Daristal's page

Oh, and the revelation came when he sacrificed an animal to Rovagug after a fight was over. Certainly not a huge gruesome thing, but he prayed to Rovagug while he did it.

The Player in question has not been disruptive, at least on an out of play level. I am not entirely sure if he really knows what Rovagug is all about, but I suspect he does. It is possible the character is a worshiper because his tribe was (just conjecturing), and while it is definitely more than lip service, he isn't a member of a cult (almost positive about that), and I don't think it likely that we (as a party) will be going up against any Rovagug cultists any time soon that we might have to worry about his 'loyalty'.

A lot will depend on how it all goes down next game I suppose. This revelation happened at the very end of last session, so no one has had any time to react yet. I want to play it 'right' and in-character, but since my knee jerk reaction (possible emphasis on the 'jerk') was fairly extreme, I wanted to sound out some other opinions.

Its not that your check forces the player to your will its how well you present the argument that he rejects or goes with. Meaning if I am playing a character and someone tries to convince me of something (especially if they have trouble acting) I find it helpful to have them role. If the role a 20 I might still think their reasoning is crap but they did not completely insult me or if they insulted me they said it with enough charm I laugh it off. If they role a 1 I find them insulting and abrasive in their attempt.

If everyone at your table is always in character and acts well not as important. Though even at tables with a groups I would say could pull off great improv it was interdispersed with jokes and questions about the whereabouts of mountain dew.

Also a fair idea. explaining it that way might actually make it work 'better'.

Just say you are trying to talk him into converting than. Don't have to roll, nothing has to do anything, no conflicts.

I can do that. done that way it shouldn't cause OOP issues...

Try convincing the character to convert to worshiping Ragathiel. That is part of an inquisitor's job (although not a very big part). If the GM mentions something, roll a diplomacy check every few in game weeks/days to get him to consider converting.

as a group we don't allow diplomacy/intimidate checks from PC to PC, and yes, conversion is definitely an option (for me to try)

Thanks. these are good points I will consider

At our last game we had a revelation about one of the PC's. He's a worshiper of Rovagug.

Our part consists of a NG Inquisitor of Ragathiel (me), a CG Spellslinger with a CG Cleric of Milani as a cohort, a CG Magus, and a CN Barbarian, who just revealed to us all that he is a worshiper of Rovagug.

At the beginning of the campaign we decided as a group not to indulge in PvP with these characters, and we have all made small allowances to avoid such, but I can't wrap my head around how to deal with the situation now. I can't imagine Ragathiel being cool with me casting healing on him, or buffs or whatever. (Honestly I can't imagine Milani being cool with it either, but that isn't my character so I'll let them worry about it.)

So any advice on how to continue playing with the party as is, not have any PvP, and still stay true to my character?

To OP: Upon following the link provided by someone above, which has this exact situation but from the GMs perspective, I have to say the best thing is for the two of you to sit down and discuss this. No amount of random people on the internet agreeing/disagreeing w/ either of you will do anything other than potentially further intrench you both in your positions and harm your game. Sit down w/ the other players if you want to as well and consider this issue as a group if it helps. If everyone present brings an open mind and is willing to be reasonable, you'll be able to hammer out a way to solve this.

It can be difficult to determine how a good yet vengeful character should act at times, and this can only be answered at the table w/ the people you are playing w/.

Hope that helps and that your game is more fun for it.

We have, and have come to an agreement. There isn't really any animosity over the issue. I went back and read his version of what happened, and he certainly painted the situation in a much different light than I. Interestingly enough, his description sounds like he was talking about something else entirely. We have no issues out of play about all this.

3.5, great cleave required you to drop a foe to make another attack. but you could keep attacking foes if they kept dropping. the number could grow pretty absurd against swarms and fine sized creatures.

makes them a little better, but not much better.

and improved cleaving finish would do the same. "Benefit: You can use Cleaving Finish any number of times per round."

One big enemy sharing reach with a number of lesser (easily slain in one hit) minions.

It is not a situation that has ever come up again in one of our games, but I think the point illustrates itself.

I have to sort of shake my head at this. "If you'd killed her, then there would have been no question it was a Good act, because she's Evil; instead you gave her an injury (that will be healed within 6 seconds of her getting to a Cleric friendly to her) you Evil bastard, so say bye-bye to your class!"

She was a cleric. The next day she could have healed herself.

All in all he's been a great DM. It's true that morality is a hard thing to adjudicate. It is also possible (even probable) that his stance is in response to a perceived trend. I don't want to throw him under the wagon. Mainly though, I seek to understand and improve as a role-player, and of course, if I am right, to be able to say "nah, nah-nah, nah, nah" <grin>

Well yeah martials are gonna be a bit better if they outright ignore text on some of their Feats.

Like this bit.

You cannot attack an individual foe more than once during this attack action.

