Finn K's page

Going on 334 reasons to not have alignment in the game, and counting.

Y'all have given me the thought that next time I run a PF home campaign, I'm going to reintroduce the idea of "unaligned"-- and make all characters unaligned along with all non-outer-planes critters unaligned, except when there are compelling reasons of ties to deities, other planes, or overwhelming drive towards particular outliers of the alignment spectrum to actually bind them to a specific alignment-- and folks who do have those ties will STAND OUT.

It doesn't mean characters can't be heroic and generally do good, and it doesn't mean that they can't be nasty chummers who usually do wicked things-- it just means you really have to be "over the top" to fully register as an aligned character-- basically making having an alignment being a sign that you are tied to the fundamental powers (whether that be good, evil, law/order, chaos/anarchy...). I think that will work out much better. Paladins will, for better or worse, be stuck with an alignment they have to live up to. Clerics will inherit an alignment based on their divine ties, and will have to live up to their deity's expectations in order to keep their powers. Other cases where a character will be "aligned" rather than "unaligned" to be determined as needed...

And it means how a character will behave must be determined by that character's personality, rather than copping out to using alignment as short-cut replacement for good characterization (not that this is always, or even usually, the case for how alignments are used-- but it seems to coming up often enough that it's a problem).

Celestials and Fiends will still be aligned-- it's part of their planar nature, and they will behave as embodiments of True Good or True Evil, as the case may be-- this house-ruling does also mean that yes, if you have an aligned sub-type, you are bound by it, will act accordingly, and will not have free will to choose some other course (with very very rare plot-driven exceptions). Unaligned critters and characters will essentially be affected by aligned spells per the current effects for neutral characters.

(I may privately track a character's general tendency towards good or evil, law or chaos, and generally figure out what they face under Pharasma's judgement when they die-- as well as track and identify characters who have gone so far towards a particular direction that they do take on alignment-- but I think I'll probably form a take something like Eberron's, where no-one's quite sure what happens to mortals when they die)

This is spur-of-the-moment off-the-top-of-my-head, but I'll probably try to implement it at some point. Any comments?

Mage Armor might be very useful.

I'm not going to weigh in on whether or not the grand jury proceeding was fair, whether or not the outcome of that proceeding was what it should have been, and whether or not Darren Wilson was in any way justified in what he did (morally or legally).

It doesn't matter what Darren Wilson did or did not get away with-- nothing justifies the riots in their own neighborhoods as response. It is an utter disgrace and makes a sham out of everything that so many so-called protesters are instead engaging in violence, theft, looting, intimidation, and domestic terrorism-- against a whole lot of innocent civilians caught underfoot-- make no mistake, the riots aren't hurting the police, they're just providing justification for a much harsher crack-down.

And any Federal "civil rights action" done as a response to the riots is likely to be just as much of a warped, biased, unfair circus as the worst possible interpretation makes the Grand Jury proceeding out to be-- at the very least, it can no longer be open, fair, and a genuine inquiry for justice now-- the aftermath of the "Rodney King" Riots and the subsequent Federal trial provides the example of what happens next if the Feds get involved in seeking "justice" after this.

All of this makes a total mockery of the idea that we humans, particularly in the United States, are so wonderfully civilized-- the breakdown of society and the sheer capacity of man to be thoroughly "inhumane" to his fellow man once again rears its head on our own soil. Fortunately, unlike the Los Angeles Riots of 1992, I'm retired from the military now and will not have to be one of the Soldiers sent out to put down this latest display of barbarism and ignorance. I'm still not going to sleep well tonight.

I have two characters who are by class "Slayers" in PFS--

thought I'd mention that in-game, neither character would call him- or her-self a Slayer (as job-title or skill-set description).

In the last session where I played her, Elaine de Maris (Undine Slayer 2), when asked, told another character "I'm a scout. Amphibious, good in the water, if you fall in and can't swim too well, I can keep you afloat and fish you out. And I'm pretty good with my crossbow-- but basically, I'm a passably decent scout."

Arik (Devil-spawn Tiefling Slayer 5) describes himself as a mercenary soldier, who learned some light-fingered tricks as a necessary part of staying alive. If someone else were to call him a slayer (in-game), he'd probably just grin and accept it, but it's not a title he attaches to himself in his thoughts and words.

Eh, I've always played up the Good part, and left the 'lawful' part to display itself in my character's being self-disciplined, responsible, and generally respectful. I have been "accused" of playing lawful GOOD, rather than Lawful Good, pretty much every time I've played a Paladin. ;)

As for this scenario, I'm gonna say something I've said before:

If, say, I were playing a Paladin of Sarenrae-- who (by character background and etc) is not beholden to any mortal lord but rather owes his allegiance to Sarenrae (period), I don't think he's going to feel bound to follow any mortal law that seeks to outlaw his Goddess or punish her worshipers for their devotion to her. And, I don't think that makes for any "breach of code" in refusing to obey such laws.

If I were playing a Paladin who is sworn to a mortal lord and/or is dedicated to some nation/group or another... if that lord/nation is not Taldor, he or she is not going to set Taldor's laws above his own lord's or nation's laws.

You know what can grant me a bonus to just about any skill?

A Masterwork Tool. 50gp.+2.

Oh, and it can add flavor too.

I don't need to take time to convince my DM, or expect table variation in PFS.

I can have a number of them too. 8, in fact, for the price of this.

That's 8 skills, with a +2 bonus.

All full of flavor, and roleplaying opportunities.

Don't stick your nose in the air.

If you are a good enough roleplayer, you can take a mechanical bonus, and still make it flavorful.

These need not be separate.

Don't anyone dare say they are a better roleplayer, just because they got the expensive item with no mechanical advantage, over the reasonably priced item, with a mechanical advantage, that fill the same damn roll.

First: Not, "just about any skill". Try "Just about any craft skill". There's a lot of professions, a few performance skills, and a lot of other skills-- for which no tool apply. There are other things which may or may not provide bonuses-- but they're not tools, masterwork or otherwise. And, the masterwork tools necessary for a bonus for Disable Device will cost you 100 GP, not 50.

Second: Your math is off. 4x50=200. Not 8x50, which = 400.

Third: The Masterwork tools you cite can neither add nor take away flavor from the game. How the player has his/her character use them is what may add or take away flavor. But yes, they can be used to add flavor by a player who wants to roleplay.

Fourth: Naw, no one should "say they're a better roleplayer, just because they got the expensive item with no {specified, spelled-out-in-so-many-words} mechanical advantage..."-- it's how the player has his/her character use the items he/she has (whether there are clearly-attached mechanical advantages or not) that may exhibit excellent role-playing (or the lack thereof)-- but it's not the sort of thing one should be boasting about anyway.

The problem I think for most of us on the other side of the argument, is all the posts made on this thread about how the sleeves are utterly useless, in no way shape or form possibly worth their cost, cannot do anything worthwhile for you-- etc etc ad nauseam-- because there is no specific, stated clearly in black-and-white in the item description, mechanical bonus attached to this piece of gear. And when someone takes the argument that far, as some here have done, IMO that does display a certain lack of appreciation for the possibilities inherent in the use of the item. It also IMO displays a lack of appreciation for the point of view that some things (including some situational/circumstantial modifiers) have to be left up to the GM's judgment (otherwise we'd need much much longer sets of rulebooks and tables just to list out every last little possibility and variation that the collective imaginations of every GM and Player can come up with).

If that applies to you-- then yes, I personally don't follow the same approach to the game that you take, and I don't think I'd enjoy your games. Good thing there's room for all sorts of different players & GMs & games in the world, and one can find groups with whom one's approach is fully compatible and avoid those where one really wouldn't fit in so well. It's still not a personal attack... so please stop trying to make it out that way.

N N 959 wrote:

Honestly, the item says illusion(glamour) on it. What did you expect for 200gp?

For 800, I can buy a item that actually makes an entire disguise and gives a +10 to the roll. The sleeves, at 1/4th the cost, don't come close to giving 1/4th the effect. Give them a +2 disguise and THEN they might be worth it. As is, they are expensive paper weights.

Damir: It doesnt do any of that. With no bonus, everyone must be able to see that it's a simple illusion (or it'd give a bonus).

Straight from the FAQ:

"The effects are illusion (glamer) like the glamered weapon and armor properties. This means they can’t be disbelieved like a figment could, but they do not actually physically change the clothes. The transformation changes only the appearance, including the feel, smell, and other sensory aspects." (italics added by me)

Okay, let's point it out again: they can't be disbelieved.

