Elthbert's page

Maybe you're just noticing them. I don't feel like there are a disproportionate number.

** spoiler omitted **

When you are talking about weapons of note or Magical weapons, rapiers are the majority of them in the first and second book. Maybe I am just noting them. But it seems to me that there are as many Rapiers of each type (masterwork/mithral and or magical than all other weapons of those kinds combined.

What is the deal with Rapiers in this adventure path? I realize my party is only in the second book, but rapiers make up the vast majority of the lootable weapons in the game so far. Has anyone else noticed this, and is it unique to this adventure path.

I have been a DM for a long time, but I homebrew my game ( just use Pathfinder rules, not world or Paths). It's like Rapiers are the national weapon or something.

I have not received my box, nor have I received an emails about my box. This isn't a complaint, its just a observation and an inquiry. How many shipments are still due to go out?

Here's a trick: GMs, being less invested in dice rolls than players, scoff at player's dice superstitions. So ask your GM to let you take a custom Feat that gives you bennies whenever you roll a 1. Balance it so that it's slightly-underpowered if you roll a 1 every 20 rolls, but gets better the more 1's you roll... then watch your bad luck turn to pure profit.

Not this GM... .I know for a fact that dice are completely fickle and that luck is a real and fickle thing.

KestlerGunner wrote:

Thanks for the information guys.

Can I get a clarification on this rule using two examples?

A:
HERO X'S Quill of Clarity:
(first sentence) HERO X infused this quill with the essence of clear writing in an effort to counter a wave of unclear writing sweeping the realm.

B:
Quill of Clarity:
(first sentence) This quill was infused with the essence of clear writing in an era when unclear writing was rampant.

Are both of these auto-rejects? Or just example A?

I'd say that A is a clear auto-reject, but B is also problematic. Here is why:

Quill of Clarity:
This quill was infused with the essence of clear writing in an era when unclear writing was rampant.

A wondrous item is not unique (that would make it an artifact), and they can be crafted by anyone who fulfills the requirements, including PC's. And a quill my wizard made yesterday could hardly be infused with the essence in an era past, could it?

Edit: Example B is also problematic because it uses passive voice. And while it doesn't show up in Sean's auto-reject advice threads, it is something that has been warned against on multiple occasions.

Yes, yes, the terror of passive voice, I mean why do we even have that crappy part of our language at all? Oh wait, maybe its active voice is not better for everything, and gets really dull to read ALL the time.

Sorry, but the tyranny of active voice really gets to me, there is nothing better about active voice, each voice has its place, and ads to variety in reading.

True. Any trick is just a means for the animal's trainer to command it to do something it is capable of that it might not consider doing on its own, but I see certain tricks as teaching the animal to do something it knows how to do better.

Attack, for instance, takes up two trick slots if you want an animal to fight unnatural creatures it would normally flee. Assist Attack has a prerequisite of Attack so I reason that you are teaching your animal a skill it normally wouldn't think to use on its own.

Some animals may instinctively flank but, to me, that isn't the same as a non-flanking animal knowing how to distract prey enough to grant its partner an attack or AC bonus.

I agree.

Elthbert wrote:

Moff Rimmer wrote:

Elthbert wrote:

Other than movement, is there a limit to how many targets can be over run by a charging person. For example can a mounted rider overrun 3 or 4 ranks of spearmen and just ride through the formation?

With the RAW...

From the SRD wrote:

You can attempt an overrun as a standard action taken during your move. (In general, you cannot take a standard action during a move; this is an exception.) With an overrun, you attempt to plow past or over your opponent (and move through his square) as you move. You can only overrun an opponent who is one size category larger than you, the same size, or smaller. You can make only one overrun attempt per round.

From this, I would say no.

I think that the reasoning here is because "Overrun" is a form of attack. And the ability to attack as many creatures that are in your movement could quickly be ... "broken". There may be a feat out there that might allow more than one overrun attempt, but I don't know of it off the top of my head.

So by the RAW a rank of three people deep stops a charge of heavy cav, no matter what? Assuming one charge attack and one overrun attempt.

Pretty much. Consider this...

How many people before the cavalry starts tripping over bodies? Once you hit the first person, your momentum pretty much has to slow down (irresistible force meets an immovable object). How much use is your lance going to be after you skewer the first character? You going to scrape him off on the battlefield in less than 6 seconds? Or pull a second lance out of your pocket? How much control do you think the trampling creature has after it hits the first creature?

But in the end, it's probably more about game balance than "realism" in this case.

Again, it wouldn't surprise me if there were feats or abilities (from things like prestige classes or certain creatures) that might allow some characters to go a little farther, but they shouldn't be able or...

Well overruns are PART of the move action so i don't see how they would restrict the ability to attack. But certainly a rider could attack with a lance before the mount ever made it to the opponents.

But by RAW I suppose that is the case, assuming that you are considering each contact as another overrun attempt.

Elthbert wrote:

Other than movement, is there a limit to how many targets can be over run by a charging person. For example can a mounted rider overrun 3 or 4 ranks of spearmen and just ride through the formation?

With the RAW...

From the SRD wrote:

You can attempt an overrun as a standard action taken during your move. (In general, you cannot take a standard action during a move; this is an exception.) With an overrun, you attempt to plow past or over your opponent (and move through his square) as you move. You can only overrun an opponent who is one size category larger than you, the same size, or smaller. You can make only one overrun attempt per round.

From this, I would say no.

I think that the reasoning here is because "Overrun" is a form of attack. And the ability to attack as many creatures that are in your movement could quickly be ... "broken". There may be a feat out there that might allow more than one overrun attempt, but I don't know of it off the top of my head.

So by the RAW a rank of three people deep stops a charge of heavy cav, no matter what? Assuming one charge attack and one overrun attempt.

Elthbert wrote:

Does anyone see any reason that a creature with an animal intelligence cannot use the aid other action. Pack animals such as wolves help each other in combat, it seems like this would be useful in a world with creatures that are so hard to hit.

I would say yes assuming the animal knows the appropriate tricks. An animal that does not have the Attack or Defend tricks would not be able to aid other in combat.

With domestic animals I agree with you completely, but what about wild animals> dog packs and such.

Elthbert wrote:

Moff Rimmer wrote:

Elthbert wrote:

Does anyone see any reason that a creature with an animal intelligence cannot use the aid other action. Pack animals such as wolves help each other in combat, it seems like this would be useful in a world with creatures that are so hard to hit.

I feel like the short answer is -- it depends...

I could be mistaken, but I was under the impression that "aid another" was strictly for skill checks or certain stat checks. Therefore it should not aid in hitting creatures in combat. There are other things for that like flanking and so on.

As far as the "aid another", it should depend on the circumstance. Your warhorse should not be able to "aid another" to open a lock, but I don't see why your warhorse couldn't offer its strength to help pull open a door (assuming a sufficient rope use check to tie the horse to the door).

No Aid another can be used to give an ally a +2 to AC or to hit.

From the SRD:AID ANOTHER
In melee combat, you can help a friend attack or defend by distracting or interfering with an opponent. If you’re in position to make a melee attack on an opponent that is engaging a friend in melee combat, you can attempt to aid your friend as a standard action. You make an attack roll against AC 10. If you succeed, your friend gains either a +2 bonus on his next attack roll against that opponent or a +2 bonus to AC against that opponent’s next attack (your choice), as long as that attack comes before the beginning of your next turn. Multiple characters can aid the same friend, and similar bonuses stack.
You can also use this standard action to help a friend in other ways, such as when he is affected by a spell, or to assist another character’s skill check.

