Agents of Edgewatch Player’s Guide Is Now Available!

What I'm trying to say is that society in the past did not deem it evil in anyway similar to what it is now. But in Golarion slavery has always been evil because Good and Evil are based off of current Morals.

A society that truly knows what Good and Evil are would not have morals similar to the past but closer to now.

Only from our perspective. Only assuming that we do have a better understanding of what Good and Evil are.

Which I think we do, but then I'm a product of our culture and I would think so.

Still waiting on an actual answer to the (rules) question: "Is it the intent for Sally Guard Neophyte not to have a skill feat? Or just an oversight in the assembly of the player's guide, because the free gear was supposed to be only a replacement for the +1 to Deception, Diplomacy, and Intimidation vs. certain people?"

I think we're moving off topic talking about the alignment of slavery, which can easily be a thread on its own. (Its pretty much evil dude, there's a devil god with the portfolio for it in the setting).

But I agree with TwilightKnight, the nonlethal rules should be used as optional for your campaign. Some campaigns will use it. Other campaigns won't use it.

If you don't use the nonlethal rules, remember that you're playing city guards. Lawfully employed officials representing the city of Absalom and paid to enforce its laws. If you're going to kill criminals, remember there should be a liability issue or consequences for your actions.

If you intend to keep breaking the law while being employed by the city, the city is probably going to fire you and that will be a quick end to your PC's career in the campaign. It is already recommended that PCs don't play chaotic or evil characters.

For GMs that want to keep their players focused on the campaign without all that bureaucracy headache dealing with barristers and devils, its probably recommended to use the nonlethal rules option to keep things simple.

To explain away how the Agents of Edgewatch are so awesome with nonlethal damage is due to their training. Some of their drill sergeants were probably Sarenrae followers.

I am curious about Absalom's laws. What are the current city laws? What rules and guidelines should the city watch have? What is their standard operations procedure? What is the limit of their authority? What is their chain of command? How much discretion are they given? Is there gonna be a sourcebook to cover this? Will this be in the adventure?

And if GMs do wish to not follow the city guard route and go with paid gumshoe adventurers, what adventuring guilds can replace the city guard organization as patrons to the PCs? What is a good recommendation?

Still waiting on an actual answer to the (rules) question: "Is it the intent for Sally Guard Neophyte not to have a skill feat? Or just an oversight in the assembly of the player's guide, because the free gear was supposed to be only a replacement for the +1 to Deception, Diplomacy, and Intimidation vs. certain people?"

I don't see any reason to assume that a background explicitly stepping outside the mold by giving 18 gp worth of specific items is missing other benefits erroneously - it's not like there are any sentence fragments or other indicators of something having been meant to be included by getting cut off somehow.

There is even precedent for this kind of thing by way of the deep background variant rules in the GMG, though in those it seems a strict 15 gp or less being treated as equal to a skill feat. Perhaps the extra 3 gp here is compensation for not getting the social check bonus other backgrounds were given for the AP.

But it's definitely not supposed to be a pack of free stuff and then also still get what backgrounds normally give, since that'd make it unquestionably the best background to choose.

Consider that pre-Earth Fall we basically had "Star Trek" level technology (though it was manipulated behind the scenes), and then an apocalypse happened, and then about 10,000 years of stuff happen before Pathfinder starts. 10 millennia ago on Earth, agriculture was just getting rolling in the Fertile Crescent but Golarion has had at least one contiguous culture since Earthfall.

So what? The thing about Azlanti culture is that it was largely wiped out, with at best half-remembered traces and artifacts to influence its descendants down the ages. Even Arodenism wasn't exactly a time capsule for Azlanti culture. Its association with Azlant was a source of legitimacy for new, rising cultures.

As for Nidal, it may be O'Brien's wildest fantasy but that's hardly something to aspire to. A boot stamping on a human face, forever, is stagnant, not flourishing.

Still waiting on an actual answer to the (rules) question: "Is it the intent for Sally Guard Neophyte not to have a skill feat? Or just an oversight in the assembly of the player's guide, because the free gear was supposed to be only a replacement for the +1 to Deception, Diplomacy, and Intimidation vs. certain people?"

For now, I'll take the fact it was not changed after being called out when they changed the "if we only ever do nonlethal dmg, we can't hurt constructs ever..." as confirmation it was not an oversight or not one they feel like it needs correcting.