If any part of your disguise relies on your changing your clothes-- the sleeves of many garments enable you to accomplish that part instantly. I don't know of any reasonable GM who would deny that (and not take that into account in regard to a PC's efforts to, say, elude observation by unfriendly eyes). What they don't do-- and what much of the disguise skill (and time needed for putting together disguises) is cover all of those things normally involved in concealing/changing your face, your hair, your height and apparent weight, your walking gait, your mannerisms, etc. etc.

If, in the more general course of role-playing, your character needs to keep up with the latest fashion trends... needs to be seen wearing a different high-class outfit every night of the week... wants to try out new styles for nights on the town... needs to slide easily between different social groups and classes... perhaps shift dress on a moment's notice to blend in with different nationalities and groups... just has a thing for changing his/her clothes every few hours... these sleeves are just the thing for that-- and in the game world, they are easily worth their weight in gold (in fact, in the game world, they are worth 4 times their weight in gold). And NO ONE who doesn't already know you're wearing the Sleeves of Many Garments is going to know that you're not really wearing the flashy new outfits you appear to be wearing, unless they have 'true seeing' up while they're looking at you (this is a glamer effect-- it cannot simply be disbelieved).

I wonder how many of you who think the sleeves are just expensive paperweights also think 'Prestidigitation' is totally useless to your character, since it too doesn't have a specific, numerically-expressed, game effect. Yet this spell is the perfect thing for making sure your character stays clean and smelling good at all times; and it's also the perfect thing for making sure your food is hot, your drinks are cold (or hot, if they're that sort of drink), and well-spiced/flavored, whenever you sit down to eat.

I find it troubling that there are so many posters here who cannot see the utility and value of an item (or a spell, for that matter) because there are no specific numerical bonuses attached. Unless you're just playing tactical war games or calculating gambling odds, it's not just about the numbers.

Finn Kveldulfr wrote:

Although I do see that Paizo has taken some elements from real-world history and used them as inspiration for parts of Golarion... I do not see any of the nations/peoples of Golarion as a direct analog for any real-world nation or ethnic group-- and I'd prefer to keep it that way.

While I like complex themes and social issues in my fantasy games, I still prefer to keep them fantasy, not something overly tangled up in reality. Draw on history-- yes. Mistake fictional places as stand-ins for real nations, no.

I'm actually quite tired of hearing this statement because unless we're doing something where every single thing is completely alien, there are real world analogues. I consider it a good thing. The only time people like to bring out this statement is when somebody else is complaining about a culture not being represented. The rest of the time, I think everybody knows the score.

Nope, you're not getting my thought at all. Yes, ideas and things and bits and pieces of real-world history and cultures have provided inspiration for the nations of Golarion, and I'm okay with that. BTW-- if there are ideas and events, things one wants to draw in from cultures that we haven't drawn on yet-- I'm all for it. That's not what I'm reacting against (contrary to your "everybody knows the score" assertion, although you have my apologies if I didn't express myself well on my previous post in this thread).

However, Andoran is NOT America-- it does draw some ideas and parallels from historical America, but it is not the same place. It's clear that Galt drew heavily on the history of Revolutionary France, in the era of the terror-- but it is still NOT France in 1793-1794, and shouldn't be taken as an exact analog with the serial numbers (names) scraped off. Likewise, leave any harmful baggage you've got regarding China, Japan, Vietnam, Korea, Thailand, etc, when you play in the Dragon Empires-- there are themes drawn from each of these places, some elements drawn from real-world history, but they are NOT their presumed real-world counterparts-- they are fictional nations in a game, where magic and extra-planar beings provide many changes to the world.

Basically, it's still a fantasy world, these places are not identical, and I do not want to watch folks taking out their real-world baggage with various countries and cultures at the gaming table. I find that counter-productive. I'm not suggesting that you shouldn't draw some analogies and impressions from the 'real world', nor am I of the opinion that everything has to be totally alien; I just don't think that each piece should be taken lock, stock, and barrel as a stand-in for a real-world nation.

BTW-- to the NPC's remarks: yeah, we can see historical/cultural inspirations-- they're still not the actual countries/cultures they may be (loosely) based on. BTW-- Varisia, Vudra (with its djinn and high-magic), and the Lands of the Linnorm Kings-- I can see the mythological roots for some of these, but please explain which real-world, historical nations each of these countries is supposed to represent?

And, Serisan: I still maintain that although each of the Tien nations draws closely on the culture of a particular nation in Asia, there are (and should be) still enough differences that each of them is not simply "China/Japan/etc on Golarion" and should not be treated as such.

regarding the OP's game session:

I commend the players of the Paladins for finding alternate solutions and handling the situation well under trying circumstances. I cannot say anything at all favorable regarding the OP's stance and behavior, so for once in my postings here, I'll just say nothing more about it.

Obviously a paladin of sarenrae would put god above taldor. Of course it would beg the question of why would a lawful paladin of sarenrae travel to a country like taldor where he knows his beliefs are illegal? This isn't a situation of going behind the enemy lines to rescue people from the clutches of evil.

I personally would never play a paladin of sarenrae in Taldor because it's hard to justify breaking taldan laws for no good reason to me.

A Paladin of Sarenrae must follow Sarenrae's law. Not Taldor's. A Sarenite Paladin going to Taldor is easy to justify-- because I must support Sarenrae's worshipers in Taldor, because I must bring Sarenrae's light to a blighted land that is presently without it, because serving the greater good justifies ignoring Taldor's bigotry against my Goddess....

Not at all hard to do.

Although I do see that Paizo has taken some elements from real-world history and used them as inspiration for parts of Golarion... I do not see any of the nations/peoples of Golarion as a direct analog for any real-world nation or ethnic group-- and I'd prefer to keep it that way.

While I like complex themes and social issues in my fantasy games, I still prefer to keep them fantasy, not something overly tangled up in reality. Draw on history-- yes. Mistake fictional places as stand-ins for real nations, no.

So, if the GM has proposed a modern-day "spies and private eyes" campaign (yes, more or less "real" earth)... the players have agreed to do this campaign and have stated interest--

then one player pops up and insists on playing a magic-using elf...

This is okay, because we should just give this player what he/she wants?

Take a different example: running standard, Golarion, Pathfinder-- as a GM, I should give in and let a player run a psionic character-- even though it has been clearly stated many times over that the table rules are Paizo Pathfinder products only (no 3.5, no 3rd party)?

That seems to be what some folks are suggesting here.

From a Shadowrun game... a rather well-connected fixer with a pseudo-Japanese name:

Aino Agai

Have fun preachin' to the choir, y'all.

I'm usually sympathetic to the cause, but the repeated hostility and attack dog tactics displayed on this thread is enough for me to turn my backs on all of you and walk away. If you do want to reach straight white guys (of which, yes, I happen to be one)-- you are NOT going to do it the way you're typing and expressing yourselves here.

The OP almost has to be trolling.

either that, or the OP is completely ignorant of the history and heritage of roleplaying games, and does not know anything about genuine "old school" RPGs.

(another big hint on science fiction in your fantasy soup-- the original Blackmoor campaign, the first RPG campaign, included science fiction elements. For that stuff appearing in text-- check out the original 'Blackmoor' supplement to OD&D, specifically 'The Temple of the Frog' part at the end. Official date of publication 1975. Hmmm... so tech in D&D is new?)

Why think creatively at all if it will achieve no greater victory than the hack and slash approach?

I'm just going to borrow this question as a good starting point-- well, because creativity is the goal, not the means...

To me, at this point of my participating in the RPG hobby, the best games can easily be seen as exercises in collective storytelling. It's not so much about "win or lose"-- it's about creating and telling an interesting tale, about everyone having some good escapist fun immersing themselves in the personas of fantasy characters exploring and interacting with a different world (one must still exercise sufficient common sense to separate oneself from the game and the character in it, however).

In many ways, the journey is every bit as important if not more important than the ending. Lack of creative thinking makes for a boring game, a boring story, and not a whole lot of fun. And in the games I prefer, trying to go for the straight up hack'n'slash approach will ensure your failure (though not necessarily your death-- they are not always the same thing). "Victory"-- accomplishing your goals and achieving success at the end of each adventure and each campaign arc-- can be wonderful, but again to me is best when it represents the climax of a great story. And yes, in this approach the players' input is vital and to a large extent as important as the GM's-- but it's not "win or lose" in the conventional sense... the PCs are the protagonists-- they have a big role to play in the story, and (IMO) a GM who recognizes that and does work together with the players to tell a better story is doing it right-- the players are participants in the story, not a passive audience. As a GM, I always feel like I've "won" when we've ALL had a good time and have many memories and tales to tell from the game. I lose (as a GM and as a Player)-- whether the characters lived or died and whether the characters succeeded or failed in "IC" terms, if we didn't have fun, enjoy the game, and have good memories to take home afterwards. I've been playing role-playing games for a long time. I've seen a lot of changes in approaches to playing role-playing games, and have seen a lot of systems come and go. I have personally gone through many different approaches to RPG gaming (part of that is even the result of age and experience in the real world... :P )-- this is where I stand on it now.