As I said, this particular example is from 3.5

I will add tho, that Torture and such typically does fall under the realm of evil(mitigating circumstances aside) especially when concluded with an execution. It does paint a more clear picture of why he's considering an alignment shift.

Might I suggest just cutting back on the Torture? Or at least, offering them their lives for information rather than killing them? Then if they choose to deny you, it's on their heads. And if they do give, you're giving them a second chance and all that.

Also... if you do manage to fall, it doesn't kill the class for your, just ruins some of your features. But you can get them back with an atonement, which is just the price you might have to pay to play this way.

I have completely changed the way I was acting. After all, in a lot of ways, the DM is always right. So no torture since then for sure.

I guess what gets me is that I AM allowed to hack someones head off in battle, but things get dicey when I execute them instead. It's not like I can take the minions of the local evil queen to a legal court for punishment. To quote the DM (admittedly at the end of the session when he might have been tired): "It would have been better to just kill her than break her leg."

Seriously?

I also thought of torture (as it happened in the game) in the same way. "You can die quick or slow. Help me save lives and its quick, refuse to help me and it's slow. Your choice." That apparently was wrong, which probably says something about me which bears thinking about.

Daristal wrote:

I am curious to know what you all think.

Whether you are following the tenets of your deity is a different question from whether the act was evil. There are going to be (fortunately exceptional) cases where you'd clearly be following the tenets of a Good good and still committing an Evil act.

That said, whether your act is evil partly depends on circumstances. If there was some local justice that this person could easily be handed over to then I'd say that the act is definitely Naughty (ie, borderline evil). If you're in a situation where you have to make the call then you're probably being too nice, if anything. I've got lots of good characters that would kill a bandit who openly stated that they were planning to resume their banditry as soon as possible.

This person was working for the authority, so no, there certainly wasn't any place to take her for more legal 'punishment'.

You're in the clear imo. Did your dm give you an alignment switch?

Almost. Until he realized that I would lose my class. Then he made it a warning.

Rynjin wrote:

The DM ALWAYS has a differing opinion.

Not to go to such an extreme, but alignment is about morality. Morality is subjective. People disagree about subjective things a lot.

Which is of course why I didn't strenuously argue about the DM fiat. If he's in the minority on this one, I'd like the 'ruling' reversed, but if I am (in the wrong), it will make playing the character easier once I hone in on what is acceptable within the alignment.

By RAW torture is an evil act last I checked.

I personally believe in mitigating circumstances but the Golarion setting does not.

Still wouldn't be a Good act in my book, and doesn't fit with NG (Good above all else). Torture's kind of a bad thing all around, especially when it's not a one time deal.

Noted. I figured that 24 seconds or so of it mitigated it to an acceptable level, "for a good cause", but I am willing to concede the point.

After thirty years of D&D (and Pathfinder for the last few), the gaming groups I have been with have never had any serious issue with the martial-caster debate. I once saw our epic fighter kill an epic sphinx in one round by hitting a minion, cleaving into the sphinx, then a minion, cleaving into the sphinx, then a minion... enlarged with a potion and the right feats (whirlwind, the power attack cleave feat tree etc) and he just dominated that fight. I also saw him survive two (two!) prismatic spheres as he charged through and devastating criticled the caster villain du jour. (of course that was in 3.5).

attrition hurts casters far more than martial's, and the DM can always keep things interesting with energy resistances, save buffs, spell immunity, SR.

And since I have your attention, let me ask a follow up. On two other occasions I used torture to get answers from enemies. They were evil adversaries (checked with discern alignment), who until we subdued them had been trying to kill us. I tortured them with fire for a few rounds and then executed them when they told me what they knew (which wasn't much). My character certainly didn't enjoy it, but felt it was necessary to further our goals (which included the rescue of innocents). So again, were these evil acts?

Mainly I am trying to get a handle on 'doing the right thing' with this character. I certainly don't want to play him like some kind of Torquemada, but I honestly thought I was still firmly in NG land.

Thoughts?

That's what I thought, but apparently the DM has a differing opinion. Perhaps if more people agree he might change his mind.

Some preliminary information. I am currently playing a NG Inquisitor of Ragathiel in the reign of Winter campaign. My DM and I had a differing opinion on some actions taken by my character, and while we are going with his interpretation (as per DM fiat), the other players and I (mainly I) were wondering if one act in particular crossed the line.

Without using any spoilers, the situation was that we had captured a neutral priestess during the course of the campaign, and I told her I would let her go if she gave me the information on her 'boss'. She divulged that she had been working for this 'boss' for some time, and had been using her powers to attack and waylay travelers and other innocents in addition to the PC party, and that she would do it again if she felt like it. She also gave us no information on her 'boss' (like whereabouts or anything else). Then she went on a minor tirade about how her goddess was far superior to Ragathiel and that I need to take my worship of a minor cult and get out of her face. Then she claimed that she answered my questions and demanded to be released.