So should animals be able to actively do this?

Interesting. I guess that I don't see any reason not to allow this. I would probably put in a caveat that both the creature receiving the aid and giving the aid need to have worked together before...

I agree, wolf packs just became a lot more scary.

Elthbert wrote:

Does anyone see any reason that a creature with an animal intelligence cannot use the aid other action. Pack animals such as wolves help each other in combat, it seems like this would be useful in a world with creatures that are so hard to hit.

I feel like the short answer is -- it depends...

I could be mistaken, but I was under the impression that "aid another" was strictly for skill checks or certain stat checks. Therefore it should not aid in hitting creatures in combat. There are other things for that like flanking and so on.

As far as the "aid another", it should depend on the circumstance. Your warhorse should not be able to "aid another" to open a lock, but I don't see why your warhorse couldn't offer its strength to help pull open a door (assuming a sufficient rope use check to tie the horse to the door).

No Aid another can be used to give an ally a +2 to AC or to hit.

From the SRD:AID ANOTHER
In melee combat, you can help a friend attack or defend by distracting or interfering with an opponent. If you’re in position to make a melee attack on an opponent that is engaging a friend in melee combat, you can attempt to aid your friend as a standard action. You make an attack roll against AC 10. If you succeed, your friend gains either a +2 bonus on his next attack roll against that opponent or a +2 bonus to AC against that opponent’s next attack (your choice), as long as that attack comes before the beginning of your next turn. Multiple characters can aid the same friend, and similar bonuses stack.
You can also use this standard action to help a friend in other ways, such as when he is affected by a spell, or to assist another character’s skill check.

So should animals be able to actively do this?

Does anyone see any reason that a creature with an animal intelligence cannot use the aid other action. Pack animals such as wolves help each other in combat, it seems like this would be useful in a world with creatures that are so hard to hit.

Other than movement, is there a limit to how many targets can be over run by a charging person. For example can a mounted rider overrun 3 or 4 ranks of spearmen and just ride through the formation?

Elthbert wrote:

BigNorseWolf wrote:

So the person who was enslaved illeagally, is still an innocent. True, the merchant who buys the slave may not know if the person was enslaved improperly or not, but the slave still sould be freed (to correct the original crime).

-the kicker is that there's a HUGE possibility that the person who was enslaved LEGALLY is still an innocent.

Born into slavery
Captured by the military
Kidnapped and sold
Given a ridiculously severe sentence for a petty crime

YES! as I said, LAW without justice, or even an attempt at Justice is not legitiment and a paladin is not obliged to "respect" it.

So, if I come over to the US, and proclaim that death penalty and 150 years of prison sentence for a financial scam isn't justice, and therefore the American law isn't legitimate, then I am A.O.K and if get jailed for "violating" said "laws" you're going to stand on your eyebrows to defend me? Cool beans!

Um What? IF you are a Paladin? If the US law is unjust ( though you should realize that what your talking about is mainly state law), and you resist them, you will be justified, right with your code and not fall.

James Sutter wrote:

Pathfinder is fundamentally a game about fun and adventure. To some of us staffers, massive population figures are not fun. In fact, they're the sort of thing that (in my personal opinion) hamstrings a campaign setting, precisely because it reduces a GM's ability to hand-wave. If we--or a GM--want to introduce a new faction, or nation, or whatever, and realize we can't because it wouldn't make sense given the population figures we've listed... that sucks. We also don't get too technical about physics, or the mechanics of magical practitionership, or rainfall, or tax codes, or any other ephemera along those lines for much the same reason. Yes, we could provide that information. But we don't think it's fun.

You're welcome to disagree and decide those matters for yourself. And because we haven't published an official figure, there's no way for anyone to contradict you.

With all of our books, the goal is not to create an encyclopedia of Golarion--it's to provide a fun, exciting introduction to those aspects which adventurers are most likely to interact with.

But I hate people who think that five acres is enough to feed 500 people. Demographics in fantasy is important because it validates the fantasy. Sure you all like go bad biblical and put meal time down as manna from heaven...but it cuts no ice.

Civilizations went to war because they ran out of firewood...Its time cheliax invaded the elf forests with an army of woodsmen and clearfelled a half acre per citizen per year.

I agree, I am not argueing for breakdown of every place and every person, but some general demographic information and concideration is important.

So the person who was enslaved illeagally, is still an innocent. True, the merchant who buys the slave may not know if the person was enslaved improperly or not, but the slave still sould be freed (to correct the original crime).

-the kicker is that there's a HUGE possibility that the person who was enslaved LEGALLY is still an innocent.

Born into slavery
Captured by the military
Kidnapped and sold
Given a ridiculously severe sentence for a petty crime

YES! as I said, LAW without justice, or even an attempt at Justice is not legitiment and a paladin is not obliged to "respect" it.

Mikaze wrote:

Torag is the most hardcore Lawful-leaning of all the LG paladin-havin' gods.

Real quick, who's Torag's drinking buddy that he sometimes goes with on wacky adventures? Cayden Cailean or Asmodeus?

;)

Other thought: who, of the good gods, hangs out with evil ones? Sarenrae. But then again, she's got other motives in mind...

Elthbert wrote:

Really Are you sure slavery is not evil in Golarion, can you direct me to an entry in a book which says that? Becuase Droskar the god of Slavery is NE.

Actually, I can't point it to you, but I can give you a strange (and admittedly weak) proof-of-concept, that I've mentioned before: there are only two countries that I know of that are anti-slavery. One is, of course, Andoran, the NG country who aggressively seeks to export their culture to the world. NG is, in fact, good.

The other is the River Kingdoms, a Chaotic Neutral "country" more accurately described as a loose collection of fully independent countries that all agree to a strange (distinctly non-good) code, run by the "outlaw council" (Non-lawful? Strong potential for non-good) and support the worship of two different deities that are non-good (chaotic neutral and chaotic evil) universally reviled elsewhere due to their propensity (and command) to murder (mostly) innocent people, and is only held together (and more importantly, the previously-mentioned code only enforced) by the power of two...

proof of concept it may be, butthe God of Slavery is NE, that is RAW, if slavery is sgoing to be handwaved into not evil on Golarion then I would like to see an actual entry in some book somewhere that says that. Since slavery, particularly chattle slavery robs people of the integrety of their own body, and I contend that that alone is evil, then I would like to see an entry somewhere that it is not evil. AS it is the only RAW thing I can find is that its deitific patron is NE, and I thinkthat is pretty telling.

Elthbert wrote:

Well at least we finally have critera. lets look at them.

1. THis critera is completely immaterial, the peoples perception has nothing to do with what is or is something is ligetimate Perception is not reality. In a world with magic, where peoples minds can be tricked quite easily this is even more so.

Reads as I don't like it so it does not count (Much like a Cg pc would say)

Elthbert wrote:

2. This is a good one. I will say I agree this is a function of legitamacy. However, if said government also violates the role of government, then it loses any claim on these grounds.

This also Reads as I don't like it so it does not count (Still seeming like something a CG pc would say) The only Violation of government is one you made up ( the leadership are evil so it somehow is not a real government)

Elthbert wrote:

3. This is the same catagory as number 1, except less compelling, contries recognize who they will fortheir own reasons, a usurper who is recognized by others is still a usurper.

Again you are making up your own rules the rest of the world does not agree with. Also not Lawful, this is still a chaotic attitude to take.

