K Neil Shackleton wrote:
I'd would agree with one exception.
There are a few Season 0 scenarios that have 2 ration goals, when that happens, apply the Season 1 or 2 concept.
Yes, i tried that Paz, thanks for suggestion though.
I'm sorry, I'm not following you. If you read whole post I think you'll find that I agree with you.
Perhaps i could make this clearer.
Alignment is suggestive of behavior, but behavior is not tied to alignment. So it's more than reflexive.
Alignment is not something that happens to you, by choosing actions, a player is molding his characters alignment. They may or may not look to their past actions to form their new actions, or they could make a spur of the moment choice. But I feel that most people, and by extension have a sort of internal consistancy that they live their life by.
Andrew Christian wrote:
Look forward to meeting you at the Con. You're going to be great!
A character's alignment is a reflective attribute that doesn't define behavior.
Except that the Core Rule Book explains that alignment is a guide for roleplaying. So it is in partly a reflective attribute.
And I "partly" very specifically. People grow and change. Characters might realize that they will have to change to adapt to what they want or need. So there is a place where the character is at point A, before he moves to Part B ethically/morally.
Because of this, I understand why Paizo recommends the GM be involved with this and make the call. I don't really need a hard and fast rule to cover the transformation from good to evil. (But I scan understand where some would.)
Some games don't really have a lot of discussions about a players choices. I'm lean towards Paizo's stand point so in my games I like to plant seeds in peoples minds to let them know how their actions feel to them.
Now I know that people might have a real issue with that, but that's explained before the game starts and if they don't like it, then they don't have to play. I don't prevent people from taking actions, but feedback from character actions is primarily the GM's wheelhouse, so when someone summons a "hellhound" I often let them know that they are playing with fire by saying things like "You know your playing with hellfire, but it was so easy to use the power that it was almost exhilarating. You hope no one notices that you enjoyed it as much as you did."
If they keep going down this road, I might pop in a thought of "I wonder how long I can keep doing this before I taint myself."
Somethings should remain in the control of the player and the GM. Not everything need to be slave to the RAW.
Andrew Christian wrote:
I think that you have a good understanding of the situation. Perception checks are generally a standard action.
[spoiler]They may want to do handle animal check, etc. Basically most checks will be standard actions.
The 30 minutes is mostly for flavor. Its a stick to make the adventures move along. You want the players to be on their toes. If for nothing just to keep the scenario going.
This encounter will be the least of your worries, I can tell you have an eye for detail, and that's a good thing. Let your players get creative, and remember that this is more of role play encounter rather than combat. Be discriptive as they explore, it will be a chance to stretch your imagination and theirs too. This scenario is an introduction, so try and pique their curiosity. Most of all have fun with it.
I'll put this in a spoiler, but I don't really think i need to.
I understand your concern, but by creating a time limit, it prevents the PCs from running off to get something and then returning. You also have a situation where taking twenty eats away at their time so that's where the rubber hits the road.
Taking 20 means you continue trying until you get it right, and assumes that you will fail many times before succeeding. Taking 20 takes 20 times as long as making a single check would take (usually 2 minutes for a skill that takes 1 round or less to perform).
Since taking 20 assumes that your character will fail many times before succeeding, your character would automatically incur any penalties for failure before he or she could complete the task (hence why it is generally not allowed with skills that carry such penalties).
So I don't think you need to tick off all of those rounds, unless you get a very pedantic table (not likely).
They are already trying to resolve the issues on the iPad for Inner Sea magic and Brinewall Legacy.
This is a note to Chris. I have tried wiping out my PDFs of Brinewall Legacy (single copy) from my MacBook and iPad and downloaded them again from the My Downloads page but I'm still missing my art work when displaying on my iPad. Same goes for the cover of Inner Sea Magic. Mark mentioned that I may have to "re-personalize" those copies. I guess the web server still holds on to a copy of the original files even if you update them?
This still happens in good reader and ibooks. Thanks for your help.
I think i agree with TriOmegaZero.
If you want people to see things your way, use diplomacy. Intimidate IMHO is for getting results against their will and they will resent you for it in the long run.
I think even bluff would work better in this situation rather than intimidate.
But I do see your point.
Jesse Brake wrote:
I hate it when DMs force a PC to do something, but I did prod him in the direction I wanted him to go. I hit him a foul black bile that halved his movement as he was going backwards. The doors slammed shut from where they came, but he broke them down. And when he got to the top of the stair case and found the entrance had been bricked over because the site was under construction na dn they guards did in fact have brick and mortar in the very room they found the secret staircase to, he spent the time hammering away at the wall with a maul he stole from the construction site earlier. He just wanted out and short of completely removing gamer choice, he was going to get out.
