|
Prepared spells are truly called out explicitly, but note that 'stored spell energy' does mean spell slots, regardless whether prepared or not. It keeps the intent of the ability (though not the form of it), at any rate.
On another note, I actually realized that (once Perry left the fort) that I did not have the focus for spells I prepared (Shield Other, for instance, and its 50gp worth of platinum rings).
That's what I get for trying out the middle levels of a class I've never tried before. :)
FYI, I'll be out of pocket until later this evening so please bot me if necessary.
Prepared spells are truly called out explicitly, but note that 'stored spell energy' does mean spell slots, regardless whether prepared or not. It keeps the intent of the ability (though not the form of it), at any rate.
I think that is a bit of a stretch, seeing as prepared spells are specifically called out in the very next sentence. Empty spell slots are empty, so there is nothing to convert. No spell energy has been stored. There is not much room for interpretation there, in my opinion. This is certainly the first time I've seen anyone construe it that way.
The GM is free to rule however they wish, of course. It's not likely to break anything too badly, but it does eat away at the intended power balance between prepared and spontaneous casters (having more spells to choose from vs. being able to cast any spell you know at any time). Being able to leave slots open for later preparation and converting prepared spells into cure spells are specified exceptions to that rule, but I see nothing to indicate they could be mixed. Flexibility on the fly is not the cleric's forte, and it's not supposed to be.
Hopefully I was freed so they count! Also didn't even notice until Jetta mentioned it. Please say I am free!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, you made it free, Amund. :)
And, uh...I may have rolled two 20s in a row attacking Jetta, one for the attack roll and one for the confirmation...*shifty eyes*
But take solace in this - I went through an entire scenario-length session Balthus ran without rolling above about an 8. On anything. The final fight was two natural 1s in four rounds. In the downtime between sessions, I literally sacrificed my animal companion to the dice gods as a joke. (And then rolled my first natural 20 in weeks in my IRL game two days after. So...yeah. Spoooooky.)
But take solace in this - I went through an entire scenario-length session Balthus ran without rolling above about an 8. On anything. The final fight was two natural 1s in four rounds. In the downtime between sessions, I literally sacrificed my animal companion to the dice gods as a joke. (And then rolled my first natural 20 in weeks in my IRL game two days after. So...yeah. Spoooooky.)
Yeah, but we got a kick-ass story out of the whole ordeal.
And you can all read about in Turn 033 in the Gameplay thread of this campaign.
I still have this image of your druid missing the easy jumps on that first encounter. Awesome. :)
Nice cartoon, I love OotS :).
And the 20s are fine, get them out of the way now, before we fight the really nasty critters.
FYI GM Rennai, I'm tracking my spells in hero lab. If you'd like me to put them in my stats I can.
Post will be later this morning, busy night for me.
Before you commit to that: Do we know for certain these things are Chaotic? Could Anthuria tell, since she identified them?
Yes, they're chaotic. Fey almost uniformly are.
Good. >:)
Carry on then, Perry.
What? They're definitely people-eating-Evil, but the other axis far harder to pin down. :P
|
|
What? They're definitely people-eating-Evil, but the other axis far harder to pin down. :P
If I must to go into alignment, cannibalism falls under chaos more than evil--at least in the Pathfinderverse.
Perry would still be like, "Fey are pagan heathens who spurn the godly ways--and for that they must be ended," regardless.Yes, some gods are chaotic, but there is a difference--at least to him and the church. >:D
I think the existence of monsters such as ghouls and wendigos frames cannibalism as being inherently Evil, rather than Chaotic. Killing sentient beings with the intent of eating them, at the very least.
Well, I'm not complaining. Down with Chaos!
|
|
Killing without just reason (such as self-defense, lawful punishment etc.) is what constitutes evil in Golarion's cosmology (callous disregard for life, robbing one of their right to survive, etc.).
Careful reading of alignment (and taking the Word of God) results in that cannibalism (as an abstract action) is simply chaotic (freedom, adaptability, not conforming to humanity's general sensibilities and common customs).
Did I mention the tome of necromancy and their analysis on alignment? You'll find that interesting.
Seems fine to me. Fairly appropriate, in fact. (And I enjoy thematic refluffing as long as it doesn't offer inappropriate mechanical advantages.)
Killing without just reason (such as self-defense, lawful punishment etc.) is what constitutes evil in Golarion's cosmology (callous disregard for life, robbing one of their right to survive, etc.).
Careful reading of alignment (and taking the Word of God) results in that cannibalism (as an abstract action) is simply chaotic (freedom, adaptability, not conforming to humanity's general sensibilities and common customs).
Cannibalism for survival would be strictly Neutral, in my opinion. Following your primal instincts and ignoring cultural taboos for the sake of survival is not necessarily Chaotic. That requires intent. However, there are very few positive depictions of the act in Golarion's lore. This is one of those things that might be morally ambigious in real life, but in Golarion it turns you into an Evil flesh-eating undead monstrosity. Hard to argue with that.
Whether or not cannibalism would be considered Chaotic or Lawful depends largely on the context. Hell, it could be argued that practising ritualistic cannibalism as a cultural tradition is Lawful.
Did I mention the tome of necromancy and their analysis on alignment? You'll find that interesting.
I don't think you did.
It's actually pretty interesting. I consider the difference between neutral and chaotic to be goal-determinative. Power acquisition and ambition land you in neutral territory, while pure hedonism places you in chaotic.
Game post coming a bit later.
|
|
It's actually pretty interesting. I consider the difference between neutral and chaotic to be goal-determinative. Power acquisition and ambition land you in neutral territory, while pure hedonism places you in chaotic.
We might come across this topic again throughout the story.
Carving civilization out of wilderness will such questions in our characters' heads, and is fuel for character development.I was fascinated (though Perry was disturbed) at Anthuria's outburst. The passage of Mankind and the eternal dominance of nature is a theme that is not very commonly encountered in fantasy (well--Miyazaki's Princess Mononoke qualifies).
Whether or not cannibalism would be considered Chaotic or Lawful depends largely on the context. Hell, it could be argued that practising ritualistic cannibalism as a cultural tradition is Lawful.