Artificial experience point systems such as many advocate here do NOT inherently improve, nor do they inherently hurt, character's and player's motivations to use their imaginations to the utmost in each gaming session. I doubt I am going to convince any of the true believers on either side, but I have not found the XP systems in D&D and its variants helpful to good role playing-- thus far, they have either been neutral towards character personality development, or have actively hindered good social/persona role playing, but in my experience they've never actively assisted in encouraging good character role playing (they have sometimes encouraged good tactical war-gaming play though-- but, in case you didn't already guess-- I detest campaigns that require extended "meat-grinder"/Ex.P. farming sessions, "WoW" style, because characters have to hack'n'slay to earn more points so that they can get to the next level so that they can be tough enough for the next <arbitrarily-assigned level-based difficulty> challenge-- at least make the challenges have meaning in the context of the story and the character's lives, please). To me, the best accomplishments are the stories I remember, the stories I can tell, and the great tales that I participated in with various friends around gaming tables. Those matter much more to me than how you measure mechanical character advancement in a level-based game-- whether you use experience points, tally-marks, milestones, or AP "you should be this level at this point" expectations.

The last several PF homes games I participated in, btw, including two that I ran, did use the "you should be at this level at this point of the adventure" as milestones for level advancement-- and it worked very well for the groups I gamed with, because the in-character story-linked motivations were what drove the games forward-- not the artificial goal of gaining levels. Should add though-- I play PF (and currently PFS these days-- haven't found a decent home game with room for new players since I moved into my current area five months ago), because that's what almost everyone I know in my current area plays-- I'm not really a fan of the whole class/level-based aesthetic even though I did start gaming with OD&D back when it was the only RPG in existence. YMMV-- I do not claim to have found the "one true path" of gaming, but I do claim that there isn't "one true right way" to game that all of us must follow.

NO37: The boots are NOT the obvious solution, at least as a first choice-- mithral (which Dasrak has already pointed out) is your basic option for getting your character's speed back up to normal in medium armor. Now, if you want your character's speed lifted up to 30' on a small character while wearing medium armor-- mithral and the boots of striding and springing are a good combo.

IC:

the Blackros family...

I think I'm gonna have nightmare flashbacks-- and I haven't even done that many missions involving those scumbags yet... Slaving, incompetent, corrupt bastards-- and the society still wants us to help them?!

OoC:
Thanks for the list-- now I know the other games I need to find to make my characters' lives in Absalom a little more miserable.

I keep thinking through this one, and...

My answer is the same as some others above-- IC you can explain it however you want (IC most of my characters would not think of themselves in class-label terms-- I fully get the IC point that your character isn't going to call himself-- or think of himself as-- a ninja, or whatever other class/archetype/level combo you're using).

OoC-- just say it and get it over with. What class/archetype(s)/specialties; maybe warn folks if your character does not do what is normally expected from that class-type. But, ESPECIALLY if you're planning on doing this character at conventions, one-off games, and PFS sessions-- you will be just f***ing annoying and someone I don't want to game with if you're being mysterious OUT OF CHARACTER and thereby depriving your fellow players of very useful/necessary information for how your character is going to fit into the party and/or contribute to the group story.
In convention & PFS type games, your fellow players DO need to know that stuff-- and the majority of folks I know and game with can handle keeping player knowledge separate from character knowledge. It's collective storytelling-- it's not you, the player, getting to play secret squirrel private games to the detriment of everyone else at the table-- which is effectively what you'll be doing if those class secrets you're keeping from the other players cause problems for the rest of the group-- and they usually will.

Speaking fairly-- there's actually more room and more of a place for hidden class selections and keeping secrets in ongoing "home" campaigns, though you should give your fellow players some idea of what role(s) you will be filling. In long-running campaigns, the longer/slower/delayed revelation of secrets and discovering what your comrades are really capable of over time serves more of a purpose, is more tuned in to character development and interaction that other people at the table can enjoy and appreciate, and it may boost other people's ultimate enjoyment of the game.
However, IMO-- even then, I'd generally prefer that players appreciate the difference between "in character" and "out of character", and not work so hard at concealing information from the other PLAYERS-- characters concealing info in game does not require keeping players in the dark about everything.

I try to see the races as different, as not just like humans with a few differences. But, I do find it very very very difficult to believe that elves take 100+ years to mature, but start out with exactly the same skill points (and corresponding knowledge of anything and everything, INCLUDING hobbies, incidental knowledge of the world, trades and professions-- because these are ALL quantifiable as skills in the game) as a human of 16-17 years old. Unless elves, gnomes, and dwarves are either morons or have functionally disabled memories up until they are almost mature, they would have had to pick up more background talents/traits/skills than they get.

In home Pathfinder games-- I've generally thrown the starting age calculations out the window and presumed that the races do mature in a similar amount of time (maybe a few years' difference), it's how long they live after that which forms the major difference. I've found it easier than trying to figure out some system for representing additional skills/knowledge gained while growing up to sufficient maturity to be allowed out of the community.

On the other hand-- elves having functionally disabled memories and an inability to recall much of anything beyond the current day's activities in childhood might explain a lot... I hadn't thought of this before, but it's worth exploring.

Now that I've read through this thread... I think I've decided where I stand if the subject ever comes up in a game I'm running--
And the answer is, "No." No PC child characters... any that you encounter and deal with as part of a particular adventure, will be NPCs.

Now, as a side note-- there are campaigns and games I can think of, that I might run, in which I might allow it-- but the game system wouldn't be Pathfinder, the setting probably won't be fantasy, and the tone/mood/etc will be much lighter, much more of either a social or comedy type of game, or, at the very least-- a game generally not involving life-and-death combat in a large portion of the game sessions. Exception MIGHT be made for an apocalypse-scenario type of game, where the kid's continuing to tag along because there is nowhere else for the child to go. If I were running a game of TFOS or something similar, well, when the characters are supposed to be high school students or the like, then kids are okay.

As to why...

Lemme put it a different way-- unless it's a "one-off" kind of game, what kind of sick @#$%s are the adults in the party, that they keep dragging kids off to the nasty, dark dangerous places of the world, constantly bringing them into harm's way and at grievous risk of life and limb, instead of finding the kid a decent home with a nice farmer's family or a place at the local Caydenite orphanage?

Kid constantly tagging along with a platoon of soldiers on the battlefield, going into the heat of battle over and over again? I DON'T THINK SO. And being an adventurer isn't that much different, if it's your long-term career.

Yes, there are parts of our "modern" world where various groups have used child soldiers and/or child suicide bombers-- I will not condone such behavior in my game, and it will only be involved in my game as an act of evil and a potential moral dilemma for PCs forced to deal with opponents resorting to such tactics (and that is generally part of a "world of suck" situation).

I have a real-world background as a soldier. Children intentionally employed on the battlefield as combatants is one of those issues I find very disturbing. Sorry-- you want that as an acceptable, tolerable part of your fantasy game-- find a different GM, 'cause I won't do it.

While I agree a more husky iconic isn't a bad idea, it's worth pointing out that an adventurer is someone who's going to use a lot of energy and build up some endurance / muscle. It's just basic biology: if you're constantly moving about on your feet, in combat, or undergoing physical exertion, that's a lot of energy you're burning. Likewise, while maintaining a diet mostly comprised of trail rations, cheap and simple tavern fare, or whatever they can get via Survival, the sort of rich and additive / harmful chemical-laced foods that contribute to a more overweight population in modern-day America isn't going to find a way into your system, for the most part. This doesn't guarantee you'll be as slim / buff as a Hollywood star or whatever, but I find it a dubious claim that even an 8th level wizard is going to look like Orson Welles did later in life.

However-- while not entirely disagreeing with your point-- you wouldn't see completely obese and totally out of shape folks out there adventuring...

I knew some pretty hefty people when I was in the US Army, who while they were constantly pushing the boundaries of the military weight control program (and sometimes exceeding those boundaries), could still run, jump, march long distances with heavy loads and fight with the best of them-- without running out of energy or breath. Also knew a hefty mechanic or two in the Army who had barrel-guts to go along with barrel chests-- who could press diesel engine-packs that would crush most guys. And these guys were living off of field rations, mess hall food, etc... to add to that-- I was "too heavy" for the basic height-weight table of the Army for all of my last 16 years in the military-- I was acceptable according to the tape-measure "body fat percentage" tests all those years, but while I'm not obese, I'm not skinny either-- and I kept up in the field, at PT, and at war/on deployment (5'9" tall, 220 lbs while I was in, 5'9", 225 lbs now-- can still do pullups, push ups and such; can't run anymore because I've got foot & ankle injuries, not because of weight or endurance issues).