Elthbert wrote:

I don't recall sayingthat anywhere, can you direct meto where I might have said that? There is nothing CG about anything I have said. Again you seem to unot understand the aliegnment system at all. The revolutionary with an organized hierarchical army is LAWFUL, whether or not he is in support of the people in Power.

Everything you state is chaotic, you refuse to accept anything you dislike as legit, even when it is excepted as such by the people of the country and the world at large. I understand Al fine, you however seem not to. That however is a classic example of CG behavior.

LG folks do not bend rules they dislike, they do not ignore laws they don't like and they don't act like rulers of lands they are in are not real rulers because they happen to dislike them....

Again you seem to not understand the alignment system, lets go over this a bit.

Lawful people tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties. If you go back into the past things like promote Hierarchy are also in that list. Neverin the entire history of D&D has lawfulness been connected to a requirment to obey the Law of the Land.

As I mentioned above, the Revolutionary who builds an orderly and hierarchical army to fight his revolution is Lawful.
Other examples.
THe Knight who holds absloute obediance tohis lord, but contends that " the lord of my lord is not my lord" and so follows his lord into rebellion is Lawful.
The Cleric who honors his superiors in Church, and follows their orders and cares not one wit about any other "authority" is Lawful.
THe Monk who rigidly keeps his training schedule and obers the Rule of his order is Lawful, regardless of how he interacts with the rest of the world.

Lawful persons work for an orderly society, they are indeed predisposed to obey laws becuase obediance is in their nature, but they are not blindly required to do so.

George Washington was a Traitor and violated the most sacred laws of his day, but he was Lawful.

Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it.
Chaotic people are not necessarly opposed to Laws and may be certian laws greatest defenders. If a law enshrines a Chaotic Value such as gauranteeing some form of freedom, then Chaotics will love it, support it and defend it.

THe first 10 amendments tothe US Constitution are laws which promote Chaos, they gaurantee certain freedoms and eliminate hierarchical authority. Chaotic people are stalwart defenders of such laws, and some like the ACLU are quite litigious.

IF someone is violating the "rights" of another
to freedom chaotics will be only to happy to follow the "law" when it is a Chaotic Law.

So depending on the cricumstances a Chaotic may be a greater defender of the Law of the Land than a Lawful person.
Lawfulness and Chaoticness are personal qualities which have to do with internal decision making, ritual, belief in authority, theory of ideal soceity and the like.

Paladins, however, are held to a bit higher standard, they are required by their CoC to respect legitimate authority.

Now the fact that the word Legitimate is in there is meaningful, it means that there must be illegitimate authorities and these authorities do not have to be respected.

As the code of conduct also requires that the paladin "punish those who harm or threaten innocents." then it follows that any claimed authority which does this, is not legitiment and does not have to be respected.

Quote:

It is not up to the Paladin to start handwaving laws that he/she simply finds unpalateable, indeed the hard part of their job is actually dealing with said laws. The Paladin has to act for the GREATER good, and not stay fixated on the smaller issues. That MAY include finding out that the Halfling is a legit slave and having to hand her back, as gutwrenching as he may find that.

Again, you're using legit to cover two completely different things. This particular slave was 10, is from varissa, and was taken as spoils of war by a duly appointed military authority, and has a chain of paperwork a mile long covering her legal sale from one owner to another. Does that seem like a reasonable situation an adventuring PC paladin in cheliax might come across?

It is not the paladin's Job to help enforce corrupt laws or a corrupt system. A paladin returning an innocent slave into slavery is no worse than a kidnaper. It is an evil act, and needs to be avoided with the same, if not more ardor, than an illegal act. You can tell a paladin not to violate a law but you cannot compel them to commit an evil act with a law.

Quote:

What should happen next is that the Paladin spends their time working with the Legal system to do something about Slavery in the big picture, to get the laws changed to either abolish slavery, or move to have protections put in place for the treatment of slaves etc.

Good luck on that.

Quote:

Yes there are 'laws that are evil', we see that in the present age, let aone 'less enlightened times', but that doesn't mean we can simply break them when we don't like them or feel they don't apply to us.

It doesn't mean you have to participate either.

Quote:

Indeed you had to use (illegal) corrupt actions, like sham trials. Matters the Paladin would be able to raise argument against.

A sham trial isn't necessarily illegal. Sometimes they hire Kangaroos on purpose.

Quote:

So there are a lot of actions the Paladin HK CAN undertake in

...

Bignorsewolf----- Agreed.

This is not a "no, but" sort of question. Either every paladin MUST take immediate action or there is enough wiggle room. Hate the slaver, not the slave; hate the infernalist, not the Hellknight.

Everything is a no but sort of Question, circumstances matter. Topic matters. Cheliax has an Evil and illegitiment goevernment, in those areas where its laws are Evil then the paladin is not obliged to obey them. IF he is confronted with a direct choice of enforcing those evil laws or not he cannot, and must resist. This does not mean he is forced to go out and seek his death in a stupid act of rebellion. However, if he is made to chose then he must chose resistance.

What I posed was not a straw man argument; you are very fond of the term, but you may want to reconsider its usage. What I posed to you was that your approach to alignment issues and slavery lacks nuance and so is a useless standard. The evidence is your statement that "a paladin could work to overthrow this government without violating either the CoC or his alignment." You obviously understand that good people can exist in Cheliax, but your knee-jerk rhetoric (a fallacy of composition or division, depending on which direction one cuts) that "Cheliax = Evil" and no person (let alone paladin) may tolerate any form of slavery in Cheliax without also being evil by association avails no one and fails under scrutiny.

I am not particularly fond of the Term, I use it rarely, in fact this thread is the only place I have used it in years. But one must call a duck a duck. You are misrepresenting my position, and then attacking the misrepresentation, THAT IS A STRAWMAN.

I never said that no person could tolerate any form of slavery or be evil, I said no one could enforce Chattle Slavery and not be evil, and that returning an escaped chattle slave would be evil. THat is all I ever said, YOU are choosing to alter what I said and then attack it---- That is exactly what a strawman is.

The case of a happy Chelaxian village is but one counter-example to your absolute statements. The case of a properous neighborhood in Egorian could be another. The simple fact that the leadership in Egorian has congress with Hell does not necessarily imply that every person within the borders of the Kingdom faces an obligation to rise up and destroy their leaders. Not even every paladin faces such an obligation.

I never said it did. I said the Paladin was not obliged to follow evil Laws, in Cheliax or otherwise and that enforcing evil laws was evil, and that THAT made the position of Hellknight incompatible with that of Paladin.

And that is the point of this thread, isn't it? Whether or not a Hellknight Paladin can exist, or even a Paladin in Cheliax at all. I say they can, because I do not believe all paladins are obligated to absolute action by their codes. I neither endorse nor understand the notion that all paladins must be religious fundamentalist terrorists pledged to the task of pulling down every last "sin" in the world by force. Surely, as seekerofshadowlight indicates, when one becomes willing to disregard all standards of decency and order in order to pursue a moral agenda one has drifted into Chaotic territory.

I don't recall ever saying anything about abandoning standards of decency, onthe contray, decent people do not return chattle slaves to their "owners". Nor do I recall saying anything about terrorist activity, but quite the opposite, bold and public action against those IN THE ACT OF COMMITING EVIL AGAINST THE INNOCENT.

Consorting requires harmonious agreement, it imply's partnershipand unity. It is not simply speaking with someone.

First let me appologize for my delay... pesky real life got in the way.