I'd call cannibalism (and also the act of eating intelligent species or eating things) a chaotic act.
If said act involves things that were once your friends in life, or if the act of preparing the meal for food involves torture or tormenting others, then it's also an evil act.
If by context you mean intent, I agree. Devoid of circumstances that move the act itself across the good-evil axis to Evil (such as satisfying vengeance, an expression of hate, etc.) Neutral (to survive), or even Good (figure that one out without coming up with a weird spell or mechanic) cannibalism is by default chaotic when moving along the Law-Chaos axis.
Legislation and legal sanctioning of an act does not necessarily move it from chaotic to lawful: After all, law (or order) and chaos are forces that influence even the divine, and are above and beyond moral comprehension and laws that change with culture and philosophical persuasions.
Due to them being based off different reference points (mortal and supreme/divine understanding of abstract powers), it is entirely logical for mortal lawful judgment by peers to be seen as chaotic with mortals from other parts--but one will always be considered lawful with the Forces of Law, and to them, cannibalism is Chaotic.
In-character, they had the least amount of shared dialogue! XD
@DM: I actually find it bewildering that priests of Abadar (god of cities and laws) gain no lock/wall/gate-related spells such as Knock or Hold Portal.
They're not that useful...
But then again, what'll it be?
The Door Domain?
The debt is rather entertaining. But I like alignment debates and I am running a game with lots of undead and there is going to be a reoccurring baddy who happens to be a cannibal. So this is an argument I will have later and your debate will help.
And to throw my two cents in. I personally think both of you are right. Cannibalism from the standpoint that we are seeing is evil. Slaughtering other sentient creatures for the soul purpose of eating them is vile and evil. Though as far as I have seen cannibalism is the consumption of the flesh of the same species. Fey eating Fey is cannibalism while Fey eating Humans is an evil act. It is being done because the Fey want to eat people not that it is their last choice.
As to the Law verse Chaos axis I will reference this.
Third paragraph on Wendigo's Revisitied.In societies where cannibalism is not seen as a taboo, individuals rarely if ever become wendigos, and these cultures generally have no history of encounters with such monsters. Scholars speculate that wendigo spirits require the perpetrators of the cannibalistic acts to be as shocked and shamed by their own actions as their victims are.
So the legality of the land does matter. Wendigos are apparently tied to the shame of the act of cannibalism. Which explains the violent insanity they display.
Chaos applies here not because of the Law axis but because it is pure chaos. There is not rhyme or reason to do this. If the Fey disliked the humans being in the Vale they could have tried diplomacy or even killed everyone. But eating them is rather extreme. Most cultures view eating sentient creatures as questionable. These creature have to know that the Humans will be angry about their people being eaten and yet the Fey do it.
Chaotic alignments can be very selfish. When paired with an evil alignment the answer to why they did it becomes, "Because I wanted too!" When paired together it is very easy to create a sociopath. Someone who no longer understands empathy or any of the social norms. When you take that way it is very easy to want to do so.
Hey, it's a thread to discuss the game and you're discussing the game. I'm cool with it. Plus, every alignment debate ever, no matter the result, only reinforces my stance on the matter, which is that it's rarely, if ever, something that falls into neat little packages like Gary Gygax wanted it to. :)
However, there are very few positive depictions of the act in Golarion's lore.
I think that may be less a commentary on the act and its morality/ethical-ness (there's got to be a better word than that?) and more an artifact of the truth that Golarion lore is in fact not history, but literature. Since there's a taboo against it in most cultures, it's used as a literary device to designate others as being fundamentally "other", strange and alien. And since Pathfinder is ultimately a predominantly combat-based game and you need a reason to fight and often kill your sentient opponents, "different from me" and "evil" are often lumped together subconsciously, since they appear together so often.
(I was pondering this yesterday, actually, as it relates to incest. Incest seems to have the same kind of treatment as cannibalism/eating of sentient creatures in literature - it shows up all the time, but as a thing to make readers look at the villains and go "oh, they do this thing that I think is icky, so they must be terrible people". If you think about it, for a long time, homosexuality was depicted the same way. Heck, for a long time being an independent, assertive woman was depicted the same way.
Disclaimer: I am not advocating incestuous relationships or cannibalism, just musing on the nature of literature and human thought. )
@DM: I actually find it bewildering that priests of Abadar (god of cities and laws) gain no lock/wall/gate-related spells such as Knock or Hold Portal.
You're not wrong - it would make a lot of sense. But I think a lot of it is the reason you gave; it's such a niche domain that it'd be hard to make it apply to more than just Abadar, and they tend to shy away from one-deity domains. Unless you made it the Chains or Bondage subdomain, in which case Calistria might not mind joining in. ;)
|
|
In societies where cannibalism is not seen as a taboo, individuals rarely if ever become wendigos, and these cultures generally have no history of encounters with such monsters. Scholars speculate that wendigo spirits require the perpetrators of the cannibalistic acts to be as shocked and shamed by their own actions as their victims are.
So the legality of the land does matter.
There is an overlap, really. Shock and shame would more reasonably be a result if the cannibal felt like they were doing something evil--so the wingedo question is more related whether or not the cannibal believes it was wrong, not whether they believe it was not punishable by law.
which is that it's rarely, if ever, something that falls into neat little packages like Gary Gygax wanted it to.
I came to believe that the Order versus Chaos was just the Chronicles of Amber's way to say Good versus Evil, and it just happened to roll over to D&D (overlapping, picking up, and coexisting with the existing concepts just as well as we came to know and love).
Optimal span of control is 3 to 5 people. Maybe Chaotic characters demand to personally control more units than that themselves and their lack of delegation ends up with a quagmire of incomprehensible proportions. Maybe Chaotic characters refuse to bow to authority at all and end up in units of one. Whatever the case, some DMs will have Law be well organized and Chaos be poorly organized. In this
case, Law is objectively a virtue and Chaos is objectively a flaw.
Being disorganized doesn't mean that you're more creative or interesting, it just means that you accomplish less with the same inputs. In this model pure Chaos is a destructive, but more importantly incompetent force.