Coming from someone you used to put together renaissance and pirate festivals I have occaionally point out to people, if thats what your character is, that's fine, but your about to talk yourself out of a job.
You have a simular situation. I'd let that person know that if he's going to keep talking himself out of playing, then your not going to want to keep creating games for him. But also find out if there are somethings that are just out of bounds. Perhaps he was really creeped out and needed an escape hatch. Hard to tell, but let this blow over and then talk it over with him and let him know that he let you down, and find out what it would take to make sure that doesn't happen again.
Jesse Brake wrote:
Well this is sort of not the right place to discuss home games, but I'll respond. Basically if your adventure is on a track. Sometimes players don't like the "railroad" type of adventure and will pull back when they feel that it isn't in their character's best interest.
You could put a situation where turning back isn't in their best interest. That's a stick to get people to move along the track, but I'd also put a carrot (other than freedom) to encourage them to move forward. Since your doing something that is in the spirit of horror, and the character is a cannibal I'd consider having the character get dreams about some evil deity like Norgorber or Rovagug pushing him forward to be free to become their pawn.
Granted that this is a one shot, but even disaster movie characters have long term plans and that is what pushes the plot along. They want to escape to get back to that life. It sounds to me that the players character could get back to what he wanted in the prison hence he had nothing to lose by going back. You need to find away to make sure that going back was never an option. Perhaps when the player started to pull back, you needed to do some sort of flashback as to why it would be better to escape, than go back.
OK, so that's a lot of criticism. It is meant to be constructive, honestly it sounds like you cooked up some fun. It can be rather disappointing when a player cannot motivate their self to continue, but you have hit a wall that all GMs and game designers have all hit.
Can't argue your point. If I remember, there is a PFS scenario that you actually find a letter of credit as part of the spoils. I won't want to spoil anything so I will avoid naming it.
Anyways, good point none the less.
Basically as you can see were this gets to be a grey area. Just casting the spell shouldn't be enoght to change your alignment. But let's say you started to summon these monsters to consort with them, well that might start something on that slide towards evil.
But using evil to fight evil, well I'm not sure I would consider that to be so evil, but it seems to be a bad strategy as good monsters often have the better weapons againt evil.
So basically consult with you GM. Ymmv.
I think you have some good points as well too. And I think that you certainly can run you games like this. To be honest, you have a really good adventure idea there. A demented individual is conducting a witch hunt needs to be stopped before an order of paladins name is ruined.
But hear me out. Your speaking as if you were the NPC. That's ok, it just shows you have a typical level of empathy, healthy even.
But NPCs are NPCs and well Pathfinder is a game so there is always a posibilty that PCs will be able to talk (or something else) their way out of a mess like the one presented. That is if the PC was interested to do so.
Basically what I'm trying to say here is that there each group needs to sort all of these sorts individually. Both of you can be right.
IMHO I think that a palideen of iomedea would be more about procedure and evidence but a paladin of erastle. Would be more about judgement on the spot since the deity is more about rural spaces and not liking the encroachment of cities. Arguably they might bring someone back to a village council to be judged, but I have doubts that it would be very formal. Make of that what you will.
I personally like the idea of paladins of different faiths having different style in the regard. Then again if your playing a paladin at the worldwound I expect you to be twitchy all the time.
Are you stalking him? Reading over his shoulder? People disagreeing with you isn't people ignoring you.
He wasn't disagreeing with me with the statement just attacking, you might want to read along as well.
Words have more than one definition, try using your context clues to determine witch one he meant, instead of jumping to conclusions. I haven't seen you going out of your way to back up your rhetoric with research or references. Maybe people living in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
Word derivations don't have more than one definition, its where the word ordinates. Context clues aren't needed. (By the way, which, not witch.) I also would like to point out that I did use his "context clues", as I was pointing out to him, he was mixing his meanings and was pointing out where he was in error. You can disagree with me, that's fine, but don't tell me I don't understand what I'm saying when you can't keep your argument straight.
Logic in relation to ethics is a discipline used to argue the nature of something. Logic in relation to programing is a form of mathematical programing language. Programing a computer is different from learning
Yea, that's the funny thing, this isn't Wikipedia and I'm no one here is writing in a MLA format. So maybe you should do your own work.