At my first civvy job for the government (post-military retirement), less than a year ago, I was still working for the Army on a military base, and saw one or two guys on the weight-program, getting threatened with being kicked out for their "extra girth" who also had top scores on the PT test and had the best times for 12 mile road marches in their units. And saw plenty of skinny kids, not overweight at all, who couldn't keep up with the basic physical fitness performance standards-- just not strong enough, not enough endurance.

So-- I find it easy to imagine some pretty solid, stout, carrying-some-extra-pounds got-a-big-beer-gut but still strong-as-a-horse adventurers out there. It's also easy to imagine the spell-chuckers and support characters in between-- not super-strong, carrying some extra weight, but not totally out of shape either and can handle the field life. It'd be nice to see some more of them in the art-work, and as heroes, not enemies or villains.

Eh, I agree entirely with what Dr Deth said back in post #48.

I've played in DnD-derivative systems with spell-points instead of slot-based magic/casting systems (for those who go wwwwaaaaaayyyyy back into the mists of gaming history, 'Complete Warlock' anyone? -Balboa Game Company, late 1970s, for one of the first such systems I encountered in gaming)-- it is true that I haven't really seen Psionics done *in D&D* without using some form of power points (other than some house-rules variants, including a 'Mind-mage' variant done around here), but it's definitely not inconceivable, it's been done in other games without "power points", and since I've seen more than a few spell-point variations on magic, I don't think power point systems = psionics.

I am looking forward to seeing what Paizo does with this occult adventures supplement. Generally speaking, I've often objected to psionics and arcane/divine magic being in the same game when they're presented as two entirely separate sources of power and seem to produce a sharp clash in the way the world/universe feels. I don't object to having both when they're presented in such a way that it feels like both types of "magic" (arcane and psionic, or all 3 if you want arcane, psionic, and divine) do belong in the same universe-- but I still object to games mixing power-point systems and slot-based casting systems-- in practice, I don't think they play well together and one or the other is almost always out of balance.

(For the record, when I've included psionic and arcane powers in the same game and been happy about it-- all of these powers were "magic", just different forms and aspects of it)

Corsario--

Thank you for posting that.

Although I've been studying history, I still found it quite interesting to see the layouts of gear and what was in them. I'm also still fascinated at the differences & similarities between what the Brits carried in 1982 (the Falklands layout) and 2014 (the Royal Engineers in Helmand province), and what I carried in the field when I first joined the U.S. Army (1987) and what I carried in Iraq in 2004.

Things have changed a lot.

Oorancor:

Considering how many, many, many unrealistic things fly by even on the part of "martial" characters (let alone users of magic), I wouldn't worry about the encumbrance system in the game too much-- if you want a game that's in any way shape or form realistic-- Pathfinder is NOT it (nor is any derivative of the "World's Oldest/First Role Playing Game").

However-- as one can note from the pics in the article and other comments-- packing gear is an intricate, carefully undertaken process, but with care (and depending on the weapons) it may well be possible for a big, strong martial fighter to in fact lug 3-5 two-handed weapons and a shield (just, in the realistic version, they won't be quickly accessible when they're strapped up and packed for transport). On the bulk front-- your tent, bedroll, spare clothes, etc., are usually going to be bulkier than your weapons anyway.

General comments to all:

But, my real-world background as a soldier has thoroughly inspired me to make handy haversacks an item very high on most of my character's desired acquisitions list... anything that can lighten up the load you gotta sling on your back and ease your packing difficulties the way that item does would be immeasurably valuable to the poor footsloggers whose comfort and well-being would be so much improved by having such items. Likewise, most of my characters make considerable efforts to get items for 'prestidigitation'-- yes, I know it's just a cantrip... but to your character, it's field hygiene and cleanliness for yourself and your gear and clothing, keeps your drinks cold or warm as you desire, warms up your food AND spices up your field rations, all in one little spell, item, or spell-like ability-- along with all the other tricks you can do with it. No big mechanical advantages-- but put yourself in your character's shoes and think about how wonderful it would be to have that on the road (or, knowing that such things are available, how much a cold, dirty camp and no shower sucks without it)....

hmmm.
I'm not sure that "One night stand" is or is not inherently against a paladin's code depending on how it's done and how you treat your partner before/during/after, but it doesn't seem to me like something that Iomedae would be okay with-- particularly the point I'm now thinking after reading DominusMegadeus's post: regular consensual sex with multiple partners shouldn't be a problem... Still doesn't seem like Iomedae's style, and it definitely isn't Erastil's style, but some other Gods/Goddesses who sponsor Paladins wouldn't have issues with it--

but I'm getting the impression your paladin player isn't doing that-- if he's doing the one-night-stand, then forget about that person as a partner and move on to hunting new liaisons... that kind'a means treating people like they're disposable and/or interchangeable, which is NOT okay for any Paladin to do (there is a big difference between being polyamorous and/or seeking multiple "Friends with benefits" relationships-- but still treating each person as someone who matters, and continues to matter, to you; and doing the screw-em-and-leave-em routine).

The digital versions of June releases will be available on the 25th.

TY for the info-- I'll pop back in and pick it up then.

I stick to PDFs 'cause it's much easier to carry a single laptop or tablet than several ruck-sacks full of books, but I do get 'em legitimately and support y'all... :D

This is an etymological issue that has a lot more to do with usage in an automatically sensitive, rage-inducing context than its neutral scientific origin. I am guessing that the word 'privilege' acquired its baggage in much the same manner, because the issue itself is very difficult to discuss without expressing the anger and frustration it causes. Which is very easy to read as personal blame even when it's not.

The problem with the term "privilege" is that the word is much older and has a much longer history in the English language than its use as a modern sociological descriptive term. To forget this is to be shockingly ignorant of the 'common' language we are using to communicate, and while most dictionary definitions of privilege appear to be neutral, the word has had negative connotations in many of the contexts in which it has been used for centuries. It already had the baggage, before anyone involved in examining these issues decided to present the concept of "male privilege". One may even argue that the term "privilege" was originally chosen with the intention of being confrontational about this issue.

No, I don't have an answer for a better term to use to discuss this issue, and I'll try to remember that "privilege" isn't intended as a deliberate negative attack word in sociological discussions (so long as the persons using the term are using it as an academic/sociological term, not an attack word). But do try to remember that in a shared language such as ours, the words you use continue to have their customary and traditional meanings as set by long-term common usage... I don't think you can just 'hand-wave' all that away as if the word were never used in those ways before.

From the Geneva Conventions, 1977 Protocol 1, pertaining to conduct during war:

3. In order to promote the protection of the civilian population from the effects of hostilities, combatants are obliged to distinguish themselves from the civilian population while they are engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack. Recognizing, however, that there are situations in armed conflicts where, owing to the nature of the hostilities an armed combatant cannot so distinguish himself, he shall retain his status as a combatant, provided that, in such situations, he
carries his arms openly:

(a) during each military engagement, and
(b) during such time as he is visible to the adversary while he is engaged in a military deployment preceding the launching of an attack in which he is to participate.

Acts which comply with the requirements of this paragraph shall not be considered as perfidious within the meaning of Article 37, paragraph 1 (c).

Smarnil--

This part is the reason why the U.S.A. will probably never accept the 1977 protocol 1. The problem is, that this says, in so many words, that's okay to toss aside your weapons and blend right back into the civilian population as soon as your attack is over. It also says it's okay to remain completely blended in with and concealed by the civilian population at all times, except when actively preparing and launching an attack on opposing forces.

Bluntly speaking-- accepting this as law, and abiding by it-- is suicide for ANY military that has to engage a terrorist or insurgent force. The only way you can fight an insurgency at all, while abiding by this rule and the other Laws of War, is to stand around waiting for the insurgents to attack you, while day by day your forces get sniped and blown up by IEDs and generally get nickel and dimed to death. It's a golden gift to insurgencies, but it's also the countries of the world who want insurgencies to succeed basically saying "we want it to be impoossible for organized militaries to ever fight under the Laws of War and actually succeed ever again."

While I agree with you that we should uphold human rights to the maximum extent possible at all times, no matter what is going on in the conflict at hand-- this rule virtually guarantees that many more civilians will die-- because it becomes almost impossible to tell the difference between civilians and active combatants. And, there definitely comes that point where, as careful as we want to be about not causing unnecessary civilian casualties, mistakes are going to be made-- because you cannot reasonably ask soldiers to always hold fire until some of their own have been killed by insurgents masquerading as civilians right up until they started shooting, before they're allowed to open fire. IMO, upholding human rights, and the 1977 Protocol 1, are NOT compatible with each other because of the unfortunate side effects of the quoted section.