Ethics Option 2: A Question of Sanity
Some DMs will want Law and Chaos to mean essentially "Sane" and "Insane". That's fine, but it doesn't mean that Chaos is funny. In fact, insanity is generally about the least funny thing you could possibly imagine. An insane person reacts inappropriately to their surroundings. That doesn't mean that they perform unexpected actions, that's just surrealist. And Paladins are totally permitted to enjoy non-sequitur based humor and art. See, insanity is when you perform the same action over and over again and expect different results.
If Chaos is madness, it's not "spontaneous", it's "non-functional". Actual adaptability is sane. Adapting responses to stimuli is what people are supposed to do. For reactions to be sufficiently inappropriate to qualify as insanity, one has to go pretty far into one's own preconceptions. Actual mental illness is very sad and traumatic just to watch as an outside observer. Actually living that way is even worse. It is strongly suggested therefore, that you don't go this route at all. It's not that you can't make D&D work with sanity and insanity as the core difference between Law and Chaos, it's that in doing so you're essentially making the Law vs. Chaos choice into the choice between good and bad. That and there is a certain segment of the roleplaying community that cannot differentiate absurdist humor from insanity and will insist on doing annoying things in the name of humor. And we hate those people.
Ethics Option 3: The Laws of the Land
Any region that has writing will have an actual code of laws. Even oral traditions will have, well, traditions. In some campaigns, following these laws makes you Lawful, and not following these laws makes you Chaotic. This doesn't mean that Lawful characters necessarily have to follow the laws of Kyuss when you invade his secret Worm Fort, but it does mean that they need to be an "invading force" when they run around in Kyuss' Worm Fort. Honestly, I'm not sure what it even means to have a Chaotic society if Lawful means "following your own rules". This whole schema is workable, but only with extreme effort. It helps if there's some sort of divinely agreed upon laws somewhere that nations and individuals can follow to a greater or lesser degree. But even so, there's a lot of hermits and warfare in the world such that whether people are following actual laws can be just plain hard to evaluate.
I'd like to endorse this more highly, since any time you have characters living up to a specific arbitrary code (or not) it becomes a lot easier to get things evaluated. Unfortunately, it's really hard to even imagine an entire nation fighting for not following their own laws. That's just… really weird. But if you take Law to mean law, then you're going to have to come to terms with that.
Ethics Option 4: My Word is My Bond
Some DMs are going to want Law to essentially equate to following through on things. A Lawful character will keep their word and do things that they said they were going to. In this model, a Lawful character has an arbitrary code of conduct and a Chaotic character does not. That's pretty easy to adjudicate, you just announce what you're going to do and if you do it, you're Lawful and if you don't you're not.
Here's where it gets weird though: That means that Lawful characters have a harder time working together than do non-lawful characters. Sure, once they agree to work together there's some Trust there that we can capitalize, but it means that there are arbitrary things that Lawful characters won't do. Essentially this means that Chaotic parties order one mini-pizza each while Lawful parties have to get one extra large pizza for the whole group – and we know how difficult that can be to arrange. A good example of this in action is the Paladin's code: they won't work with Evil characters, which restricts the possibilities of other party members.
Adherence to Self: Not a Rubric for Law
Sometimes Lawfulness is defined by people as adhering to one's personal self. That may sound very "Lawful", but there's no way that makes any sense. Whatever impulses you happen to have, those are going to be the ones that you act upon, by definition. If it is in your nature to do random crap that doesn't make any sense to anyone else – then your actions will be contrary and perplexing, but they will still be completely consistent with your nature. Indeed, there is literally nothing you can do that isn't what you would do. It's circular.
Rigidity: Not a Rubric for Law
Sometimes Lawfulness is defined by people as being more "rigid" as opposed to "spontaneous" in your action. That's crap. Time generally only goes in one direction, and it generally carries a one to one correspondence with itself. That means that as a result of a unique set of stimuli, you are only going to do one thing. In D&D, the fact that other people weren't sure what the one thing you were going to do is handled by a Bluff check, not by being Chaotic.
As to how I DM it: it is the Laws of the Land--but not mortal law. Order and Law are older than mortals are, and will remain as unreachable forces affecting the multiverse. These forces have axioms and decrees that determine what is lawful.
In this way, a barbarian is chaotic because he (on a spiritual and basic level) spurns this order, while monks and paladins side with it, regardless of whether they are revolutionaries, mass murderers, autocrats, or torturers: if they remain on the side of Divine Law, they are Lawful. Eating the flesh of sentient creatures is chaotic, because it defies the natural order of things--and 'natural order' in Golarion is a tangible thing not solely in the realm of philosophy.
Hmm...not as solid as I envisioned it, but it's not self-contradictory at the supreme level.
A good way to run Order versus Chaos is found in the Avatar series (not the cartoon--the video games made by Lord British):
Ophedian virtues are based on Order and Chaos. The Virtues of Order are Logic, Ethicality, and Discipline. The Virtues of Chaos are Emotion, Enthusiasm, and Tolerance.
However, unlike the virtues of Britannia, Ophedian virtues are not good by themselves and must be practiced with its opposite counterpart to achieve balance, otherwise, wrongs are committed, called Banes. The Banes of Order are Ruthlessness (Logic without Emotion), Apathy (Discipline without Enthusiasm), and Prejudice (Ethicality without Tolerance). The Banes of Chaos are Insanity (Emotion without Logic), Wantonness (Enthusiasm without Discipline), and Anarchy (Tolerance without Ethicality). The Order and Chaos counterparts combined together form the Principles of Harmony (Tolerance and Ethicality), Dedication (Discipline and Enthusiasm), and Rationality (Logic and Emotion).
Overall, this would serve to defang both Order and Chaos, and make the conflict somehow meaningless if not for mortals who can balance out the virtues of both. Good and Evil have no such promise: Good is the virtue, and evil is the sin.
It is a little bit alien to Golarion, where balance is not that omnipotent as a force, but it is an interesting way to see the game world. But I digress.
I was pondering this yesterday, actually, as it relates to incest. Incest seems to have the same kind of treatment as cannibalism/eating of sentient creatures in literature - it shows up all the time, but as a thing to make readers look at the villains and go "oh, they do this thing that I think is icky, so they must be terrible people".