It is ok to not want to play this AP or to not want to use the specific rules that paizo has introduced for how they envision its default playthrough.

I agree that making the nonlethal damage the default mechanic would be problematic if applied to a real world policing scenario, because "nonlethal damage" is nearly an oxymoron in the real world. If it is damage, it can kill you, and even if it doesn't it is bad for your long term health and development.

Golarion is not a world where either of those situations is true. Nonlethal damage exists in PF2 and people can go around punching each other in the head until the fall unconscious multiple times a day and then get up and do it again the next day, and the day after that.

In the world of Golarion, the choice to use nonlethal attacks is literally a choice people can make that says "this action, by itself, is not capable of causing you irrevocable injury or death."

For most people, choosing to do so, in as dangerous and difficult a world as golarion is not a daily practice and it comes with some difficulties. For the dedicated public servants of the Edgewatch, it is a default part of their background that they have trained to always do nonlethal damage unless doing so would accomplish nothing at all. To play this AP, according to the default settings, that means you continue to develop your abilities with this dedication in mind.

I don't think it needs to be a separate feat because it is in essence a default part of any background you wound choose to enter into this AP, unless your GM decides otherwise.

In actual fact D&D and Pathfinder are games about heroes killing monsters. Paizo decided to write a campaign about cop heroes killing monsters.

Saying "you are unable to kill the monsters" comes off as a very sloppy and unsatisfying bandaid that doesn't even attempt to change the way the game is played. Instead of adding new mechanisms for peaceful deescalation or new ways to subdue opponents, the exact same mechanism for killing foes is clumsily reskinned to... not kill foes.

No attempt is made to change the ways heroes usually act in the presence of monsters. In fact, the rule encourages players to act exactly as before.

That was not the point of the complaints.

Based upon what I am seeing in this players guide, it seems like Paizo did not decide to write a campaign about cop heroes killing monsters though. That seems to be a common projection on the AP, but it seems pretty clear that the developers are telling us that is not what this AP will be.

And Diplomacy was a mechanism already in the game.

I still suspect there were already expanded options in the AP. Seems like there would have needed to be to make the police part work.

Those were overridden by the blanket "no lethal damage" in the Guide.

But I agree that part of my problem with the Guide's rule is that it does allow the cop heroes to go on just as in any adventure, acting exactly as they would in any other AP, just not having to worry about killing anything.

I still suspect there were already expanded options in the AP. Seems like there would have needed to be to make the police part work.

Those were overridden by the blanket "no lethal damage" in the Guide.

But I agree that part of my problem with the Guide's rule is that it does allow the cop heroes to go on just as in any adventure, acting exactly as they would in any other AP, just not having to worry about killing anything.

At some point though, you have to put the onus on how this plays out on the GMs and Players. Regardless how many unique sub-systems they create or campaign rules they choose to use for this AP, if players and GM's see certain problematic behaviors as "no big deal", that's what they are going to do. And even if they choose to use the most restrictive rule in the sidebar, you are going to have players making characters designed to do massive amounts of non-lethal damage that (at least in 1st edition) are still capable of killing fairly easily.

But I must admit that I do have some misgivings about doing nonlethal damage to mindless creatures that cannot reasonably be arrested -- my players would consider that idea silly.

They would be more amenable to the idea that the agents are trained to distinguish sentient from non-sentient foes and will automatically do nonlethal damage to sentient foes unless they deliberately decide to do otherwise.

I still suspect there were already expanded options in the AP. Seems like there would have needed to be to make the police part work.

Those were overridden by the blanket "no lethal damage" in the Guide.

But I agree that part of my problem with the Guide's rule is that it does allow the cop heroes to go on just as in any adventure, acting exactly as they would in any other AP, just not having to worry about killing anything.

I look forward to playing the AP this way, pursuing diplomatic options, but, especially as a fantasy game, expecting every table to try it that way is not very realistic. What the default nonlethal damage rule accomplishes is saying, playing this campaign any other way is an active choice that you and your table have to make.

Also, wouldn't it be a lot more interesting if the non-lethal tactics were riskier or more difficult to pull off? Then there would be a real choice for the characters. Of course, they would need to introduce more methods of apprehending people.