What you've said about insurgencies and provisionally granting POW status even to insurgents does make good sense. I'm appalled at the agencies in my own government that have denied POW rights to the combatants we've captured in the field.

Regarding Fallujah, 2004-- I was in Iraq in 2004 (although I was in Tikrit), but from my view on staff I did have a pretty good 'view' of that operation... to the best of my knowledge, NO depleted uranium munitions were used in Fallujah in the April-May 2004 offensive there-- there was no reason for it either, because the insurgents in Fallujah didn't have any tanks. DU Munitions aren't that good for bunker busting. Also, to the best of my knowledge (and certainly the official record), all WP munitions employed in Fallujah were used for smoke, not for incendiary effect. I also do not believe the reports that excessive force was used by U.S. Forces in Fallujah... Besides my own view from division staff, some of the tactical teams from my unit were down in Fallujah supporting the Marines throughout the whole battle-- the insurgent forces in Fallujah in 2004 were numerous, fanatical, dug in quite well, and were surprisingly well supplied. That was a very hard fight against a very determined and prepared enemy, in an urban environment-- it's not the sort of thing that's possible to do, without a whole lot of collateral damage-- which there was.

I can assure you, in spite of the fact that a lot of American troops were very very upset over the murders of American contractors at the end of March 2004(whose bodies were hung from the bridge in Fallujah, in public view and disrespected in ways the locals would not accept, if we did that to bodies of insurgents after killing them)-- our forces still acted with remarkable restraint in conducting that campaign considering how much resistance they faced on the streets of Fallujah.

National governments make sociopathic eight year olds look good. In all cases, I figure.

Ummm, yeah. Usually. Actually... I really think the comparison is unfair to the sociopathic 8 year olds-- they don't simply look good, compared to governmental behavior-- they look like children utterly without sin by comparison.... :)

I am not reassured.

On the other hand-- this article is nothing more, and nothing less, than a blatant piece of propaganda. I'm not reassured that you read and believe this trash.

Also, back to Libya.

I am not familiar with the Foreign Policy Journal, but it can't be any more biased than the my usual round-up of commie websites. I had posted on Majer in the Government Folly thread last year, but that link is no longer active.

The other article's not a whole lot better in its total one-sided view. Not sayin' mistakes haven't been made-- but I have seen many cases where the locals have made the same claims, presented the same sort of falsified evidence after cleaning up the scene, that it was all civilians, all civilian activity, no weapons, no combatants... and been lying through their teeth because there were combatants with weapons present, using the area and buildings as a base of operations, and even shooting on our forces from the location right up until we destroyed it. I sincerely doubt that whomever dropped those bombs, and whichever military personnel on NATO staff made the targeting decisions, did so knowing they were attacking a civilian target-- that is, presuming the locals aren't lying to us again about the presence of fighters at that location. They have also repeatedly set up locations for ammo storage, food, places for fighters to sleep, etc., in and among the civilian population-- in precisely the hope that those civilians will be killed by our weapons when we come after the insurgents located there. BTW-- using human shields is another act that is against the Laws of War, but the groups we're fighting do it all the time anyway.

It's gone round and round like this enough times, that while I'm sure we have bombed a few places that really were purely non-military in nature-- I'm pretty sure a lot of the places we've struck that the parties on the receiving end claim were entirely civilian targets, were in fact exactly the military assembly points and operating stations we thought they were. It's a standard insurgent tactic to blend into the local population, and then pretend that everything the other guys hit was a non-military target deliberately attacked to intentionally murder civilians. From the other side's point of view (ours, in the wars we've been involved in), since the enemy is violating the Laws of War in the first place (attempting to disguise all facilities as civilian/non-combatant installations) it becomes very difficult to ensure that we don't target truly civilian locations by mistake, since the enemies have done everything they can to not only disguise their military installations as civilian sites, but also have gone out of their way to make genuine civilian homes look like legitimate military targets-- in the hopes of getting a propaganda opportunity (usually they don't care how many of their own people die so long as they can score political points off of it).

IMHO, the USA has so much political, economical and military that...

Smarnil-- just in case my tone is off in that post, my long reply to this same post was intended as discussion of the issues, not any sort of personal attack.

However, although we do have our share of bad apples in the ranks too (any military does), I am defending the conduct of the U.S. Military at war, because we (in the military) really have tried to conduct ourselves in warfare properly, and have mostly done a pretty good job at it.

Hi. My point isn't to launch into an heated debate about what constitutes a rogue state, so let's keep our tempers. On the other hand, I knew posting on this thread was a bad idea...

My apologies if my tone was overly harsh. Wasn't trying to come off as angry and launching a flame at you.

By "rules of war", I was specifically thinking about the treaties banning modern toys such as DU rounds and submunition bombs. They do not predate the UN, obviously. I wasn't suggesting that the US army was ignoring ALL rules, with a policy of raping women and eating babies.

You're right in observing that we didn't sign the treaties banning depleted uranium, landmines and submunitions (more on that in a moment). My point is that there are so many other things involved and settled in the 'Laws of War' that the places where we (as a nation) have violated some treaties we're a party to (treatment of prisoners of war), and the recent protocols and treaties that we've decided not to sign and join in on, are a very tiny portion of the overall requirements and commitments involved in the 'Laws of War'-- and we do honor and follow most of it.

The diplomatic cost of not endorsing "common rules" that most of the neighborhood, including all of your allies, do accept isn't to be underestimated. Imagine you were living in a town with only one rule, a widely accepted speed limit of 40 mph : how would you consider the one guy speeding along the streets, honking all the way and occasionally running over pedestrians ?

IMHO,the USA has so much political, economical and military that it COULD play the white knight and abide by most, if not all rules on this matter, UN-born or not, and still get its way.

Reckless use of excessive force seems to be a very wasteful use of US vast assets, as well a a surefire way to ensure that they will have more and more enemies to fight in the future.

That said, there is very few countries on this earth who can claim having a clean nose (Norway perhaps?). But the US truly distinguished itself those last few years by the way it blatantly ignored those rules and treaties (speeding away AND honking if you get my meaning). I suppose that part of it came from an understandable overreaction to 9/11, but now that Al Qaeda is a shadow of itself, maybe it should be time to get back to a peacetime footing (that is, full bore habeas corpus, and no more targeted assassinations abroad).

Actually, the United States military has been very restrained on the battlefield, to the extent that we regularly put our guys on the ground at greatly increased risk through not using the heavy weaponry we have available because of our concern about preventing unnecessary collateral damage. Part of the problem we have, is that we're still the 'Big Dog on the Porch', so every last little move gets noticed and scrutinized, and other nations would really like to tie our hands-- with treaties that are almost totally meaningless to them, because they can't even make the weapons they're trying to limit by treaty even if they wanted to. Really, I wish that, so long as we're going to be involved in military conflicts at all, that we'd be a little more reckless in our use of force, because although that would lead to more casualties among the native populations of countries we're operating in, we'd bring a lot more American Soldiers home alive who are currently coming home in body bags because we are being so godd**ned careful about NOT using maximum firepower.

The common rules we haven't followed, but should have-- were wrapped around the reasons why we went to war in the first place. How we've conducted ourselves while at war? The basic problem is, there isn't another military in the entire world that can do what the U.S. military can-- so it doesn't matter what we do, we're still gonna catch flack for it one way or another. No matter how hard we work to make precision munitions and use them with pinpoint accuracy-- no system is 100% perfect, and there's always the problem of false targeting information-- so, while the U.S. military has managed to avoid causing civilian/non-combatant casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan to an extent almost unheard of in military history-- because civilians and non-combatants have still died at our hands... we get accusations like the ones you've repeated in this post. We CAN NOT do better on the battlefield without sacrificing a lot more of our own Soldiers in the process doing it. IMO, sucks to be anyone caught underfoot in a war-zone, but it ain't worth my comrades' lives to go even farther in preventing all collateral damage.

The treaties we've refused to sign and the reasons why?

The 1977 Protocol 1 treaty added to the Geneva Conventions basically says it's okay for insurgent groups, active combatants, to not wear distinguishing uniforms that set them apart from the civilian population, and also sets out the idea that it's okay for them to live among and blend into the civilian population except when they're actually carrying and using their weapons. No, there's no f***ing way we should sign or honor that treaty-- it's basically meant to excuse insurgents from obeying the laws of war that all organized armies are expected and required to follow, it puts the civilian population at greatly increased risk, virtually guarantees that a lot of civilians are going to be mistaken for combatants and will be shot and killed as a result... and it was put together and thrust on the U.N. by a lot of smaller nations that wanted to find ways to inconvenience the major powers in conducting war.