Except in the case of G.R.R. Martin, in which case you think, "Average day in Martinland."
Disclaimer: I am not advocating incestuous relationships or cannibalism, just musing on the nature of literature and human thought.
If you think about it, for a long time, homosexuality was depicted the same way. Heck, for a long time being an independent, assertive woman was depicted the same way.
The overarching frame of moral thought that forbids sexual taboos is based off two axis of human regulation to sex and sexual attraction, as I've come to conclude after my sociology and anthropology studies.
Axis 1: Survival of Species and the Inheritance of Culture/LegacyAxis 2: The Principle of Guardian/Peer Exclusion
Survival of Species and the Inheritance of Culture/Legacy
The first axis is well-known in contemporary philosophy and popular culture, and is commonly shortened to the prerequisites of traditional marriage.
Biologically, the survival of the species requires procreation of adult (or at least child-bearing) humans from the two binary genders (male and female). It also requires the ability to instruct and parent the offspring in the ways of the parent and culture (such as moral values, religious beliefs, cultural ways). This brought upon the world the classical institute of marriage, in which the offspring are both guarded and provided for (by means of the child's rights/parental obligations and inheritance, respectively), until the end of the species, with the offspring taking up the torch when their time comes.
Theoretically, the system ensures that the offspring can carry on the legacy of their progenitors (since it has brought in another generation, must be doing something right).
According to this system, contemporary civilizations that are dying out biologically (like Japan and Germany) or culturally (as in having vast generation gaps like China, the Middle East, and even the USA) are doing so due to their inability to either guard the survival of the species biologically and ensure it is fast enough to catch up with natural entropy (the lifespan of human fertility), or are unable to pass their cultural values to the newer generation.
The Principle of Guardian/Peer Exclusion
The second axis is not as known, but is the probably the sole (if discounting religious reasons) basis for why most ancient and current taboos exist, such as the stigma against homosexuality, philia as necrophilia/pedophilia, and incest.
According to this axis, the reason why these taboos exist is that tradition dictates separation on the following classes: guardian, peer, and eligible persons.
Guardian Exclusion: The reason behind parent-child incest (and its logical extensions, such as grandparents/grandchildren or aunts/nephews, etc.) is because one party has the duty to guard, which does cancel out and supersede eligibility. The reason why necrophilia and pedophilia is similarly taboo is not because of consent (which undermines this line of thought), but because the living have a duty to the dead, which is guarding them from desecration and sometimes honoring their memories and legacies.
The taboo against pedophilia also generally based off guarding: protecting unwitting offspring from depredation (that has consequences the offspring are not entirely aware of).
Guardian exclusion is near universal, and although the range and understanding of pedophilia changed throughout the centuries, the principle remains that most civilizations that do practice marriage at younger ages consummate and cement the marriage when the childhood reaches adulthood.
Peer Exclusion: The reason behind sibling incest (and extensions such as 'kissing cousins'), taboos against homosexuality and non-binary sexual relations is based on that all such parties are peers and equals of one another on a basic level (via blood relation, gender, etc.).
Such peerage is the basis for the presumption (and duty) in that peers will aid one another in achieving the survival of the species, but not engage in the process themselves (such as playing wing-man, which is a common mating tactic in both humans and animals). These result in the concepts of brotherly/sisterly love, 'bro-mance', bonding, and camaraderie.
As above, consent is not the basis for this--or else this faucet of the second axis will be undermined, but it is the idea that some members of the species (regardless if they can -in the case of siblings- or cannot -in the case of homosexuality- bear offspring or continue the species) have a duty of aid and comfort one another, that is based off (and may even reach the level of) guardianship. In many cases, with the parents dead, the elder sibling is no longer a peer (even at a subconscious level to the siblings), but is now the parent.
The taboo against polyamory and polygamy is based vaguely on the peerage concept: when one man is bonded to several women (or vice versa) is considered 'icky', it is because women (or men) 'should not' compete in the institution of marriage, which undermines their own peer-based bonds (causing jealousy to foster between the wifes of a husband, or a degrading competition for attention).
Such is the same basis for the taboo against marrying step-siblings, or offspring of a step-mother even from another man: the taint of peerage is too strong for most cultures to bear, and this is shunted under 'what are you doin. stahp'.
Eligible Persons: Those who do not fall under the above two classifications are 'fair game' to this structure of law and tradition. Some traditions have the concept of 'sworn brethren' and 'milk siblings' (those who swear kinship and those who breasfeed from the same mother, respectively), which elevate eligible persons to peers or guardians. A sworn brother to a man cannot marry that man's sister, as the sworn brother is now (for all intents and purposes) blood-kin, same goes for milk-siblings, who are also essentially brothers.
These concepts are universal in presence (but not in format), and cement the idea that humanity has the predilection to make order and form principles that create structure and give form to things that affect them deeply, such as friendship, affection, and questions of duty and responsibilities.
But DM, you might want to put a lid on discussing this. I have no doubt we're all mature, but this topic is notoriously flammable.
You're not wrong - it would make a lot of sense. But I think a lot of it is the reason you gave; it's such a niche domain that it'd be hard to make it apply to more than just Abadar, and they tend to shy away from one-deity domains. Unless you made it the Chains or Bondage subdomain, in which case Calistria might not mind joining in. ;)
Or Zon-Kuthon. :O
What could work is expanding the niche by creating some seal-based sub-school of abjuration magic focused on creating and unraveling magical bonds, as well as imprisonment/restrictive movement effects.
In this case, Abadar would have the 'Seal' domain, which fits in wonderfully with his portfolio of protection and laws.
1. Hold Portal would essentially be a 'fusing seal' that can merge and stop things from opening or stick one thing to another. Shutting portals? Stopping weapons from being drawn from their sheathes? Blocking sight or breath? Knock would be a specialized dispel against seals.
2. Seals that create physical barriers (such a lines, circles, or pentagrams (because pentagrams are awesome) that bar against entry or escape of creatures (sort of like the anti-life shell). Imprisoning circles? Effective wall effects? Circle of Salt when the heroes are beset by evil and must wait inside the circle until morning or else they become possessed/overran by undead?