Except that, in PF2, nonlethal was already a mechanic that any player could choose. Honestly, I am kind of hoping the developers go all in on removing the -2 to attack rolls to do nonlethal damage with a full on Errata and just have all damage just be damage and let every player always be able to just choose when they strike a felling blow if it is going to be lethal or not. I really don't see a reason to limit it to this AP, although I like that the Edgewatch always, by default choose not to do lethal damage except in extreme cases where no other damage type is possible.

The bottom line is that real world "nonlethal" damage is a complete and impossible fantasy. Why make a fantasy world that is bound to that complexity, if you want to be able to tell stories where the heroes never have to kill people to save the day?

Also, I think it makes a lot of sense for the GM to push that there is a difference between nonlethal conflict resolution and nonviolent conflict resolution and for Edgewatch Agents to be expected not to resort to violent conflict resolution unless forced to for the sake of citizens actual security.

Positions in which official authority is invested should be held to a higher standard than the average person, not a lower standard.

City Watch AP should be interesting. My players will play this like they're Dirty Harry.

You've got to ask yourself one question, 'do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya, Pickled Punk?

Also, I think it makes a lot of sense for the GM to push that there is a difference between nonlethal conflict resolution and nonviolent conflict resolution and for Edgewatch Agents to be expected not to resort to violent conflict resolution unless forced to for the sake of citizens actual security.

From what I can see from the comments over the past few months, many Pathfinder GMs aren't even aware that there's a difference.

If Golarion were meant to be an accurate representation of ye olde whomst've times there'd be extreme bigotry that simply doesn't exist in the setting write large (exceptions exist but are exceptions).

Most of the players running the game and developers making the game live in 21st century, so it's pretty reasonable to assume 21st century sensibilities toward it (that are unfortunately not as common as they should be).

I don't play that real world bigotry stuff unless someone wants to explore that element. "I don't want real life in my fantasy games" applies to bigotry, racism, sexism, homophobia, and all that garbage. This is at the end of the day a heroic fantasy game set in fantastical worlds that have unique histories that differ from the real world. And this is escapism. Most people I know play these games to escape from real life, not be constantly reminded of it.

The only reason I don't want some special non-lethal rules is because my players like doing combat. I'll cue them when it needs to be non-lethal versus some game rules deciding. Me, the DM, will cue them when they need to take someone in alive and in a non-lethal way. Just like I'll cue them when they are dealing with an evil piece of trash they can handle like Dirty Harry.

We really don't need to have a discussion about slavery here.

We really don't need to have a discussion about slavery here.

We really shouldn't.

But the important question is, was the AP designed with this tag in mind, or was it hooked onto all abilities because of real world politics? If it's the former, then maybe things break by not using it.

If it's the latter, you can just not use it, but that's also a wild position they're taking, given that, according to the player's guide, everything you fight is trying to kill you.

The only reason I can think of to explain why non-lethal damage would be hardwired into the AP (other than the 'cops aren't murderhobos' argument) is that in book 5, the PCs have to escape a prison and potentially ally with former enemies that they locked up earlier in the campaign.

It kinda' sounds like the Impel Down arc from One Piece, where Luffy allied with Buggy and Crocodile to overcome the warden and his cronies.

Jurassic Pratt wrote:

We really don't need to have a discussion about slavery here.

We really shouldn't.

I really hope the mods will simply delete the entire slavery sub-thread.

Why? Because...

All the rule on non-lethal damage does is lets players keep on playing exactly as before, just without having to take responsibility for their actions.

How can that be considered an improvement?

The improvement made by the nonlethal without penalty rule is this:

Without the rule, but still expecting the PCs not to kill anyone even if combat is unavoidable, there'd be players agitated by being "forced" into the existing nonlethal options or having to deal with higher difficulty, and players that were "playing logically" by using the standard go-to options until their enemies were at low HP and then switching to nonlethal options that run into a die roll going the wrong way and resulting in a target dying unintentionally - which could easily derail the campaign because the consequences (suspension, imprisonment, etc.) take a character out of the story for too long, or that character being dead means the information the writer assumed would be gained in interrogation after a resisted arrest is now just gone.