Regarding depeleted uranium-- most countries love this treaty 'banning' depleted uranium, because they can't make it and put it to work anyway. I don't think we should give it up, to satisfy the nations who are scared of it-- because there isn't anything else that is quite as effective for making armor-piercing munitions and better tank armor. If you're going to fight a war at all, fighting it half-a**ed, instead of going out there to win, is actually going to cause more damage in the long run, than being quick, violent and destructive, and getting it over with. Sorry, but this one is the crying of nations who don't have our toys, trying to keep us from using the capabilities we have available.

Cluster munitions and land mines-- we have applied our technology to making sure that we do not use munitions that are going to litter the battlefield for generations afterwards. We're doing our best to making sure that our stuff self-destructs with a fairly short shelf-life, so that we're not endangering local populations through leaving unexploded ordinance there for years and years after the fighting has ended. However, it again comes back to the point that there really isn't anything else that can do the same job that cluster munitions do. Yes, there's a lot of countries that would like the United States to sign that treaty and honor it-- the real reason is NOT the humanitarian bulls**t that people would like to sell you on-- it's that most of these nations can't manufacture and use the sorts of weapons the U.S. manufactures and deploys in battle, and therefore would like to tie our hands so that they don't have to worry about having weaponry used against them that they can't make and use anyway.

The United States has actually remained on a peace-time footing, while our politicians have used the 'war' as an excuse to abuse, misuse, and rearrange our criminal statutes the whole time. Really, that's one of the scary parts-- from an economic standpoint-- y'all really haven't seen the U.S. on a war-time footing since World War 2 ended. But it'd be nice if they stop abusing habeas corpus rights over here.

IMO--

I'm not faulting, nor would I fault, a Cleric of Pharasma for not dropping everything else she's doing to go hunt down a bunch of Vampires. The Whispering Tyrant is a much higher priority.

However... I still do not see, under any circumstances mentioned thus far-- helping a bunch of vampires stop someone who is doing the right thing (ending their unlife). For me, leaving the vampires alone because you have a more important mission isn't the problem-- it's the idea that you're going to assist the vampires in stopping someone who's doing Pharasma's work by eliminating them.

The two points-- not wasting time eliminating every last undead bloodsucker you come across, and allying with them to eliminate a hero-- are not the same thing.

@Finn: i'd call you a cynic... but because that would require a blind fold, ear plugs and a learning disability i'm going to go with realist. i think that my 'problem', if you will, is that i come from a country that has never even tried being imperialistic, has never even had a civil war, has never launched an invasion (though we've aided our allies or sent troops for the UN). this may be because we're a young nation and haven't had time, or because our neibours are too powerful, or something like that, but reguardless we seem to get along well enough just minding our own business. since world war 2 europe's settled down a lot, a prime example of changing behaviors as for almost all of recorded history European conflict has been nearly constant.
so yes, while i keep my eyes open to human nature, i do believe that we can progress... even if it's merely from open warfare to political backstabbing and assassination. at least it's quieter and less messy.

Being a realist (and a bit of a cynic)-- IMO, Australia hasn't played the Imperialist game (much), because you don't have the power and capability to do so. Europe's settling down partly because of the lack of power and reach issue, partly because "enlightened self-interest" is finally causing people to wake up over there and realize that continuing to tear Europe apart in violent conflicts doesn't help anyone there.

As others have noted-- Australia's got more than a few "skeletons" in the closet, and your nation's record on treatment of the Aborigines is at least as bad as our record in the USA on treatment of the Native Americans (I understand that Australia is taking great strides in making amends for that lately though)-- which doesn't make Australia any better or worse than other nations, just shows that hardly any nation's hands are really clean.

I hope we as a species can progress away from all of this-- I'd agree that it's possible... I just don't expect it to happen as soon as rational people would like, and that any such changes will take a long time to develop and become constant (if we can get that far before we wipe ourselves out through our own mistakes).

What is called international law is mainly a body of international treaties, most of them sponsored by the United Nations.

The USA didn't subscribe to most of those about rules of war, or liability for war crime, which is perfectly their right but has a heavy diplomatic cost. They also are in the habit of ignoring those they did sign when convenient (like the Geneva convention about POWs). They are not alone in this, but it's quite rare among other law-driven democracies.

You are thoroughly wrong. The United States is a party to most of the treaties establishing the 'Laws of War' as a formal body of international law. The only portions we are not presently a party to, are the 1977 Protocol 1 addition to the Geneva Conventions and the treaty establishing the International Criminal Court. You are correct, however, that thumbing our nose at the ICC is having a lot of diplomatic costs. On the other hand-- considering the political influence that has been applied to the ICC, I'm not so sure I trust that body to do its work impartially either-- so it's kind of a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation as well. Also-- most of the customs and treaties establishing the Laws of War actually predate the existence of the United Nations (not established until 1945, following the end of World War 2)-- the Geneva Conventions were negotiated under the auspices of the United Nations but the earlier treaties and agreements (such as the Hague Conventions) are at least as important to determining the overall body of International Law covering wars and conflicts.

We, in the USA, also do follow most of the 'Laws of War' even now, contrary to your assertions. However, our notable failings as a nation, under G. W. Bush (and to a lessening extent since his reign) to follow a few of the articles (notably on the treatment of POW's, and our justification for attacking Iraq) have been sufficiently spectacular and spectacularly bad, that they have attracted a lot of attention. Those failings still do not change the fact that we have been faithfully adherent to most of the Laws of War; and those portions that we have broken, our criminally negligent officials have still respected enough to try to rationalize and explain away the violations we have committed as somehow being situations that those treaties don't actually apply to (personally, I find those rationalizations almost as despicable as the violations themselves).

Regarding the last assertion-- The United States is not alone in this at all... the problem is, 1. the USA is an open society with freedom of the press, freedom of speech, and a lot of freedom of information-- as well as some glaring intelligence leaks-- therefore we got caught doing it. 2. See my first post on this thread about 'rogue states'-- the United States is powerful enough to get away with it-- doesn't make any of it right-- but other nations who might get caught don't do these things or are sneakier about it, because the repercussions on them would be far worse. 3. Pretty sure most of the so-called "liberal democracies" have these skeletons in their closet-- rules and treaties of international law they are a party to, that they break all the time, but they are far better at not getting caught at it than the USA is (also see pt 2-- it's more important to them that they not be caught at it). And, also note that in the USA-- we have a major problem with sheep in our voting population-- to the credit of some of the other "liberal democracies", their own people would raise much more of a fuss than our population has, if their government were implicated in these sorts of issues.

Also, gonna say it again (but it's something I've said many times before)-- I believe G. W. Bush, Dick Cheney, etc., should have been impeached and removed from office (and faced further criminal charges) for the violations of the Laws of War that these men ordered while they were in office. Because those treaties were signed/ratified by the USA, they were (according to the U.S. Constitution) part of U.S. Law, should not have been ignored, and those violations do meet the "high crimes and misdemeanors" thresh hold for impeachment established by the Constitution. Unfortunately, Congress was derelict in their duty to remove such criminally abusive officials at the top of our government-- we had a problem with enforcing our own law in this country, let alone with respecting International Law on this issue.

Basic human goodness does exist; it's built into 96% of all people.

Then there are the other 4%. The psychopath (or sociopath) who feels no empathy or remorse. For these, there is no goodness at all; only winning or losing, at any cost whatsoever.

Unfortunately, we still haven't figured out a good way to keep them from achieving positions of wealth and power. So we continue to suffer.

More like, it's "socially conditioned" into most people as they're growing up, for all of our good... (that's back to the "enlightened self-interest" on the individual scale).

We talk about 'inhumane' treatment... yet, as others have pointed out elsewhere on these boards, and as I have seen all too much very real evidence thereof, get into a situation where the usual social controls come off the rails... and so-called inhuman treatment of other human beings seems to be a very very very common human response. Put a different way-- a hallmark of human behavior in conflict situations seems to be the ability to be utterly cruel and vindictive to human beings outside of your in-group. A lot of the people doing these things are not your "4%"... they're part of the 96%, who nonetheless choose the extreme response for dealing with others when civil law is no longer enforced.

FuelDrop--

Reality Check: the only thing that separates the USA from most of the other countries around the world (except the ones that are clearly much more corrupt and/or farther off the rails than we are), is that the USA has the power to do these things and get away with it. Other states are complaining and whining-- NOT because they wouldn't be doing exactly the same things (or worse) IF they had the USA's power and reach, but rather because they don't have the power, reach and ability to get away with all the dirty things they'd like to be doing, and are therefore rather envious.