Ask yourself:
Is this government seen as the real government by the people: Y/N
Does this government function and carry out the duties of a real government : Y/N
Is this government in fact recognized by other countries and the world at large as a real government :Y/N

If yes ( which they all are in this case) it is legitimate. Legit and "good" do not go hand in hand. Most government are not "good" they can have good rulers but that does not make the whole good.

You dislike like the ruler, deal with it.She is a legitimate and recognized ruler. The people of her own country do so, other government do so and her country does indeed work like any other.

So its not about legit but "do I like this" So yes your code says you must respect and obey the Laws of that land while inside said land.

Well at least we finally have critera. lets look at them.

1. THis critera is completely immaterial, the peoples perception has nothing to do with what is or is something is ligetimate Perception is not reality. In a world with magic, where peoples minds can be tricked quite easily this is even more so.

2. This is a good one. I will say I agree this is a function of legitamacy. However, if said government also violates the role of government, then it loses any claim on these grounds.

3. This is the same catagory as number 1, except less compelling, contries recognize who they will fortheir own reasons, a usurper who is recognized by others is still a usurper.

THey don't happen to like slavery? Really? I don't think there is any point discussing this with you further, as you think sapiant creatures can be taken against thier will and raped and murdered( Pg. 5 C,EoD) and that a Paladin would have to "respect that", this is not Good, lawful or otherwise.

Yeah you like to play CG I get that. YOu call it LG, but it is not LG. Under what you have said you respect no government, no law or no ruler that is not from Andor. You do what you want, when you want it and to hell with this so called "code"

I don't recall sayingthat anywhere, can you direct meto where I might have said that? There is nothing CG about anything I have said. Again you seem to unot understand the aliegnment system at all. The revolutionary with an organized hierarchical army is LAWFUL, whether or not he is in support of the people in Power.

Paladins are rare because the code is hard. The world is not black and white but a paladin is. He is good and evil, right and wrong, just and unjust. And so they have a very hard time dealing with the world that is not as they are.

On this we agree wholeheartedly, but you seem to think a Paladin is not good, he is only obediant.

Slavery and the act of slavery in and of itself is NOT evil on Golarion. You can't simply call it all evil when it is not, nor can you simply ignore laws about slavery in lands that have them ( almost all lands). If a man is murdering his slaves or abusing them as a paladin you need to deal with that, but you can not just ignore Laws you do not like.

Really Are you sure slavery is not evil in Golarion, can you direct me to an entry in a book which says that? Becuase Droskar the god of Slavery is NE.

If a man in Cheliax is murdering and abusing his life-slaves, how exctly are you going to deal with it? Legally they have the right to do so. According to the LAW of Cheliax Life slaves can be disfigured, abused or killed, they are property, cattle, nothing more.

You have to use what you have to work with. "I don't have to follow the law, respect authority of that government inside its own boards or of its law enforcers as I don wanna" Is not the behavior of a LG type. CG would say that easily, but if you are a paladin with the code, yep you do. It is legit, even if you do not think it is. You do not get to make that call.

Paladins do not have to like the laws of lands they are in, but they do have to obey and respect them. Respect, meaning as not to seek to break them because they do not happen to like slaves or the color red or walking on the left side of the street.

"Walk on the left side of the street? NEVER! That is Tyranny! Tyranny I say!"

If you want to change a government, there are both legal and good ways to do this, flat out law breaking then saying it does not count as "YOU" not the world but you alone find that government "Not legitimate" because you disagree with it, is not among those.

Why doesn't a paladin get to make that call, unless you havea very non violent campaign adventures make life and death decisions all the time, and it is ormally other sapiant creatures deaths they are deciding on, but a Paladin does not get to deside that the Queen who has a pit feind advisor is not a Legitimate ruler?

THis si asimply not LG, not at all.

THey don't happen to like slavery? Really? I don't think there is any point discussing this with you further, as you think sapiant creatures can be taken against thier will and raped and murdered( Pg. 5 C,EoD) and that a Paladin would have to "respect that", this is not Good, lawful or otherwise.

seekerofshadowlight wrote:

Elthbert wrote:

I would also say they are blatantly evil becuase they have Life-slaves who serve at the mercy of their owners ( pg 5 Cheliax Empire of Devils), i.e. they can do anything they want with them, including use them in bloodsports (Pg.5). They take people who were just " in the wrong place" (Pg 5) for these slaves.

So you only accept one major nation in all of GOlarion as not evil. I would not allow you CG "I get to pick only folks I like as legit" paladin in any games I run. Because paladins must be LG and the way your talking is clearly not.

Working within the law from within is not neccessarily the same as respecting it. A Paladin in Cheliax would be the extreme of foolishness in trying to take on the entire established hierarchy single handedly.

Their best approach is what a Lawful Evil would do in a Lawful Good society... subvert the law whenever he or she can to pursue their greater aims. In other words... use the Law against the Lawful.

Exactly, As I said, LG people do not haveto respect the Law of the Land anymore than LE people. Contrary to what others may say, I have never contended that paladins were required to charge wildly in smitting all the evil people.

Elthbert wrote:

And when they run to you for protection, and the Law is on their heels, do you place you body before them, do you draw your sword and scream that THIS time, THIS time the slave will not go back? When the halfing sneaks into your room and begs you to help him return to his home, where he was kidnapped so long ago, do you return him to the "authorties" because in Cheliax he is property?

Do you not yet see the fallacy in your question?

Your halfling slave will not run to a stranger for protection. She will not sneak into a stranger's room and ask for aid. She can not and will not approach anyone. Fear and starvation are her companions, now. She must flee when people appear, and hide when they draw near. To survive, she must debase herself even further; hiding in squalor where others do not go, stealing to feed herself.

Yes, she has run from the man who holds her chains, but she is no more free today, than she was yesterday. Freedom, Justice, Vindication. These things can only be found within the Law.

If a halfling slave will not run to you for protection then you must be hiding who you are very well. And you aviod the question again, if they do what do you do?

*sigh* Alright. Let's unpack your statements.

Set a bound on what level of consorting with devils makes someone evil. In increasing order of severity (at least I think so):
1. adventurers have a conversation with an imp.
2. adventurers have a conversation with a duke of hell.
3. adventurerers ask a devil for advice
4. adventurers trade goods/services with a devil
5. adventurers do favors for a devil in exchange for power
6. Any of the above, substituting whatever sort of person you regard as needing a higher moral standard than an adventurer
7. An Empyrean Lord/Lady makes a deal with Asmodeus.

At what point is the party of the first now "evil" for having dealings with devils? Include time variables if it pleases you.

Any, all or non of them except number 5 and 7, ( which are always evil) at the moment when it becomes consorting with, and not simply talking to, or dealing with as enemies, consorting requires harmonious assosiation, agreement with, companionability. It is beyond simple conversation, and even perhaps trade (for example if one was trading with a devil to retreve an innocent).

Then, before getting into the nitty gritty of the rest of the laws and whether or not all of Cheliax should be damned because it has some bad legislators and corrupt nobility, I need something answered:

IF Cheliax's government is incontrovertibly evil
AND an incontrovertibly evil government is not a legitimate authority a paladin must respect
AND the stated aim of paladins is the defense of the helpless, etc. etc.
THAN must every paladin take action to overthrow this government? (y/n?)

NO, but a paladin could work to overthrow this government without violating either the CoC or his alignment.

A paladin MIGHT be forced to act against the government forcefully if confronted with a situation which made him choose between Law and Good, such as the escaped slave asking him for help.Paladins could work within the society until such a time as they were, for lack of a better term "put on the spot".