And there are also groups out there which aren't fully established and totally on the same page with each other that could end up with a disagreement among the players as to how/when to go nonlethal and within the context of this campaign that could be even more of a disruption than in the majority of campaigns (because there's a difference between asking a player not to have their character kill another character in the story when that player is playing a typical mercenary-minded adventurer and when that player is supposed to be playing a non-corrupt, genuinely good public servant)

Yet with this rule, none of that frustration happens. And there's literally nothing lost because the allegedly objectionable "I fireballed it but it wasn't lethal" thing is already a common occurrence during standard-rule play. All while taking just as much responsibility for their actions as always (which I can say with certain varies from table to table - evident by how tables such as mine see that PCs aren't going to get away with violence as a first choice or flinging area effects around populated areas, just like always, because nonlethal doesn't mean everybody is totally okay with it happening at any time)

The Player Guide makes it very clear that players will not "keep on playing exactly as before" - for example, the first two bullet points in the GM instructions are:

• Never push your players to engage in combat if the situation can be resolved peacefully.
• Encourage PCs to attempt to resolve encounters diplomatically before resorting to violence.

The nonlethal rule isn't the only concession they're making to the subject matter. It's an additional tool to help GMs and players to tell the story the way this story is meant to be told. (And by that, I specifically mean, without a bunch of murder-hoboing by the PCs.)

And it prevents a single player, in a moment of forgetfulness or stubbornness, from making a decision to use lethal damage when the rest of the group opposes that decision.

I have confidence (based on everything I've seen from Paizo, including a careful reading of the player guide but also including past adventure paths) that the adventures themselves will present plenty of opportunities for GMs and players to resolve situations without defaulting to combat.

Does the Sally Guard Neophyte background intentionally not get a skill feat?

Agents of Edgewatch Player's Guide wrote:

You’re trained in the Nature skill and your choice of Hunting Lore or Stabling Lore. You start out with a riding horse, as well as a suit of shoddy half-plate armor, a shoddy longsword, and a shoddy lance (see page 273 of the Pathfinder Core Rulebook for the rules on shoddy items).

My initial assumption on my first past read was that the equipment took the place of the circumstance bonus to various charisma checks that the other backgrounds get but now that I'm importing it into Fantasy Grounds for my group it just seems odd.

It does seem like a pretty poor deal. Shoddy half-plate is, if I'm reading the rules for shoddy items right, AC +3, Dex cap +1, penalty -5 (unless you have STR 16+), and speed -10. And you can't sell it, so you might as well throw it away and buy medium armor out of your starting 15 GP -- you can probably afford scale or chain, both of which give you better benefits than shoddy half-plate.

Some Kind of Chymist wrote:

Does the Sally Guard Neophyte background intentionally not get a skill feat?

Agents of Edgewatch Player's Guide wrote:

You’re trained in the Nature skill and your choice of Hunting Lore or Stabling Lore. You start out with a riding horse, as well as a suit of shoddy half-plate armor, a shoddy longsword, and a shoddy lance (see page 273 of the Pathfinder Core Rulebook for the rules on shoddy items).

My initial assumption on my first past read was that the equipment took the place of the circumstance bonus to various charisma checks that the other backgrounds get but now that I'm importing it into Fantasy Grounds for my group it just seems odd.

It does seem like a pretty poor deal. Shoddy half-plate is, if I'm reading the rules for shoddy items right, AC +3, Dex cap +1, penalty -5 (unless you have STR 16+), and speed -10. And you can't sell it, so you might as well throw it away and buy medium armor out of your starting 15 GP -- you can probably afford scale or chain, both of which give you better benefits than shoddy half-plate.

Even without that, I'm always wary of trading permanent benefits for a bit of starting cash/equipment. The skill feat would always be useful. Even good first level gear will be outmoded in a couple levels.

I haven't gotten a great understanding of Pathfinder 2nd Edition yet (not going to happen when I am working >50 hours per week on average), but I do notice that if you backport this AP to 1st Edition, being an expert in dealing nonlethal damage doesn't mean you can go totally wild, because nonlethal damage in excess of a creature's maximum hit points is automatically converted into lethal damage . . . which actually seems moderately realistic (a knockout blow that goes overboard has the risk of being a killing blow; excessive anaesthetic or sedative becomes outright toxic; excessive tasing can kill; etc.).

