

From elves of Golarion

The Five Kings Mountains: The dwarves of the Five Kings Mountains have long been loosely allied with the elves of Kyonin, trading with them and sharing much of their suspicion of humanity. Though they view the Tanglebriar, which approaches their own mountain territory, as a failing on the elves’ part, on the whole they’re too busy with their own affairs to concern themselves overmuch with the Fair Ones, and relations remain friendly, if distant.

From Dwarfs of Golarion

Kyonin: Although dwarves and elves have not alwaysgotten along, they are not naturally enemies; life is simply too long for both races to nurse grudges. Instead, they trade back and forth, and consult on matters of relations with the humans, particularly when it concerns both nations

So while they may not always have been best friends or anything the background really dosent seem to hint at anything approaching an ancient emnity.

1 to 50 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.