3. Seal spell or ritual that imprison, enslave, or siphon creatures and objects into other objects and creatures. Lich's phylactery? Kid with demon sealed within? A blade that is sealed away and will only return when X occurs? Sealing a creature and using its powers (genie in a lamp, demon in a ring, etc.)? Canon mechanic how Rovagug was imprisoned?
4. Seals that massively increase the area of effect of existing spells, with the focus being the anchor of the spell. Nation-wide spell effects that remain as long as the center of the spell (such as a heavily-guarded tower) is not disrupted?
5. Elemental sealing that prevents fire/cold/acid/electricity from acting normally? Maybe can siphon the spell's power and redirect it?
6. Seal spells that (as you hinted) create chains or restrict/limit/redirect movement or freeze actions--powerful debuffs. Bringing flying creatures down, immobilizing others, and crowd control spells.
But really, now that I think about it, seal-mage is bringing images of Doctor Fate from DC Comics. Awesome.
This steals quite a bit from other schools (imprisonment, slow, binding creatures, hold monster/creature), but really: the game is sorely lacking on good abjurations. This school needs love.
Other than Protection/Magic Circle and Dispel Magic (and maybe buffs such as stoneskin), I don't see it to be that common.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hmm...the Tome of Fiends view on the matter is interesting. That's one I haven't read yet, but it presents a lot of neat points. And I really like the Ophedian virtues. I think that statement comes closest of any I've seen so far to explaining how I actually see the debate.
As for how I GM law v. chaos - frankly, I really don't. There's too much grey area; I've never been able to fully determine where to draw lines, and if there's no set rubric I can't judge everyone fairly, so I'll judge little, if at all. In case you can't tell, about the only alignment judgement I've ever been certain on is that I tend toward lawful. ;) And really, there's few cases that it even matters all that strongly - unless you're a cleric/warpriest of a chaotic or lawful god or a paladin, it makes little to no mechanical difference.
And you're right - that Seal sub-school is starting to sound more excellent the further you take it. I was thinking about it earlier, and you could probably make a reasonably good Seal subdomain linked to the Law domain, with some of the above effects as domain spells/domain powers. Now I kind of want to write it, because it'd be neat, and could fall very much into Torag's interests as well. And yes, good abjurations are hard to find. (Although the ones that are good, are really good. Like Protection From X, especially Evil with the nature of the game.)
I think, though, that a lot of the effects you mentioned (especially 3 and 4) tend to be handled more as story elements than as mechanical spells. Their applications tend to be somewhat limited, and highly problematic in transitioning to a freely available spellbook spell. And since adventurers' concerns in choosing spells tend to lean toward the tactical rather than the wide-scale, bigger abjurations (like those regional/national in scope like you'd mentioned as number 4) probably wouldn't see much use in an ordinary game. But they make really neat storyline elements.
You guys have too much time on your hands.
My god, how I envy you. :)
Hey, it's my Sunday, good sir. If I want to spend it on deep alignment discourse, that's my right. :)
|
|
@Anthuria:
Major props. Your posts are always fun to read.
@GM: True enough. XD
And you're right - that Seal sub-school is starting to sound more excellent the further you take it. I was thinking about it earlier, and you could probably make a reasonably good Seal subdomain linked to the Law domain, with some of the above effects as domain spells/domain powers. Now I kind of want to write it, because it'd be neat, and could fall very much into Torag's interests as well. And
If I (or you) designed such a domain, could this mean that this game is open to homebrew?
If so, the abjuration school (or seal sub-school/sub-domain) would probably be focused on trap-setting or aura-based effects, or even on careful planning of spell uses regardless.
A defensive and utility-oriented subschool. Makes sense, since that's abjuration's shtick anyway.
Their applications tend to be somewhat limited, and highly problematic in transitioning to a freely available spellbook spell. And since adventurers' concerns in choosing spells tend to lean toward the tactical rather than the wide-scale, bigger abjurations (like those regional/national in scope like you'd mentioned as number 4) probably wouldn't see much use in an ordinary game. But they make really neat storyline elements.
Made me start thinking...
According to a friend who ran AD&D, you could (in that game) tear off pages from spellbooks and use stored spells as scrolls.Should that happen, adventurers would be more open to lugging around or consulting spellbooks in such times.
Of course, loads of people ask for ritual magic in Pathfinder, so there is that, too.
So many awesome...so little time.
If I (or you) designed such a domain, could this mean that this game is open to homebrew?
At this point, I don't think I'm ready to allow homebrewing of that scale; I'm a relatively novice GM, so I don't trust myself to catch balance issues before they arise, and I'd be concerned with issues of fairness, since I didn't open the opportunity up to everyone else when we were forming the group. So I'm going to go ahead and say no for this game. (But I do think it's a neat idea.)
Of course, loads of people ask for ritual magic in Pathfinder, so there is that, too.
Especially for the big-scale effects, I'd see ritual magic as being the way to go for invoking them. It means you're potentially investing large amounts of time, money for materials, and possibly even getting several people involved, which seems appropriate for something big enough to protect an entire nation. And as an aside, they have introduced at least some ritual magic now with Occult Adventures. Enjoy. :)
|
|
If I (or you) designed such a domain, could this mean that this game is open to homebrew?At this point, I don't think I'm ready to allow homebrewing of that scale; I'm a relatively novice GM, so I don't trust myself to catch balance issues before they arise, and I'd be concerned with issues of fairness, since I didn't open the opportunity up to everyone else when we were forming the group. So I'm going to go ahead and say no for this game. (But I do think it's a neat idea.)
Subdomain of the Rune Domain
Granted Powers: In sacred sigils and arcane seals you find lasting and potent magic. You gain Scribe Scroll as a bonus feat.
Warding Seal (Su):You may inscribe a ward on a 5-foot square against a specific creature type (animal, undead, fey, etc.). If the type has subtypes (such as humanoid (Human/Elve/Dwarf) or Outsider (Angel/Devil/Archon), etc, choose one sub-type of the creature type. The ward is a circle of your design that emits a soft glow (increasing the light by one level, maximum dim light in 5 feet). The creature the ward is opposed to cannot enter the space without making a successful Will saving throw against a DC equal to 10 + half Cleric level + Wisdom modifier. If the creature is also [Extraplanar], increase the DC by +4.