To do a police procedural well is something that I am not sure you can do in a Fantasy d20 game. Can it work? Sure. Can it work well...hmm... To my mind, a game made for miniature combat would not be my first choice. I would rather pick a system that would be more amenable to nonviolent play (DramaSystem, some variants of Cortex+, etc).

If this has as much roleplay and eschews combat as much as, say, Hell's Rebels, it might be alright. If they avoid crap like putting down protests or treating suspects as criminals, it might be OK. Also, if they do more "Sherlock Holmes" and less "Lethal Weapon", it might be OK.

What would help the AP be Good/Great? Systems that promote the players acting as a sort of ideal police force.

So, just like Hell's Rebels had supporters, the main juice in the subsystem should be support from the Absolom populace (community policing, etc). There should be quests and incentives not just based around inner city crime but also about white collar criminals and their impact. Ideally, significant screentime should be given to corrupt officers and how the party roots out that corruption and holds it to account. Finally, there should be systems in place to ensure that PCs who perform miscarriages of justice or somehow abuse their power lose their badges and answer for their crimes.

Thats the sort of thing that matters. Making damage nonlethal is a step in the right direction but it is definately not enough in this moment.

All the rule on non-lethal damage does is lets players keep on playing exactly as before, just without having to take responsibility for their actions.

How can that be considered an improvement?

Isn't that part of the point? Cintra Bristol made an excellent argument about how it isn't "exactly as before" and I totally agree with it. However, let's say it is exactly as before and run with it: In a roleplay system designed as combat-focused informed by modern day ethics (e.g. "Are players feeling comfortable about this or does it clash with their held beliefs?"), is it really within the purview of a light-hearted RPG system to force players to take initiative (and therefore total responsibility) for guard-on-criminal violence, assuming they don't go out of their way to inflict it?

At best, it'd be done so lightly that it's easy to be brushed over except by the most vulnerable, and at worst it's a mallet designed to make players feel bad. Either way is not a victory, especially as by making "should guards use lethal force on civilians" even a discussion you open it up to the immensely grim potential players may decide "yes, because it's more fun/easier". This is putting aside the power balance, as classes are built with lethality in mind so you have strange situations like Monks being better than Fighters purely because the former can do non-lethal without penalty.

A light-hearted fantasy where the focus is first on fun, then ethics and then engaging stories (albeit, parts 2 and 3 bleed into fun quite thoroughly), is just not the venue to discuss the very real reality about lethal force (and less-than-lethal force, which is the apt name given to nonlethal force) by police. There are better places than Pathfinder 2nd.

The focus in AoE is on investigation, on being a heroic common-guard saving their city for the better good and using the law to help people. "Non-lethal unless stated otherwise" let's the game keep moving without the fun being ruined. Which as someone actually interested in the themes is ideal to me.

That said, as always, it is your table. If you hate the non-lethal rule, then turn it off. The books are always recommendations, not a sacred holy text to be followed to the word. If you want to play systems that hold players up to responsibility to play law enforcement ethically and explore themes like police brutality, there are just better systems for it.

I should probably clarify that while I threw the question out there I will abstain from entering a discourse. I could argue the AP would be better off by *not* having the rule of the PG, but I won't. (The issue is too inflamed; it's far too easy to be drawn into a position where frustration is the only outcome)

I will simply thank those of you who have responded (and those of you that will respond).

And then leave it at that.

Regards,
Zapp

A light-hearted fantasy

*reads Player’s Guide*

*tilts head*

Quote:

A light-hearted fantasy

*reads Player’s Guide*

*tilts head*

Yeah, all this "serial killers, body horror, torture, nonconsensual voyeurism, violence against children, and bioterrorism (including a suicide bombing), humanoid experimentation, self-harm, animal cruelty, and mental illness" sounds really light-hearted.

Quote:

A light-hearted fantasy

*reads Player’s Guide*

*tilts head*

No,no. That's not how you do it.

You gotta hold your screen upside down!

;p

Quote:

A light-hearted fantasy

*reads Player’s Guide*

*tilts head*

So, you believe Pathfinder 2nd is not intended as light-hearted fantasy?

Rysky wrote:

Quote:

A light-hearted fantasy

*reads Player’s Guide*

*tilts head*

So, you believe Pathfinder 2nd is not intended as light-hearted fantasy?

Not even in the vicinity.