Pretty much all states are "rogue" states to the extent that they can get away with it, and "good international citizens" to the extent that they have to be in order to thrive, survive, and accomplish their goals for the future. 'Enlightened self-interest' unfortunately has been, and so far as we can tell, always will be, the way of international relations. Doesn't make it right-- but I don't see it changing in our lifetimes. People who look at history and current affairs, and who still cannot see that-- are hopelessly deluded and hallucinating about 'basic human goodness' that does not really exist.

I have played a few "evil" characters, though haven't really played in an "evil" campaign (nor would I want to). I usually play good characters, I have played a few neutral ones; the evil characters have been a very small minority out of the many characters I have played over the years.

However, in every case that I can remember-- these characters have been 'evil' (in D&D alignment terms), because they were the sort of dedicated, perhaps a little fanatical/fundamentalist, types who were utterly f***ing ruthless and genuinely believed that the "ends justify the means" (without reservation on what 'means' they would consider using). Yeah, they might have been a little bit selfish and had a desire to improve their own standing and power-- but all of them were willing to cooperate with the group, generally worked towards "good ends" and for the benefit of society (my neutral characters have been the more mercenary "I expect to be well-paid" types, not the evil ones), and were not d**ks to their friends. Some of them have also been rather bloodthirsty and way too disrespectful regarding the basic value of sentient life.

They just take their methods, means, and what they're willing to do to get there (including stabbing backs, deceit, lying and cheating-- but only where "necessary") way too far and regularly 'cross the moral event horizon'. These characters have been smart enough (and played with sufficient intent to not disrupt the game) to keep their more ruthless, underhanded, vicious and/or dirty methods concealed from their nicer companions. It ain't rocket science to play a character like this and still contribute, rather than take away from, the overall game for everyone at the table...

Those who have seen me post on certain other threads will know that personally I have pretty strong ideas about good and evil, right and wrong-- my few characters generally violate a lot of those lines. I don't think I've ever been breaking my standards in gaming though, because the point is (as a player)-- these characters often "justify" their methods as right and acceptable to themselves and try to explain them that way in game, but I (the player) do not excuse their actions as morally acceptable or their reasons as anything other than the rationalized excuses they are.

Roleplaying has nothing to do with your characters actual abilities however Fuzz. Optimisation is not a dirty word, infact its quite possible to have a good player with a mechanically powerful character with a rich history who roleplays that characters personality very well, good roleplay and good rollplay are not mutually exclusive.

As i mentioned in my first post the way people talk on forums and the way they play the game are not always going to be the exact same, i doubt any of the "optimisers" would turn up to the game with an AM BUILD and expect everyone to have fun. In the same way a roleplayer would be saddened if his tough guy fighter couldn't beat a housecat in combat, the best of both is what to aim for but giving people roleplaying tips on a forum is hard work as is evidenced by all the alignment threads.

I do agree that an under optimised character in the hands of a player with good system mastery and imagination can be more effective than a hyper optimised character in the hands of a player with no clue though.

Egoish--

I agree that optimization is generally a good thing, when it's not taken past the point where squeezing mechanical advantages requires abusing and misusing all the non-mechanical source material, backgrounds and etc (aka "the fluff") that the rules, options and abilities are supposed to represent. This also goes to the points made in ShadowcatX's post below yours-- I think that almost everyone does want to play an effective character, and that does require an understanding of the rules and at least some optimization. So, I don't mean to suggest that optimization should be a dirty word-- I do mean to suggest that one can and should apply a little restraint, insofar as not taking options on a character that might be mechanically effective, but tend to violate the character concept someone might otherwise be aiming for and/or that really don't seem like they belong together on the same character.

The other point I mean to suggest, that seems to me to be often ignored on many of these boards-- is that, since one can build and play an effective Oracle and one can also build and play an effective Cleric-- why not put a little time, when making characters, to deciding what best fits a personality/past/background concept that you'd like to play (presuming it can still be effective in game) rather than, as many people posting here do seem to advocate (not saying this is you-- but it's on these boards, and seems to be what some folks claim they do at their tables), creating the numbers for your uber-optimized mechanical build-- and then trying to stuff in a name, personality, etc.?

Not necessarily trying to get in the way of the thought exercises, because I get that point-- but I'd like to see more discussion of concepts and builds and ideas without always trying to prove which class/build/etc. is mechanically superior, so long as it's reasonably effective in a player's hands (and it's true that I may be exaggerating a little there-- it's just been a lot of threads without acknowledging that maximum mechanical superiority is not the only priority in making and playing a character).

ShadowcatX--

Regarding Summoners and Sorcerers-- I haven't looked at that-- but if there's a class that is seriously 'nerfed' compared to another class in the same role-- yeah, no one wants to play a useless character, and one doesn't want to stuff someone in in a useless role because of an ineffective character class to begin with-- thought I acknowledged in my opening post that those sorts of things ought to be discussed (and maybe result in requests being steered towards the developers for the next time a revision gets made), but I wasn't aware that Sorcerers made and played well were weak and useless next to other casters-- guess that means I need to take more of a look at the Summoner some time soon.

And when the poor fighter is left to negotiate on his own hilarity ensues as he tries to talk his way out of a problem most likely unsuccessfully. I think it can make for fun Rp and could be a great adventure hook.

Yepyep. :D

I can see it now...

The rest of the party is off running other errands, when the Cleric is wise enough to realize something is drastically wrong, but wasn't quite sharp enough to catch it in advance. The cleric turns to the bard...

"Ummmm, did we just leave big'n'mean Joe all by himself back there to handle the negotiations with the locals for replacing that barn we torched last adventure?"

(Bard does face-palm... meanwhile, back at the inn....)

Ah yes. The resulting penalties should never be hand waved I agree. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

No prob/apology accepted. :)

I like your rule about making Cha checks to determine initial attitudes of npcs towards the players. A great way to make charisma have more meaning to the whole game. My only question with this is that if the bard or other party face is up the front putting on his best negotiation face and the butt ugly fighter is standing at the back keeping his mouth closed, does the fighters penalty effect the bards negotiating?

So long as the fighter does stand at the back and doesn't interrupt the 'face character' during negotiations, I don't think so. I believe it is fair to not penalize the party for having some specialization of duties, regarding who handles which situations (fighter with low charisma ain't the face character-- it is fair to dump a stat, realize you've got a flaw, and try to avoid the situations where you're going to bring your party down because of it-- real people work around their flaws all the time, so I do accept that characters should be able to do that)-- and, when the pretty bard's doing the negotiation, most people aren't going to pay attention to what they probably assume is the pretty bard's socially inept bodyguard (which is what they probably assume the big, ugly off-putting fighter is). IMO, the player is still adequately playing his 'flaw' by doing his best in play to avoid putting himself on the line where those penalties are going to hurt him and/or the party, and if he is almost always successful in doing so-- by his still recognizing that if it ever happens that all the face people are 'down' and he's suddenly the one who has to make a good first impression, he's gonna have a problem (kind'a the same as we expect poor melee fighters to do their best to stay out of melee).

People in games don't like surrendering because it means they were defeated, just like many players refuse to run when they should. Its about ego. The need to win at all costs cause this a game and they don't want to be beaten by the dm. They forget that while its a game its really about storytelling. Just saying...

An awful lot of folks playing RPGs don't like surrendering because they take more of a realistic view of what should happen once you've been captured, instead of a BS "sunshine and butterflies" gamer's view, that maybe the bad guy's going to boast and give away all his plans, and then the bad guys will totally screw up on basic security measures so that you'll get to escape and retrieve all your gear. No, what really happens is it depends on who you're fighting-- but if you're up against terrorists and criminals, you will most likely end up murdered-- fairly quickly, before you can become a significant risk to the group that took you prisoner. You may or not be interrogated and/or subjected to brutal torture first, depending on whether or not they think you have information they need to know, and/or whether or not they're just plain vindictive that way.

If the enemy you're fighting is an honorable adversary who respects his foes, accepts honorable surrender and is known (or reasonably expected) to treat his prisoners decently-- y'know, someone who has the inclination, possibly backed up by good reason, to conduct him/her-self according to the "Laws of War"-- surrender is a much more viable, potentially acceptable option. Even then-- it's better to escape and evade capture, than surrender-- because being a POW (or similar such "forced guest" awaiting ransom by honorable medieval standards) still sucks-- however, surrender is an even more viable option, if it is a medieval/renaissance-style society with a strong tradition of capture, good treatment, and ransom for nobles & knights fighting other nobles & knights in battle, and you're a knight and/or belong to the noble classes-- in that case, capture might not even suck that bad-- it's part of the usual routine.

However-- such honorable foes don't take children hostage and threaten them with death in order to force your compliance. Although in various such noble societies there was some ritualized exchange of "hostages" (usually under more polite terms) to guarantee good behavior on the parts of various nobles towards their overlords-- it was never conducted in the kind of brutal "surrender or I murder the children" way that Paegin and co were doing in this scenario.