You cannot create a ward on a space occupied by the same creature. The creature cannot enter the space, nor fly, swim, or burrow directly above or below it by 30 feet. After one minute, the ward is extinguished. You cannot have more than two active wards in any given time. You can use this ability a number of times per day equal to 3 + your Wisdom modifier.
Seal of Preservation (Su): At 8th level, you can spend as a standard action to form a spectral seal that binds the life-force of up to four creatures at one time. You may include or exclude yourself from the seal.
While bound by this seal, damage taken by one of the members can be shared evenly (divided by number of participants), minimum damage equal to 1. This shares both lethal and nonlethal damage, but does not share conditions. If multiple members of the seal are subjected to the same spell or effect that imposes the condition, and more than half of them succeed on the saving throw, those who fail can make another another saving throw and can choose the higher result.
This seal remains for a number of rounds equal to 1/2 your cleric level. You can use this ability once per day at 8th level, and an additional time per day for every four levels beyond 8th.
Domain Spells: 1st—fuse, 2nd—barrier, 3rd—dispel magic, 4th—spell-seal, 5th—wall of force, 6th—greater dispel magic, 7th—antimagic shield, 8th—mind blank, 9th—imprisonment
Patron Gods: Abadar, Torag
Fuse
Abjuration (Seal)
Level: Cleric 1, Inquisitor 1, Sor/Wiz 1, Witch 1
Component: V, S, F/DF
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Target: One portal (up to 20 sq. ft./level), sheathed or slung weapon or object, or any two solid object surfaces.
Duration: 1 min./level (D)
Saving Throw: Yes, Will negates (object) Spell Resistance: Yes (object)
This spell creates a magical bond that can shut or seal several things together.
Weapons: If targeting a sheath, holster, or container for a weapon or object, the surfaces of both fuse, making drawing them a difficult task. A weapon takes a standard action to draw, and requires a Strength check against the DC of the spell's saving throw DC. Drawing an object takes an entire round with the same Strength DC. Both actions provoke attacks of opportunity, regardless of the attempts succeed or fail.
Objects: If targeting the surfaces of two objects, the spell binds both surfaces together as long as they are touching when the spell is cast. Targeted books are closed shut, ropes are knot tighltly, and weapons that are embedded in stones cannot be drawn. Attempting to break the seal on an object that is fused to another takes one full round and requires a successful Strength check, with a DC equal to the DC of the spell. This check provokes attacks of opportunity.
Portals: This can shut and fuse a door, gate, window, or shutter of any type shut. The Disable Device DC to unlock the door is equal to the DC of the spell + 5.
The knock, dispel magic, or unfuse spell can negate this effect.
special: If cast when setting up a magical trap, breaking the seal can be the trigger for a trapped spell to be released.
Barrier
School abjuration (seal) [force]; Level sorcerer/wizard 2
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Components: V, S, F/DF (glove with 50 gp worth of gem studs)
Range: close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Effect: Special (see below)
Duration: 1 round /level (D)
Saving Throw: Yes, Will negates; Spell Resistance: Yes
You may direct with your hand over an area, creating seal or sigil on the ground, which forms a barrier of any shape you desire, barring the creature types you declare from passing or harming those on the other side. The barrier is made of pure force (and thus affects incorporeal creatures), but it affects only creatures from the specific types.
You might declare a creature type (such as fey, undead, constructs, oozes, aberrations, magical beasts, animals, etc.), or a creature subtype (if it exists, such as humans, elves, dwarves under humanoids, or demons, devils, angels, or archons under outsiders). Said creatures feel the barrier stopping them and stopping any direct or indirect attack or spell they cast through the barrier, including but not limited to spells, ranged or melee weapon attacks, or strength checks to break the barrier.
When first subjected to the barrier, affected creatures might attempt to bypass it with a standard action by imposing their own willpower, making a Will save or Strength check against the spell's DC if within 30 feet (or within touch range if using a strength check). If they fail once, they cannot repeat the saving throw unless the creatures on the other side of the barrier target them with direct or indirect effects, such as spells, ranged or melee attacks, or other similar effects.
The barrier might still be damaged by creatures on the outer side, and the barrier has hardness equal to your caster level, and hit points equal to triple the hardness.
The barrier's area grants two 1-foot thick sheets that covers a 5-foot squares. You may shape these as lines, semi-circles, or circles (as detailed above), and the barrier acts against the specified creatures from both sides.
The barrier can be broken from the side the caster determines when casting the spell, if the seal's imprint is wiped (which is a standard action that provokes attacks of opportunity).
The seal's imprint fades after the spell's effects cease.
Spell-Seal
Abjuration (Seal)
Level: Cleric 4, Sor/Wiz 4, Witch 5
Component: V, S
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Target: One creature with spellcasting or spell-like abilities
Duration: 1 day/level (D)
Saving Throw: Yes, will negates. Spell Resistance: Yes
When casting this spell, you may specify one spell or spell-like ability you previously identified and know the target creature has. The creature must make a Will saving throw. On a failed check, said spell or spell-like ability becomes locked, and cannot be used so long as this spell's duration remains, even if the spell is cast through another spell slot.
The maximum effective caster level of the spell you can target is equal to your own caster level. If you cannot reduce the spell's caster level to 0, they may still cast the spell.
This is a curse effect. A creature may be under the effects of multiple spell-seals at any given time.
This spell is commonly made permanent against hardened magical criminals at a cost of 2,500 gp. Despite being permanent, the effect may still be removed with a contested caster level check if the subject is targeted with a break enchantment spell.
Spirit Trap
Abjuration (Seal)
Level: Cleric 6, Sor/Wiz 6, Witch 6
Component: V, S, F/DF (an object once possessed by the target of the spell), Material (1,000 worth of gems per HD of target).