Does your opinion change if the paladin faced with the question understands that doing so may place tens of thousands of otherwise "innocent" lives at risk by doing so, since the present government actually stopped the ongoing civil wars brought about by the corrupt nobility and the death of Aroden?

I have to ask because "blatantly evil" sounds a little dubious as a description for the average Chellish village. It may not be a land with things you like, but it is far from the most obviously and objectively evil place in all of Golarion. In fact, I would have hoped by now that my in-character posts might have clued you in to the fact that from the perspective of a patriotic Cheliaxian most of the rest of the world is far eviler than they.

By your words, you seem content to paint every man woman and child in the country evil for infernalism and slavery, then in the next breath distinguish "innocent people" who may or may not be Cheliaxians but suffer at Cheliax's hands, then in the next breath again apply the adjective of "evil" to all of Cheliaxian society. And this is becoming confusing. Either everyone is evil by association or what you really mean is that slavers and slaveholding have significant defenders in the kingdom of cheliax and those people are evil.

Another Straw Man I never said anything about the average Chellish village. Nor does the point of view of the Chellish people about hteir own rightousness concern me. The people in the lower orders have no say in government, non at all, so their not really at issue when speaking of government now are they.

Cheliaxian society is an evil society, that does not mean that the average member is evil anymore than it does in any evil society, nor did I ever say that it did! It does mean tha all LG people should be fighting its evil and that its destruction should be a priority in thier lives. Paladins are NOT LN they do not hold Order more valuable than Good, Evil Law is still evil and eventually must be destroyed. I never said anything about the Average Chelliaxian villager, only their government.

Nor did I say that Paladinsmust charge in sword swinging everywhere they went in Cheliax or anywhere else, since I never made such a Claim I se no reason to defend against it.

HOWEVER

If personally put to the test a paladin must choose Good, even if it means he will die. Being the shinning beacon of Light in the sea of Darkness is a hard job, those who fear death are not worthy of the role. If the time comes that the paladin is made directly to chose between the LAw of an evil government, and protecting the helpless, and defending Good, then he must choose to protect the helpless, he must chose Good.

Elthbert wrote:

I would also say they are blatantly evil becuase they have Life-slaves who serve at the mercy of their owners ( pg 5 Cheliax Empire of Devils), i.e. they can do anything they want with them, including use them in bloodsports (Pg.5). They take people who were just " in the wrong place" (Pg 5) for these slaves.

So you only accept one major nation in all of GOlarion as not evil. I would not allow you CG "I get to pick only folks I like as legit" paladin in any games I run. Because paladins must be LG and the way your talking is clearly not.

Yup If only one major nation in Golarion forbids Chattle slavery, then only one nation is good.

I could not disagree more with you aboutwhat is LG, like LE, Lawful Goodness is devotion to order with an agenda, an agenda of well Goodness. There is absolutly nothing in the LG alignment which requires that one obey governments which are not working for Good.

A revolutionary who intends to set up an orderly soceity once freed from oppression can be, and likely is, LG. Your interpretation is ridgid and shows a basic misunderstanding of the entire idea of alignment in D&D. A LG person is no more obliged to obey the Laws of the Land than a Lawful Evil assassin is.
What you cling to is the part of the Paladins CoC which requires that they respect legitimate authority, you seem to have no criteria for what makes one legitimate, and you dismiss the rest of the CoC which requires the paladin to punish those who harm the innocent and to help those in need. Your concept of the slavish devotion of a paladin to existing government is LN not LG.

I have run a lot of games over the years, and if any paladin returned a chattle slave to their master because it was the LAW they would fall, if they returned them to a devil worshiping master, they would fall so hard I am not sure what i would do.

Elthbert's model of paladin would not survive for long in Cheliax. I can say this because of the Council of Thieves' Players Guide entry for paladin. And it says....

Council of Thieves Players Guide wrote:

Paladins face many of the same challenges clerics do in Cheliax. Worshipers of Asmodeus openly walk the streets, protected by the sadistic but nonetheless legitimate House of Thrune. A paladin in Cheliax, particularly a major city such as Westcrown or Egorian, must take care to rein in her righteous impulses and work with the existing law rather than attempting to barge through it. A well-intentioned strike against evil could result in brutal government-sanctioned retaliation, and an imprisoned paladin combats evil far less effectively than a free one.

Yet for all the corruption of the country’s rulers, there are many more evils to face within the country, and a paladin might work great deeds in the eyes of Cheliax’s people by combating subtler and potentially even more destructive evils. Paladins of Abadar, Iomedae, and Shelyn most often
find their way to Cheliax, their devotion to order typically being well satisfied within the rigid society even as they crusade to make the land a better place for its people.

And just in case you're wondering what it says concerning clerics...

Council of Thieves Players Guide wrote:

Although the nobility of Cheliax openly pays lip service to Asmodeus, the majority of the nation’s people are little different from those found in other lands—only more oppressed and guarded about their actual faith. With the same hopes and goals as their neighbors, Chelish folk

find appeal in the same deities as other common folk, though many do so under the burning eye of Asmodeus’s faithful. Thus, adherents of any faith might be found in Cheliax, though they tend to keep their convictions subtle in the face of rampant diabolism. Clerics of all
religions practice in the country, though the numbers of non-lawful deities are significantly fewer, usually being little

...

This like much in this thread is a straw man, I never said that a Paladin had to be stupid, only that he would not see evil governments as legitimate in such a way that he was required to respect them. Further, that he did not have to follow or enforce unjust laws and that if confronted by certtain evils he would be obliged to resist the government in defense of the innocent.

As for being arrested, no paladin worth his salt should be taken alive by Devil worshipers.

Elthbert wrote:

Realize that this is not hypothetical, in 18th century England people could be exectued for stealing a loaf of bread, or a hankerchief. I cannot believe that Chelaix who is in bed with Devils would be more kind than England was.

I find those that think a Paladin would ever concider a blatantly evil Society to be a Legitimate Authority to be silly. I find those that defend chattle slavery as not evil in and of itself, even in the context of D&D to be disturbing. I find those that cannot see that the Paladins CoC requires that the oppressed be defended, and slaves freed to be selectively reading at best.

More kind? Of course not. More legalistic? Absolutely. Check your sourcebooks, please, the amount and strength of the rights afforded to the slave class in Cheliax is dependent on the type of slave they are, the severity of their sentence, and other conditional factors.

Your standards for "blatantly evil" society are ... odd. Is Cheliax "blatantly evil" because its leadership deal with devils? Or because the local authorities don't prosecute crimes the way you would like them to?

*dons his helmet*

Any paladin that considers the renegade, lying, insurgent government of Andoran a legitimate authority trucks with murderers, saboteurs and pirates.

Armed Andorans carrying arms may be slain legally in my province if they fail to answer two hails at one-hundred paces. This is good and just.

*removes his helmet*

I would say they are BLATANTLY evil because they consort with devils.

I would also say they are blatantly evil becuase they have Life-slaves who serve at the mercy of their owners ( pg 5 Cheliax Empire of Devils), i.e. they can do anything they want with them, including use them in bloodsports (Pg.5). They take people who were just " in the wrong place" (Pg 5) for these slaves.

They Traffic in said slaves on an international basis (pg11). They are Blatantly Evil because their Law is designed to oppress and mercelessly exploit the weak and the lowly, they have interest in Order only in so far as it benifits the Elite. (pg 5)

Mace-and-chain (flail with spiked metal balls) were rare because they contained a lot of for-the-day expensive iron, not because they were difficult to use. They were heavy weapons explicitly designed to shred armor -- especially helmets, while they were being worn.