BTW-- in real life, the Code of Conduct for the United States Military includes this:

I will never surrender of my own free will. If in command, I will never surrender the members of my command while they still have the means to resist.

It's something we take seriously, for lots of very good reasons. It's not just a video-game thing. And personally, I'd probably slash my wrists if I was out of bullets, rather than surrender to Taliban fighters or Al-Qaeda inspired insurgents-- even if they had hostages and were threatening to kill them (not least because I don't think my surrender would save the hostages)-- should I expect less from my characters, who are supposed to be far better than an ordinary soldier like I was before I retired from the military?

Now-- I agree with you, if I'm reading your thoughts correctly, on the ego-trip (and other problems) regarding why many players don't run when they should. Withdrawal and retreat are options that are usually possible, should be considered if the odds are stacked against you and/or the fight is not going your way; and it's very very rare to find situations where it's really better to stand and fight and go down swinging, than retreat and live to fight another day (sometimes, especially for the really heroic types-- situations may arise where it's better to stand, fight and die than retreat-- usually as an individual matter where your sacrifice is what's making the difference in allowing others to escape and/or succeed in accomplishing something worth the sacrifice you're making).

As noted above-- Surrender is usually bad, not just in video-games, not just in RPGs, but in reality as well; however, people who are too stupid to consider running away when they're outgunned, deserve to get killed for their manifest stupidity.

(In RD's example-- I already mentioned, many posts ago, that withdrawing and allowing Paegin to escape-- for now (buying time and planning for a rescue effort later in a better location)-- was something that should have at least been considered by RD's player-group.)

To the original question:

Generally, I'd say, no. It's not unfair.

However: if you're using PC tricks against them to "teach them a lesson", or just to try to give them a beat-down, or make it into some sort of "GM vs Players" thing, I'd say you're way out of line.

So long as you're keeping in mind that the idea is for everyone to have fun, that it's supposed to be a cooperative effort at storytelling for the GM and players, and that the GM shouldn't just load the deck...

I do like to go with the presumption that many of the PC's enemies and adversaries are intelligent, competent, well-trained... and that means, yes, the tactics and tricks available to the PCs are also available to these capable enemies. If the PCs have been using particularly effective powers and tricks quite a bit-- then smart (recurring) enemies who have been studying the PCs will probably start copying some of the PC's most effective maneuvers (particularly if it looks like the PCs would be vulnerable to their own tricks)-- that's not unfair, that's just a smart enemy making good use of battlefield intelligence, and the PCs will have to deal with it.

Just don't overuse and abuse these things at your player's expense...

As far as I'm concerned-- if RAI and RAW conflict-- RAI takes precedence. That makes seeking and understanding RAI quite important.

Also, everything in the rules is subject to interpretation. Especially since there are plenty of rules where the intent isn't obvious, and the rules were originally written in English (a notoriously inexact, context-driven language)-- most of us discussing the game here are likely using the original English-language version of the rules (not sure how many other languages PF has been translated to, but I'm not sufficiently fluent in any language other than English to make use of them myself).

Ciretose--
I agree with your general point about loopholes in RAW are almost always violations of RAI; although I also see Wraithstrike's point about being able to abuse things that more or less do fit within RAI as well.

What is D&D? A Game. What is the object of a game? To have fun. Tuckers Kolbolds is a exercise in frustration, and definitely “NOT FUN”. The players had every right to put their foot down.

And now someone's popped up to enlighten us all with the ONE TRUE WAY to play Pathfinder-- telling us, that according to the Holy Book of Adventure Ideas "Tucker's Kobolds" must always be an "exercise in frustration" and "NOT FUN".

This may well be the opinion of the particular player-group that RD is running for... but it is not true for all groups and all versions of the "Tucker's Kobolds" style scenario. While I agree with the poster that the prime directive for D&D is for everyone to have fun... the rest of the post is expressed in absolutist terms that remind me a little too much of religious fanaticism and suppression of perceived "heresy" in gaming.

Somewhere, some how, my point got lost in translations...

Surrender - bargain honored, kids alive and free - PC honor intact

Fight - some or all kids die in melee - PC's are responsible for those deaths, because they didn't surrender when given the opportunity.

It's a real sucky situation to be in, isn't it?

It is a really sucky situation to be in-- however, no. PCs surrender, die at the hands of their enemies. Children survive... until the next gnoll raid kills them and their parents, along with the countless others who die, because the forces that were stopping Paegin and his gnolls from wreaking evil upon the area surrendered and gave up their lives to stop a one-time act of extortion. PCs are dishonored in retrospect, because they gave their lives cheaply and ceased to continue as defenders/heroes of the Empire and its people.

Alternately, PCs fight, do their best to save the kids-- some of them are killed by the enemy before the PCs can save them. PCs may feel guilty that they were not able to save them all. Responsibility still rests entirely with the bad guys who actually killed the children. The PCs are not forcing the bad guys to kill the children. Paegin's doing that on his own-- the PCs are not obligated to throw all other considerations away to bow down to the wishes of a murderous extortionist, nor will their refusal to do so dishonor them. Paegin and company are responsible for their own actions in all of this-- not the PCs.

And I again submit the question I've asked before-- I'm really wondering what you'd do if you actually had to make this choice yourself-- give up? Fight? Withdraw and seek other options? You seem to believe that making the most suicidal choice is the correct answer-- I wonder if anyone actually facing that choice and having to take the consequences seriously, would really do that.

If the Paladin is devoted to a particular Deity (for instance, Sarenrae)-- then the laws of his faith and the requirements of his code directly handed down from his deity (perhaps via teachers of the faith) take precedence over any non-religious law. IMO-- Paladin does not lose his powers no matter how blatantly he defies the local law, if he is doing so only to the extent that is necessary in order to follow his deity's wishes and his order's code. On the other hand-- taking this example, the Paladin loses his powers if he does not follow his Deity's commands (both explicit commands and commands that are implicit in the tenets of his faith and his order's code)-- the Paladin has to follow Sarenrae's commandments, not the local law and local authorities, if the two conflict and the Paladin serves Sarenrae.

This, however, makes the conflict easier to see-- both Paladins are LG, both seek to serve the greater good-- but one (the one 'rescuing' the condemned wizard) serves Sarenrae and is following her law; the other Paladin serves a different deity, who sees the matter of justice differently... IMO, both Paladins must set good first and foremost-- but this is a case where one deity's view of the requirements of good is that the wizard must be duly punished for his crimes (a Paladin of Iomedae, Abadar, Erastil... probably a few others as well) would likely take this side; and the other Paladin (the follower of Sarenrae) believes that the wizard is genuinely repentant and must be allowed to atone for his crimes through good deeds to repair the past damage he's done.

This'd make for a really interesting scenario.

Sorry, not the time or inclanation to read 242 posts on this subject. Ultimately, this is a simple matter to resolve...

Seems Raike Blackthorne thinks, incorrectly, that he has an opinion worth listening to even though he apparently does not have the time to read or pay any attention whatsoever to what's been said so far on the thread.

So, yes, it's a simple matter to resolve-- poster Blackthorne shouldn't comment at all if he's not going to pay any attention to what's already been discussed so far over the last couple'a hundred posts.

The POINT of playing a lawful good character as opposed to chaotic, and in particular a paladin, is that when they disagree with an established authority they try to change things through lawful means. This might involve trying to convince the 'enemy' party or the local lord in question that the wizard deserves a chance to repent. It should not under any circumstances involve flagrantly disobeying the local lord regardless of the paladin's personal beliefs...unless the paladin has direct and tangible evidence of the local lord being illegitimate in his or her own right.

Not saying it is necessarily occurring in the presented scenarios-- but if the local lord, even if he is the law, is deliberately and intentionally committing evil-- that would be something that a Paladin cannot go along with, law or not. Although, I agree with you that the Paladin should try to use lawful means, and should only flagrantly disobey the local lord if the local lord has crossed that 'moral event horizon' (or is about to, if the Paladin does not bar the way).

However-- punishing an evil wizard for his crimes, in accordance with the nation's laws-- not evil. Paladin does not have grounds for defying the local law because he/she personally feels that scumbag the wizard is repentant and should get a chance to atone for his deeds through acts to make up for them.

By responding all or nothing you did shut them down. Your NPC needed to give an indication that he was willing to discuss terms but instead it sounded like he was set on all or nothing.

How many times have you heard someone open up with the hardline?

Shutting them down, would have been Paegin and cronies attacking them. Since Paegin was still talking, even if he was trying to give a hard option, RD hadn't shut them down yet.