Casting Time: 1 standard action or special (see text)
Range: close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Target: One incorporeal creature
Duration: 1 day/level or permanent; see text (D)
Saving Throw: See text. Spell Resistance: Yes; see text
When this spell is cast, a 5x5 foot seal appears within range on any solid surface. Any incorporeal creature within a range of 30 feet from the seal, or any creature that moves into a range of an active spirit trap seal is drawn into the seal itself. If the trapped creature is a powerful creature from another plane, it can be required to perform a service immediately upon being freed. Otherwise, the creature can go free once the gem imprisoning it is broken. Depending on the version selected, the spell can be triggered in one of two ways.
Spell Completion: First, the spell can be completed by speaking its final word as a standard action as if you were casting a regular spell at the subject. This allows Spell Resistance (if any) and a Will save to avoid the effect. If the creature's name is spoken as well, any spell resistance is ignored and the save DC increases by 2. If the save or Spell Resistance is successful, the spell fails as normal.
Trigger Object: The second method is far more insidious, for it tricks the subject into accepting a trigger object inscribed with the final spell word, automatically placing the creature's in the trap.
To use this method, both the creature's name and the trigger word must be inscribed on the trigger object when the gem is enspelled. As soon as the subject touches the trigger object or accepts it into its ownership of its own free will, its life force is automatically transferred to the object without the benefit of spell resistance or a save.
Special: A caster may (if they do not have necromancy as a barred school) willingly imprison their own soul in an object, creating a phylactery out of any object the caster have come to recognize as their own. Casting this spell is on a willing caster is, therefore, the final part of the ritual to become a lich. Creating a phylactery also requires the Craft Wonderous Item feat, and it costs an additional 120,000 gp to create, with a caster level equal to the caster's own level when created.
Turning a a phylactery increases the hardness and hit points of the object by 10, and 20, respectively, for a maximum hardness of 30, and maximum hit points of 60.
Becoming a lich and creating a phylactery grants the caster the lich template.
Never give me an opening to write up something, DM. I've spent four months converting all of the 3.5 World of Warcraft sourcebooks into working in 5th edition rules, after I converted most of them to Pathfinder rules.
I'd say too much time--if I wasn't working full-time and studying half-time.
So chalk it up to obsession...
Right, Jetta?
Nothing wrong with a little healthy obsession. ;)
I've only briefly glanced at the subdomain, but it sounds neat so far, and I kind of like the idea of connecting it to Runes rather than Law. You don't see many people taking the Runes domain - I think because, if you have a character dedicated religiously to arcane magic, the usual conclusion is just to make them a wizard. ;) I really like the Seal of Preservation power; I was concerned at first that it was a bit overpowered, since there's already a spell (shield other) that splits damage two ways, but with limited uses per day and limited rounds per use it's balanced out a little bit.
I'll look through the rest more closely in a bit, but I definitely like the ideas so far. I will note that the weapon-fusing ability of the fuse spell is already covered by the peacebond spell, though - just something to keep in mind.
|
|
I'll look through the rest more closely in a bit, but I definitely like the ideas so far. I will note that the weapon-fusing ability of the fuse spell is already covered by the peacebond spell, though - just something to keep in mind.
The fuse spell is actually designed to standardize and meld the effects of both Peacebond and Hold Portal (as well as similarly-leveled spells). Individually, they suffer from being too circumstantial to warrant being prepared (as you noted above). Fuse makes the spell more versatile, and hence more valid a choice to prepare.
Think of the potential now: Fusing a penny or potion to the floor would be a classic haze at mage school.
Fusing a full tankard of beer to the table would be a great affront to dwarven-folk, as would be fusing a stopper on a wine bottle to elves.
Keeping a window fused open in winter/an oven dial fused to high heat is pretty scary, and for misdirection and distraction, fuse a carriage's wheel to the road or underwear (or car keys) to the ceiling.
To gain the [Evil] alignment, fuse the toilet cover to say shut, trick the target to dine on chili, and sit back.
Of course, you can also pull off the Excalibur feat, which is always an added plus.
Creative uses of spells!
With a main character as an illusionist, thinking on this line of thought is part of the job description.
I do see what you mean about it being a way to make those effects more likely to be used. I think I like it. And I'm very much one for creative use of spells. :)
And on a side note - phew! Big combats are tiring to write up. :)
You do it so well though!
If by context you mean intent, I agree. Devoid of circumstances that move the act itself across the good-evil axis to Evil (such as satisfying vengeance, an expression of hate, etc.) Neutral (to survive), or even Good (figure that one out without coming up with a weird spell or mechanic) cannibalism is by default chaotic when moving along the Law-Chaos axis.
Legislation and legal sanctioning of an act does not necessarily move it from chaotic to lawful: After all, law (or order) and chaos are forces that influence even the divine, and are above and beyond moral comprehension and laws that change with culture and philosophical persuasions.
Due to them being based off different reference points (mortal and supreme/divine understanding of abstract powers), it is entirely logical for mortal lawful judgment by peers to be seen as chaotic with mortals from other parts--but one will always be considered lawful with the Forces of Law, and to them, cannibalism is Chaotic.
I'm having a hard time seeing cannibalism, specifically, as somehow inherently Chaotic, especially on a cosmic scale. The relationship between Law and Chaos can't be thought of on the same terms as Good and Evil. As Anthuria said, the former are very goal-determinative. To the cold and calculative Lawful mind, moral issues are irrelevant beyond their practical implications. Right or wrong does not enter into the equation. Of course, making something legal does not make it Lawful. While no single mortal law or custom is necessarily a reflection of cosmic order in and of itself, the general concept of agreeing to a common set of rules for everyone certainly is.
The goal of Law is stability. The means of achieving this variate from culture to culture, because circumstances are different as well. As such, only the introduction of laws that upset stability would be considered Chaotic, regardless of the morality of their content. There are certain things that tend to erode public order more than others—such as wanton theft or murder—so they tend to be generally classified as not being Lawful. In a society where ritual cannibalism is a common and socially acceptable tradition, it could be seen as a source of stability. There is certainly nothing about the practise that promotes anarchy, assuming it does not involve murder.