In response I told her that her acts demanded vengeance for those that she had wronged. Since I told her I would let her go I did, but first I broke her leg, as a non-lethal way of taking some measure of retribution, both for her slight against my god and for those she had injured while working for the 'boss'.

I'm sorry if this is a little vague, but I wanted to avoid any possible spoilers.

Ultimately though, I wanted to know. Was I indeed in the wrong there? Is what I did an evil act according to the rules? heck, even if it is just a judgment (heh, judgment!) call, was i stepping outside my NG alignment and the tenants of my deity?

I am curious to know what you all think.

After a lot of back and forth, (and not a little searching through these forums for pre-made answers) I thought I wold share my ideas for figuring out city populations using the kingmaker rules that made sense to me. Of course, actual numbers doesn't mean anything as far as population is concerned, but the standard 250 per city block didn't seem to work for my campaign. In addition, I wanted a way to have the cities in the PC's burgeoning kingdom grow a little more naturally in size.

During the preparing phase a new city starts with a population based on what kind of hex it is started in. Cities started in Plains hexes begin as Villages with 75 residents. Forest and Hill hexes start as Hamlets with a population of 30 people. Mountain and Swamp settlements start as a Thorpe with 15 people. Each month new people are added to a settlements population based on the city improvements that are built, (After all, a settlement with a castle and city walls will draw more people to live there for the increased protection those structures offer). Different city structures provide a different bonus to the 'Population Growth Modifier' which is then modified by the Kingdom's Promotion level and then still further by city special Qualities (for example, a city with the 'Insular' Quality has a severe reduction in growth rate, and a city with the 'Plagued' disadvantage would be hard pressed to grow at all.)

This Population growth modifier is then translated into a 'd6 +' variable which is rolled every month and added to the city's total population. At the same time, a cities total population is defined by what kind of housing it has. Houses, castles, shops, tenements, etc all have a 'Maximum Population modifier' which defines how large a population can grow without issues. If a city reaches this maximum number then the PC's can either build more housing, or their kingdom will gain unrest due to over-crowding.

The system seems to be working very well so far, although I am still tinkering a bit. I may add taxation level and unrest as negative modifiers to the Population Growth Mod (which makes sense) and perhaps tweak the actual numbers a bit. I would appreciate any thoughts or Questions though.

Daristal wrote:

I have been searching these forums but can't seem to find the answer I am seeking so here goes:

I am running my group through the Kingmaker Adventure path, which my group is really enjoying, and I discovered a discrepancy that I can't seem to reconcile. using the Kingmaker kingdom building rules, each city block equates to 250 people.

In Kingmaker #4 "Blood for Blood" the Village of Tatzlford is described as a village but and adding up its city blocks would equate to 4000 people, which according to the Gamemastery Guide is a large town.

I know that population doesn't really matter from a game mechanics stand point, but this also affects my other cities/towns throughout the Stolen Lands in my campaign.

Another example is Varnhold, which while isn't given a stat block in Kingmaker #3, still turns into an instant small city once the PC's liberate and annex it (population wise).

Can you give me any advice on how to 'fix' these population issues?

Thanks! Will do. Just wondering if I just couldn't find the section where it was already explained. it's no wonder that the Kingmaker rules are so popular. They're awesome.

How you "fix" the population problems is you pick which one you want and go with it, frankly.

Varnhold, Tatzlford, and most of the other cities in the actual adventures were NOT built using the city-building rules presented in Pathfinder #32, and as a result, there are the discrepancies you note. This is mostly on purpose since while at the time we HOPED folks would like the kingdom and city building rules, we had no idea they'd end up as popular as they have been. When we were building Kingmaker, we decided to sort of "quarantine" the city rules in their section; we included some bits of advice here and there on how to "translate" other cities like Tatzlford into that system, but mostly rely on the fact that the "one city block = 250 people" is really only meant to be a rough generalization.

As you note, population doesn't affect ANY game rules. Pick the numbers that make the most sense for you and your game and those are the right numbers.

I have been searching these forums but can't seem to find the answer I am seeking so here goes:

I am running my group through the Kingmaker Adventure path, which my group is really enjoying, and I discovered a discrepancy that I can't seem to reconcile. using the Kingmaker kingdom building rules, each city block equates to 250 people.

In Kingmaker #4 "Blood for Blood" the Village of Tatzlford is described as a village but and adding up its city blocks would equate to 4000 people, which according to the Gamemastery Guide is a large town.

I know that population doesn't really matter from a game mechanics stand point, but this also affects my other cities/towns throughout the Stolen Lands in my campaign.

Another example is Varnhold, which while isn't given a stat block in Kingmaker #3, still turns into an instant small city once the PC's liberate and annex it (population wise).

Can you give me any advice on how to 'fix' these population issues?