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.
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.
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.
Velcro Zipper wrote:
Moff Rimmer wrote:
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.I have seen riders skewer a target and keep riding , and pull their lance right out, never breaking stride, (but to be fair, that was what D&D would call a light lance) which is why I even allow my lance users to make more than one attack a round.
Judging from the effect that cavalry charges had in battles I think a rank of 3 is pretty short for totally stopping a charge, particularly when you consider, you can overrun a creature which is much bigger than a person and keep moving.
But by RAW I suppose that is the case, assuming that you are considering each contact as another overrun attempt.
Moff Rimmer wrote:
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.
Chris P wrote:
With domestic animals I agree with you completely, but what about wild animals> dog packs and such.
Moff Rimmer wrote:
I agree, wolf packs just became a lot more scary.
Moff Rimmer wrote:
No Aid another can be used to give an ally a +2 to AC or to hit.
From the SRD:AID ANOTHER
So should animals be able to actively do this?
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.If put on the spot, you might be obliged to resist. What that has to do with me I have no idea.
I agree, I am not argueing for breakdown of every place and every person, but some general demographic information and concideration is important.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
So depending on the cricumstances a Chaotic may be a greater defender of the Law of the Land than a Lawful person.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
On this we agree wholeheartedly, but you seem to think a Paladin is not good, he is only obediant.
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.
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.
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.
The Crusader wrote:
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?
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).
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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
Blayde MacRonan wrote:
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.
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)
Mike Schneider wrote:
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. .
The Crusader 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?
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 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.
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.
"Stealing from starvation -> punishment" = "starvation is crime"
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.
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.2. There is more at work in Cheliax than indentured servitude.
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.
The Crusader wrote:
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.
The Crusader wrote:
IF yes then you have already fallen, if no then you have already dismissed unjust Law as what it is, a Lie.
Then they should be an exotic weapon, they were rare in thier day, and they were rare for a reason.
Dr z0b wrote:
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.
The Crusader wrote:
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.
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.
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).
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 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.
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?
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.
The Crusader wrote:
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.
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.
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.
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
Mike Schneider wrote:
I agree that shields are underrated, but, flails are pretty hard to use, shield rapping should be a feat.
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).
James Sutter wrote:
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.
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?
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.
I agree, demographics is a weakpoint in many campaigns, and it interfers with the verisimilitude of the world.