Mortal alignment, in my mind, is always about personal choice. This is especially true with Law and Chaos, where there are fewer 'absolute truths' beyond a general way of doing things. The choice is whether or not to defer to outside authority at the cost of one's personal freedom. As such, whether or not an act like cannibalism could be considered aligned in any way would depend entirely on circumstance and intent. Without the associated cultural context, there is no real ethical quandary involved. Whether cannibalism is considered culturally acceptable or not, consciously choosing to conform to a pre-described code of conduct (whether it be law or tradition) is a Lawful act, and willfully going against it is Chaotic.
However, there are very few positive depictions of the act in Golarion's lore.I think that may be less a commentary on the act and its morality/ethical-ness (there's got to be a better word than that?) and more an artifact of the truth that Golarion lore is in fact not history, but literature. Since there's a taboo against it in most cultures, it's used as a literary device to designate others as being fundamentally "other", strange and alien. And since Pathfinder is ultimately a predominantly combat-based game and you need a reason to fight and often kill your sentient opponents, "different from me" and "evil" are often lumped together subconsciously, since they appear together so often.
Oh, absolutely. The most common archetypes of cannibalism in fiction are the Donner Party (i.e. cannibalism for the means of survival) and the savage cannibal tribesmen (i.e. colonial propaganda). D&D and Pathfinder seem to lean pretty heavily on the latter. In that light, branding cannibalism as outright Evil or Chaotic is not indicative of a very healthy sense of morality...
So chalk it up to obsession...
Right, Jetta?
I can confirm, this man is obsessed. :P
Still think Amund is swarthy Anthuria? After all of this fail?
Still think Amund is swarthy Anthuria? After all of this fail?
You'll have to wait and see :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Love meee, Anthuriaaaa...
;)
I am here so you song get to bot me! :P
I am just poking her for using the word swarthy... maybe digging for flattery after all the fail
Besides Amund isn't the whiny type. That is my goblin barbarian. Who is now a married goblin after lengthy courtship that apparently in game was around three days. The wedding was fun. Has anyone else had something pop up in game like that?
I have to admit that none of my PCs have ever married a goblin.
In my first Pathfinder game my character ended up marrying my husband's character (humans, not goblins). They met when she was preparing to leave home and he offered to act as her escort, they eventually got a set of eyepieces that let them share vision so she could see the stars again (she was a clouded vision life oracle), she finally proposed to him when his death and resurrection reminded her of the fragility of life...it was all very sweet.
(And, you know, the hordes of undead, including Urgathoa's herald, that crashed the party were very romantic as well. :P)
I don't think I've ever had a character get married, to a goblin or otherwise. Romances, yes, but my characters don't tend to be the settling down type. My real life ambivalence towards marriage as an institution might be shining through... :P
|
|
In my first Pathfinder game my character ended up marrying my husband's character (humans, not goblins). They met when she was preparing to leave home and he offered to act as her escort, they eventually got a set of eyepieces that let them share vision so she could see the stars again (she was a clouded vision life oracle), she finally proposed to him when his death and resurrection reminded her of the fragility of life...it was all very sweet.
(And, you know, the hordes of undead, including Urgathoa's herald, that crashed the party were very romantic as well. :P)
Crashing a marriage is nothing but classy. Though the premise reminds me a bit of Quest for Camelot...
Has anyone else had something pop up in game like that?
Not in my actual games. I have run several solo campaigns that did end up with such results.
And yes, it is as lonely as it sounds--but it is also always memorably awesome. NPCs stop being called NPCs, and everyone becomes 'characters'.In that light, branding cannibalism as outright Evil or Chaotic is not indicative of a very healthy sense of morality...
Cannibalism: chaotic act.
Cannibalism (eating friends or w/torture/torment): chaotic and evil.
This is Pharasma's ruling. This is what'll send you to the Abyss or Maelstrom if you do it enough or relax to it.
consciously choosing to conform to a pre-described code of conduct (whether it be law or tradition) is a Lawful act, and willfully going against it is Chaotic.
Prepare for Internal-Implosion Paradox in 3...2...
Chaotic Barbarian Raider with Own Notion of Honor: I follow my own pre-described code of conduct--even if it opposes another pre-described code of conduct (such as that of the paladin).Lawful Paladin Lawman with Divine Notion of Order: I follow my own pre-described code of conduct--even if it opposes another pre-described code of conduct (such as that of the barbarian).
And best of all--
Evil Rogue Assassin: I follow my own pre-described code of conduct--even if it opposes another pre-described code of conduct (such as that of the barbarian or paladin).
:D
Sometimes Lawfulness is defined by people as adhering to one's personal self. That may sound very "Lawful", but there's no way that makes any sense. Whatever impulses you happen to have, those are going to be the ones that you act upon, by definition. If it is in your nature to do random crap that doesn't make any sense to anyone else – then your actions will be contrary and perplexing, but they will still be completely consistent with your nature. Indeed, there is literally nothing you can do that isn't what you would do. It's circular.
Surprisingly enough I rather enjoyed it, despite my real life ambivalence towards marriage as an institution Though my affection for the goblin marriage is heavily slanted since we turned the game into a musical and I love musicals. Our Pirate Bard did a song and swung around on some of the rigging. I think it was the novelty of having never done it before.
Sadly we are only level three so the party crashers were Lizardfolk. Though a Deities Herald crashing the party sounds like a blast. I am a little jealous.
|
|
Though my affection for the goblin marriage is heavily slanted since we turned the game into a musical and I love musicals. Our Pirate Bard did a song and swung around on some of the rigging. I think it was the novelty of having never done it before.
With all the yo-ho-ho, arrg, and shiver me timbers?
Now I'm jealous!
Not so much with the shiver me timbers but she makes up for it with epic rants, hilarious stories, and our wedding song. Actually I do not think she has ever said yo-ho-ho but she has a peg leg she lost to a shark and the captains hat. The hats are very important to these goblins.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
GM: I'll wait until you resolve the protection from chaos spell before potentially munching down on some humanoid fingers. Yum. :)
GM: I'll wait until you resolve the protection from chaos spell before potentially munching down on some humanoid fingers. Yum. :)Is it polite to eat fingers with your fingers, or should you use a fork? :P
Finger-licking good...
Finger food