You are an insufferable bore, your points are random and antagonistic, you dismiss large portions others arguments to pick nits, you don't cite sources, and nothing you have said has lead me to believe you are any more knowledgeable than those you accuse.?
Pot meet Kettle, Kettle meet pot.
Here's the source material you requested. Happy gaming!
WHAT IS ETHICS?
People’s conceptions of ethics depend upon a number of factors, both personal and cultural, so it is impossible to design a clear definition that will please everyone. Some people think first of personal ethics, giving attention to cheating or sexual conduct. Others think first of ethical crises or dilemmas in business, government, or the community.... Ethics is part of the broader field of philosophy. Philosophers try to use logic and reason to find answers to a wide variety of human questions, from the nature of reality or knowledge to the meaning of truth, to differing conceptions of beauty. In ethics, we try to use logic and reason to find answers to difficult moral questions. But more specifically, this book emphasizes applied ethics, which is the actual use of moral standards of behavior to make decisions about human problems.
Logic programming link
The terms ethics and morals come from Greek and Latin terms having to do with behavior, culture, and habits. Moral originated from the Latin word morè, which meant something like “the way people are.” Ethics, on the other hand, came from the Greek word ethos, meaning “the way things should be.”
I think that you might be on to something there. I would ask your GM to allow you to "buy" a letter of credit from the church and any place that there is a church of Abbadar exists you can redeem it.
There would be an entry on your chronicle that you bought it, and your GM should sign off on it. (his initials) The put the information on your sheet. Here is the thing to be aware of though, if someone steals/destroys the note, there is little in the way to get your money back. I imagine that the church will only recognize the note as authority to release the funds, but adventurers are a resourceful lot so recovery could happen in a few "magical" ways.
I'm interested in what Mark might say about this. It has a real world historical precedents.
Once again, I said monarchy, not constitutional monarchy. The Magna Carta wasn't created just because everyone was in a good mood, it was created because citizens wanted rights. Granted it was a subset of citizens, (freemen, not serfs) but you get the point. Let's not forget that there was a rebellion prior to the creation of the charter.
And the primary purpose of the Magna Carta was to ensure that the state didn't have the right to punish citizens beyond what was the law of the land. i.e. General state sponsored oppression. That is my original point.
I should state that I'm not trying to single out Brittan or anyone else, and I consider the Magna Carta to be one of the more enlightened acts of the age. But facts are facts, Democracy is preferable to Monarchy. I will cede the point that constitutional monarchy can be in fact be just as preferable when rights or the people are guaranteed. Let me not insult my fellows across the pond.
Didn't say constitutional monarchy, I said "monarchy". Big difference.
It's amazing how you don't even read through the entire post and yet try (and fail) to pick it apart.
If the definitions are important, then the derivations are important especially when the are the underpinnings of the discussion we are having.
You can argue that logic is not a conscious effort, but thousands of years of philosophy argues that it is. You even confuse how computer logic works.
Computer logic is a mathematical programing language, that is only used in a sub sect of programing.
You're just throwing up flack to defend your points. You have a fundamental misunderstanding or logic, ethics, morality, computers, computer programing, and debate.
Have you considered running for office?
I bow to the superior fixer!
Jeff Cope wrote:
I would have to agree with you there Jeff. That's kinda awesome.
edit: fixed the link.
Sorry your right Ultimate Combat is what I should thave typed.
Malagant, you seem to be on a crusade to derail this thread. You just can't grab a definition of morals and ethics from an online dictionary to prove your point.
Moral originated from the Latin word morè, which meant something like “the way people are.” Ethics, on the other hand, came from the Greek word ethos, meaning “the way things should be.”
Ethics are many schools of thought and while some build upon others, many fork away from one another and go off in other directions That’s why someone like Ayn Rand differ from someone like John Locke and both of them are very far from Socrates.
And your explanation of logic is once again wrong.
Programing is frontloaded behavior. It doesn’t allow for learning, it doesn’t allow for learning. Granted Humans have some autonomic reflexes, but that’s not logic. It’s not learned.
Not every though that goes on in a person’s mind is “critical thought”. That’s reflective thought where you take an action and you measure the outcome from all perspectives, something that can’t be done all the time, day in day out, 24/7.
Philosophers try to use logic and reason to find answers to a wide variety of human questions, from the nature of reality or knowledge to the meaning of truth, to differing conceptions of beauty, much like the discussion we are having now. Logic implies introspection and reflection, it is more than just a reaction.