Watch The Black Shield of Falworth (Tony Curtis version); it's 1950s cheesecake Hollywood, but there's a realistic combat with medieval weaponry at the end; and what works and what's worthless is made apparent.

Go get one and try it. THey were much easier to make than a sword, and less expensive, but they are exceedly rare, this was notbecuase theyare ineffective, flexible weapons deliver fantastic force, but becuase they require a lot more pratice to use effectively, concidering how much practice a sword takes, that is a saying a lot. .

Elthbert wrote:

The Crusader wrote:

Elthbert wrote:

So do you allow masters to rape their slaves? Do you return escaped slaves to bondage? To you execute children for the crime of starvation?

Do you kick down doors and storm private homes? Do you stop people in the streets, or in the wilds, and demand their identity? Do you ignore their pleas of hunger, and watch them sink into desperation?

No, such would be no differnet than the monsters who kidnap halflings from their homes.

So I ask agian... Do you allow masters to rape their slaves? Do you return escaped slaves to bondage? Do you execute children for the crime of starvation?

Where do you find these rapists, if not in their homes? Do they invite you in while they indulge in their laciviousness? Do you invade the bedrooms of the decadent hoping to stumble upon a crime in progress?

Do you seek these escapees? Do you track them to their ratholes, and run them to ground as the manhunters do? How do you return that which you have never sought?

I do not hear the screams of the hungry. If I must go without, all others will be fed. Because I build rather than tear down, organize rather than disrupt, preserve rather than undermine, and sanctify rather than subvert, the community is strengthened. Thus, none must resort to desperation and depravity. Do you believe chaos is the better choice?

And when they run to you for protection, and the Law is on their heels, do you place you body before them, do you draw your sword and scream that THIS time, THIS time the slave will not go back? When the halfing sneaks into your room and begs you to help him return to his home, where he was kidnapped so long ago, do you return him to the "authorties" because in Cheliax he is property?

When the Devils and their allies swarm about you, and you know that you cannot win, will you steel your heart, take up your sword and defend the weak and the innocent, despite the these are the very ones who represent the "Law" here.

Paladins are sometimes required to fight battles they cannot win, not only to stand in the breach, to hold the rampaging hordes, but also to strike down the unjust Sheriff who seeks to return a simple person to Slavery or the governmetn which oppresses its people.

Seeking trouble is not required, if you are in a land beset with evil, evil will find you soon enough, as as a champion of Order and Justice, Law And Good, Civilization and Rightousness, you may be required to stike those who pervert such things, or you may be required to die trying.

If you are prepared to do so, then my blade will be beside you, but if you are not prepared to do so, if you hide behind the claok that these evils are "Legitimate" and must be honored, then you have already fallen into darkness, and one day are blades will cross in battle.

Actually, what one can and cannot do, sexually, with oneself or with another, has, at times past, often been made illegal, regardless of personal property or even pleasuring oneself in incorrect circumstances. Even now, what one does with one's own property is - to certain extents - described by the law. If you treat your house poorly enough, you may be violating the local codes and could, if severe enough, have it taken away from you, even if you have fully paid it off. Trash - that is the waste of things that are yours that are broken - have ways that are prescribed for disposal. This has long been true. You can't simply say "it's mine, I can do whatever I want with it": that has never been a universal truth (though it has been true in some, possibly most societies). Even personally vandalizing your own property can get you into trouble, depending on the local legislature. This doesn't inherently "good" or "bad" - it's self-serving (no one wants to live in a dump) and for the common good (as no one wants to live in a dump). So the morality of such things can swing either way.

Thus, your presumption that slavery-ownership provides legal right to pleasure oneself at the expense of another by virtue of ownership allowing complete authority presumes a constant precedent that isn't present in most legal systems past or present. It's a weak argument for extremist cases.

Actually it has been the norm in virtually all slave holding societies. I can only think of one culture which allowed a slave to bring suit against his master, that was Rome AFTER Nero (who gave them this right) of course under Roman Law a slaves testemony was only valid if gained under torture, so a Slave had to be prepared to be tortured to bring such a suit. Realize that Roman slavery had been around for at least 800 years at this point.

Roman and islamic slavery both allowed the purchase of slaves for no other reason than sex, whether the slave was willing or not did not matter. In the American South, racial mixing was illegal but not the act of sexual assualt, and was common. Slaves are by definition bereft of their will, and so you cannot violate a slaves will, they have no right to it, since they have no will to violate they cannot be raped.
Even if it was outlawed how would they report it, slaves do not have freedom of movement, abuse is easy for a master to hide, slaves have no rights.

Again Cheliax and other Nations in Pathfinder which are in league with the Nether Powers are not likely to be givening rights to slaves that were not given in our own world.

EDIT:

"Stealing from starvation -> punishment" = "starvation is crime"

This is ALSO a weak argument, because it presumes that the thief has nowhere else to turn. While this may be true, it's a large presumption when there are charity groups that specifically open their doors to hungry children and there are organizations that (among other duties) work to guarantee either charity or placement for those who have no way of working or defending themselves. Again, this is neither inherently altruistic nor selfish:...

If we were speaking of adults this would be true, but the example given (not by me mind you) was a child, and children are not reasonable creatures. A child may or may not know about the options for charity, and may not be able to rationally decide if given the opertunity to eat, also, especially in LE societies "charity" may be horrible, a price no one should be forced to pay, such as slavery.

Realize that this is not hypothetical, in 18th century England people could be exectued for stealing a loaf of bread, or a hankerchief. I cannot believe that Chelaix who is in bed with Devils would be more kind than England was.

I find those that think a Paladin would ever concider a blatantly evil Society to be a Legitimate Authority to be silly. I find those that defend chattle slavery as not evil in and of itself, even in the context of D&D to be disturbing. I find those that cannot see that the Paladins CoC requires that the oppressed be defended, and slaves freed to be selectively reading at best.

Elthbert wrote:

So do you allow masters to rape their slaves?
Do you return escaped slaves to bondage?
To you execute children for the crime of starvation?

1. Nope, no law says that Rape is ok.

2. If indeed they were rightfully and legally placed in bondage (ie unpaid debtor).
3. Starvation is not a crime.

1. Are not slaves the Property of their masters? I think you are mistaken, the law does not hold it as rape when they belong to you, they are yousrs to do ith as you will. BUt Justice holds it as what it is.

3. No? when you punish one for stealing food becuase he is starving,what have you done but criminalized starvation. There is no Law without Justice, all else is a Lie.

Elthbert wrote:

So do you allow masters to rape their slaves? Do you return escaped slaves to bondage? To you execute children for the crime of starvation?

Do you kick down doors and storm private homes? Do you stop people in the streets, or in the wilds, and demand their identity? Do you ignore their pleas of hunger, and watch them sink into desperation?

If yes, then you are truly lost. If no, then I need not hold you accountable.

No, such would be no differnet than the monsters who kidnap halflings from their homes.

But I am not the one who claims that all Law is legitimate, and that Evil should be obeyed. You are right Evil is a cancer it taints and corrupts the Society which you claim is Legitimate.

So I ask agian... Do you allow masters to rape their slaves? Do you return escaped slaves to bondage? Do you execute children for the crime of starvation?