But once you have moved into the world of play, you are moving into fiction. It’s not a truth, or a certainty and since all players perceive the fiction from a total different perspectives based on their personal perception filters, you are far from logic.
Now if you want to start another thread about this concept, feel free, otherwise could you please join us on the thread topic.
Did I just see Galt referred to as an example of a a civilized land used to lend strength to the argument that legal systems in Golarion are healthy?
Educated, yes, civilized no.
My example was one about advancemnent in social levels, not that they are a paragon of anything but chaos.
It's been mentioned in different texts that the same philosophers that influenced Andoran to revolt were the same in Galt. Galt is sort of what would happen if the French Revolution if it never stopped.
And I'm not sure that I said that any of the legal systems were "healthy". I think I said that the systems were more advanced.
But I'm pretty sure your just giving me a ribbing.
I think that you can make the argument that it is enough. I'm not entirely sure of all the circumstances o f the Paliden's actions, so I wouldn't want to go with a hard and fast rule.
In my opinion, a justice with mercy approach would have better suited his actions.
One thing I need clearing up. If you are the player, from the posting that you just made, it rather sounds like you want this to happen, is that right?
I'd say feeling comes from gut instinct. But that's not logic. You can't mixup instinct and logic. The two different things.
But your last sentence says it all. You're mixing up ethics with morality and basically it would seem that we are living in two different worlds. My world has a whole slew of colors than just black or white.
I have to say you have a very twisted idea of what logic is.
Nope, he hit it right on the head.
Wow, touched a nerve didn't I.OK, I was going to rebut this point for point, but the fact of the matter is that is just a waste of time. There is just no way that every choice a player makes in a game is based on their own personal ethics. It not an argument you can prove. Many people will make choices because it feels right. Many people will make choices because it will be less risky than others. Hell a lot of people will make choices because they think that it might be fun, but not all choices are logical. My argument is not specious.
As to of your Paladin “participating” in slavery or not, I can’t even begin to understand your point. I have no idea if you use Paizo’s setting or not, or one that’s a home brew, but if you exist in a society that has it, welcome aboard you are participating.
Find me anyone who has documented proof that “Lawful Good” is Enlightened Absolutism. I would like to have a look at Voltaire’s’ character sheet, I understand he could be a bit of a munchkin.
But here is the kicker, you can suspend your disbelief to ethically allow the excesses of a monarchy, but you can’t suspend it that someone else might have a different interpretation of a paladin.
And I have to admit, you are the only person I have ever met you started roleplaying as an exercise in Logic and creative fantasy. Hell I was playing it for fun.
Dude just like everything else in the world, everybody brings different things to the table. Very few people will be just like you. Ethics is not one road, but many roads.
Kyle Baird wrote:
Go to your table Kyle!
Jeez, give a guy his fifth star and he thisnks that he can just interupt things.
Oh, I'm bing told that he can do that. Hmm who knew.
On a serious note. If you cna have you maps predrawn, that helps too. Having the actual flip mats and map packs works better. DOesn't seem like it will save your voice, but the less explaining of what the map is trying to represent helps cut down on chatter.
Doug Miles wrote:
Um, excuse me, I have a fluffy chair and here for a ....Para,...Para, Paracountess???? Can anyone sign for this?
Mark Moreland wrote:
So hugs will actually make you healthier....? Personally I think your taking a risk here Mark.
How about a "Hale and Hearty Handshake" from Mark. Granted it he might have a hand damp from antibacterial gel, but it's a firm handshake.
I could not disagree more. Where do our ideas of right and wrong come from when applied in a game? How do we know what is good and what is evil in that context? They come from the world we live in. We apply what we have learned from the real world to the worlds of role-playing fantasy. Role playing games are really nothing more than simulations we run in our imaginations that we share collectively with a group of friends. Simulations based on logic derived from experiences we have in the real...
This is a logical fallacy. There is a huge leap here to be made that we take what we have learned here and apply them to ethical choices in the game. And it begs the question of what sort of ethics does every gamer uses and since roleplaying games are about portraying a identity that is not yourself, players often adopt an ethical code that is not their own.I’m pretty sure that many of the players in the western world would object to the loss of freedom a monarchy imposes and institutional slavery that is indentured servitude, serfdom and actual slavery, if they were actually subjected to it, and yet the Pathfinder game has it.
Roleplaying is not based on logic, it is a safe creative space we put ourselves in to see what it would be like to be someone or something else and often we adapt a ethic/thought process/environment/abilities/ect that is different than are own.