THis is what the enemy calls Law and it is not legitimate. I will resist such abominations with all my strength, I will hide the slave, defnd the weak, aid the rebel, challenge the champions of evil where ever they may be, and under whatever mask they hide. They taint and corrupt the gift of Civilization, that which allows Justice to remain.

Elthbert wrote:

If the only choice is the continued riegn of Evil or a jolt of Chaos, then Chaos is the only choice.

So believed Hosetter of Galt.

Elthbert wrote:

However, such a choice is false.

You are the one who professes that the Paladin must choose between obeying the Law and promoting the cause of Good. I make no such distinction.

I choose the path of the Paladin. I will obey the Law. I will promote Righteousness. I will never compromise. The diabolic cancer of Cheliax has no greater fear than my blade, my shield, my conviction. I will see the evil of the world undone and I will build the foundation for lasting victory.

I am Destroyer and Defender, Slayer and Healer.
I am The Crusader.

So do you allow masters to rape their slaves? Do you return escaped slaves to bondage? To you execute children for the crime of starvation?

IF yes then you have already fallen, if no then you have already dismissed unjust Law as what it is, a Lie.

Elthbert wrote:

I agree that shields are underrated, but, flails are pretty hard to use, shield rapping should be a feat.

+1 to shields needing to be better.

As for flails, yes they ARE hard to use... but that's what the proficiency is for. I am NOT in favor of charging extra feats to use a weapon the way it was designed to be used.

That's like having a proficency for longsword...and needing a feat to stab with it.

Flails on chains were used to get around shields. That's their job.

Then they should be an exotic weapon, they were rare in thier day, and they were rare for a reason.

Shields should also add a lot more to AC but are generally made of wood and would probably start to break after a few rounds of heavy combat. There is no way you would block a two handed axe blow with a shield, it would cut straight through the shield and into your arm.

I agree with your post up until there, wooden shields were very thick, ( they are also very heavy, your never going to here me complain about needing shield proficientcy) it is possible that a realy strong strike would hurt you through the shield but cutting through 3/4 inch of oak in a single blow, especially if the shild user is using it properly is just not going to happen.

Elthbert wrote:

The Crusader wrote:

Is this the end you would seek?

Chaos can be brought to order, by the sword if needed, but corrupted order is a bane which can almost never be rooted out, because it masqurades as Justice, when it defiles that words holiness.

Only A Orderly AND Just society is worthy of the name civilization, all others are false, all others must eventually be made to bend or break.

So the answer to my question is "Yes"? You would see Cheliax awash in an endless tide of blood? You would turn common citizens into bloodthirsty murderers? You would have the Final Blades deliver their soul-stealing "justice" upon all those accused of being Thrune sympathizers?

You read the words, but you do not understand the lesson of Galt, and its Red Revolution. I do not think that it is my Paladin-hood that is in danger...

If the only choice is the continued riegn of Evil or a jolt of Chaos, then Chaos is the only choice.

However, such a choice is false.

Without Order Justice is fleeting, without Justice Order is a Lie.

Both must be had, to compromise order is terrible, to compromise with evil is unthinkable.

Regardless, any King is a King due to the fact that at some time their Kingdom was carved out with steel, and that he remains a King is due to his capacity to do it again.

Sure they may 'grow' benevolent, but Kings were never elected.

Actually many Kings were elected

Elthbert wrote:

So general consensus makes it Legitimate? Thats your standard? What makes a government legitimate? It seems to me anyone who can conquer and area then becomes legitimate, THAT is a chaotic attitude.

So then what makes any Government legitimate? Why can't someone simply opt out? what model is 'ok'?

From a LG perspective, Governments are Legitimate if they seek justice for the entire population.

THis does not mean equality, because order almost always demands inequality, but Justice, and to raise up the people as civilization is supposed to do.

To borrow from a real world Philosopher, the best government is rule by a King, the worst is rule by a Tyrant.
THe Differance is the King is a Just man.The tyrant is an Unjust man.

A tyrant who does not disrupt good laws and allows civilization to continue its work of bringing justice and bringing up the masses is of minimal concern, even if he personally is unjust. The Tyrant who seeks to oppress the weak, and violates the purpose of civilization is not legitimate and should be brought down, he defiles the name of Law.

Paladins-- Holy champions of LG, i.e. zealots ( that is not intended as an insult, only an observation).

See my post above Shifty's. There are entirely morally legitimate reasons for a Paladin to not go around overtly defying every law or government that acts in an evil fashion. Discretion is the better part of valor. Pick your battles. Act with intelligence.

I never said that the paladin should be intentionally stupid, or defying every law of an evil governmen, however, he is not OBLIGATED TO support evil governments, nor support evil laws. Do you agree

No. But there's a vast divide between "Actively enforcing" and "Not Directly and immediately opposing in the most obvious of ways."

No disagreement, however, returning an escaped slave to his master, which was the LAW in question is enforcing an evil law. A paladin is NOT obligated to return an escaped slave to his master, and is by the CoC obliged to give him reasponable aid.

Paladins can be subtle. The good ones understand this.

I would say that sometimes paladins can be subtle, sometimes the evil is so agregious, that it cannot be dealt with except at teh point of a sword.

Would he be required to execute the child who stole bread for his starving siblings?

A paladin who can't find the middle ground here is doing it wrong, and is a good candidate for complete idiot.

In a LE soceity there may be no middle ground.

And as to the original topic A hell knight is obliged to kill him if that is what the Law says, A paladin who kills a child for trying to feed the innocent is no paladin.

Elthbert wrote:

So no one can give an argument about why the Paladin has to care one wit about the Law of the Land...

Well, there's this...

Inner Sea World Guide: Galt wrote:

The seeds of the Red Revolution were sown when House Thrune rose to power in Cheliax. The poet Darl Jubannich issued the broadsheet series On Government, which used Thrune practices as the foundation from which to undermine the basic principle of the divine right of kings. The half-elf philosopher Hosetter took things even further: his Imperial Betrayal urged the common folk to take up arms to defend their shared ideals. These fiery words spread swiftly across the land, and the tales of Queen Abrogail's cruelty only added fuel to the flames. Dissent soon burst into rebellion, and rebellion into full revolt...

The love of life that once characterized Galt became an endless thirst for blood...

The Red Revolution has held the land in its grip for more than 40 years, and it shows no signs of ending...

Galt has seen more than a dozen governments rise and fall since Hosetter's death, and all they have shared is bloodshed, chaos, and eventual collapse... its people are driven by paranoia, fury, and a bitter refusal to recognize the cause of their troubles...

Is this the end you would seek?

*Emphasis mine.

Chaos can be brought to order, by the sword if needed, but corrupted order is a bane which can almost never be rooted out, because it masqurades as Justice, when it defiles that words holiness.

Only A Orderly AND Just society is worthy of the name civilization, all others are false, all others must eventually be made to bend or break.

Elthbert wrote:

So no one can give an arguement about why the Paladin has to care one wit about the Law of th Land or why laws which are Evil would bind him at all?

Not a single arguement.

Interesting.

I can: While a Paladin is both Lawful and Good, his choices are rarely so simple a matter as doing whatever seems Good in the most immediate, short term sense, RIGHT NOW.

A paladin's sense of Law and Good must by synergistic. More plainly, the Paladin's Good must temper his sense of Law with mercy. Conversely, his sense of Law must temper his sense of righteous zeal with common sense.

A paladin must think long term and short term. He must weigh each option carefully and decide what will best serve his ideals in the overall. A paladin who thinks only of the now, who never takes the greater picture into consideration, is a rash man. Rash men, in worlds like Golarion, do not live long, and are rarely effective at serving their causes.

A paladin with two brain cells to rub together does not just go around defying every wicked law that he encounters, because this is not only exceedingly arrogant, it is not intelligent. It is also not automatically Good.

Killing a man without provocation, just because he has an evil alignment, is not by definition, Good.

Attacking legitimate authority simply because it is Evil, is not, by definition, a Lawful Good act.

Authority does not need to be LG to be cosmically legitimate.

Paladins must temper their righteous zeal with discretion and common sense.

That is why they must at least pay attention to the laws of the lands through which they travel.

A dead idiot saves no-one.

Dead heros have saved thousands if not millions, the history books are full of those who died nobley and whose acts saved those they were trying to save, but that is neither here nor there. What you are maging is an argument that it is not pragmatic to defy the law under some cases, that is certainly true, but pragmatism is not in the CoC, nor is it really the heart and soul of LG (NG would worry about being pragmatic).

Further, I never said anything about killing people base on their aignment. So no a paladin should not be smiting everyone who they come across with a dark soul. That doesn't mean that they don't smite the guy raping the slave girl becuase she is his property and he can do what he wills with her.
Nor does it mean he rides by while the "authorities" are burning out a village becuase they villagers are say late on their taxes.
I also never said Authority had to be LG to be legitimate, I said Evil could not be legitimate from a LG perspective, becuase it is a perversion of Law which does not seek to raise up everyone as law is supposed to do.

Elthbert wrote:

So no one can give an arguement about why the Paladin has to care one wit about the Law of th Land or why laws which are Evil would bind him at all?

Not a single arguement.

Interesting.

We can't argue with that as,You refuse to except any government you dislike as legit. So you are CG calling yourself LG. Ignoring laws you disagree with. That is a violation of the code.

If a government is legit you must respect it's laws, and guess what you do not get to make the call on if it is legit. When you start making those calls you are acting more Chaotic then lawful.

In the example we have been using Chelix is a legit government, it is excepted as such and is known as such. Saying it's laws do not count for you is ignore legitimate authority because you want to.

So general consensus makes it Legitimate? Thats your standard? What makes a government legitimate? It seems to me anyone who can conquer and area then becomes legitimate, THAT is a chaotic attitude.

If you are going to say that Paladins have to acknowledge Evil governments as Legitimate then you should be able to give some support to that position, you have given non except to say that CoC requires them to, when the CoC says nothing of the sort. THe COC does require that you punish those who harm the innocent and that you help those in need,which would be anyone under the governance of an oppressive ruler.
It does not say Help those in need unless an evil person says the law supports them, or not to help those under Evil tyrannys?

So I ask again, would a paladin be required to enforce an evil law? Would he be required to execute the child who stole bread for his starving siblings? This is not a

Back to melee stuff: shields and flails are grossly unerrated.

-- Even the crappiest shield should start at a +4 AC bonus and go up.

....unless you're fighting an opponent with a flail, who will simply wrap the business end over the top of your shield and klonk your lights out.

I agree that shields are underrated, but, flails are pretty hard to use, shield rapping should be a feat.

So no one can give an arguement about why the Paladin has to care one wit about the Law of th Land or why laws which are Evil would bind him at all?

Not a single arguement.

Interesting.

I always find it amusing how people come with their modern mindsets, based on Kant, Great French Revolution, US Constitution, slavery abolition, universal suffrage, human rights, racial and gender equality on something that's supposed to vaguely resemble Medieval Europe.

I have not made any arguements based on anything after Thomas Aquinous. I would contend that D&D's alignment system is largely based on Natural Law theory ( which is why you can have actions that are always evil).

Populations are one of the biggest headaches in game design. No matter what number a designer gives, once you get any bigger than a town, the fact that population numbers are hard to judge (and shift wildly depending on historical era, etc.) combines with the fact that we're all game designers rather than census statisticians to guarantee that pretty much any figure we give is going to be wrong. And of course, population figures change daily as folks are born and die.

So I'm going to go out on a limb and say that, in addition to us not having an official number for the population of the world, I really, REALLY hope we never give one. Son of the Veterinarian is correct that the real answer should always be determined by your GM--nobody likes having their campaign idea undermined by population statistics.

Well I think it matters tahtthe designers of a world are paying attention to such things when they design it, if you have too many organizations and they are sizable then your population has to be reasonably large. If it is too large tehn you start to wonder where all the humaniods and monsters are living. It is the kind of question which has and does comeup in games.

Elthbert wrote:

I am still waiting for anyone to explain why the paladin has to be concerned about the law of the land at all, anymore than a LE assassins guild does.

If you had read the paladin code you would not have to ask this.

I have, and I already adressed the authority issue far above. Evil laws are not authoritive from a LG perspective, Evil rulers cannot be legitiment authority, as they pervert and abuse Law to their own ends.

Further the Code requires that you punish those who harm the innocent ( which most Evil rulers would be doing) and that you help those in need,which would be anyone under the governance of an oppressive ruler.

I see no where in the code where it says, " obey the Law of the Land". Please direct me to where it says this?

Elthbert wrote:

Zombieneighbours wrote:

BigNorseWolf wrote:

I'm a little confused as to your point zombie. You seem to be saying that the game mechanics for Asian weapons aren't superior, but that we should repaint all of the western weapons as eastern ones so that they match mechanically?

Not really.

The "long sword" is the real worlds best known, most iconic example of the the long straight "one handed" sword. There have been long straight swords in other cultures, but generally speaking when we use them in games, we treat them as long swords.

All I am saying is that the Nodachi is probably the best known real world example of the curved bladed two handed sword, so we do with the Nodachi, what we do with the Longsword. And no, the falchion as described in dnd/pathfinder doesn't perform the role, because A, it isn't as mechanically good as it should be, and B, real world falchions are broad bladed scimitars, no two handed scimitars.

So in the same way that I can take the Ninja class, and use it to make an greek thanotic death-dealing assassin of fate, and I can take a european alchemist and make an taoist internal alchemist, I can use the Nodachi as a catch all term for curved two-handed swords, without blanching, because I already do something similar for the vast majority of the weapons as is.

Hope that is clearer.

wsell actually what D&D calls a long sword in the Real world would have been called an Arming Sword, and the D&D bastard sword would have been called a long sword, or War sword. I understand your point, butthen they did not need to make a new weapon, just errata falchion and put a not that the Nodachi was the equvilent of a Falchion.

And if you say "Arming sword" to a randomly selected sample of one hundred people, the chances are none of them will know what your talking about.(In a randomly selected sample of roleplayers, two will know, what it is, one of those will care, and probably insist that it is a travisty that it isn't the best...

You maybe right, and if I showed a hunderd people a sample of the 2 and asked them which was the long sword I bet most people would pick the one that , well, long. I think the old BECMI D&D may of had it better just calling it a Normal Sword.

I agree about the fachion, however, the falchion is what they chose to call the huge 2 handed curved blade for the last 10 years, things are set up with that in mind ( for example orcs and halforc get weapon familiarity falchion not Nadochi, so it is notthe "iconic big curved Sword" it is the eastern and better curved sword.
One of the things I liked about 1st edition is that after weapon types there was often a list of other " equivelent" weapons. The Nadochi and the Falchion should, by your arguement be the SAME, butthey are not.

I truly wish that type of demographic information was built into the setting from the get-go.

Every country should have a total population number in the main campaign guide, at the very least.

I agree, demographics is a weakpoint in many campaigns, and it interfers with the verisimilitude of the world.